Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 5
Bercot argues a Latin mistranslation (“in whom all have sinned”) pushed Western theology toward the idea that all humanity sinned in Adam; what does this claim imply about God’s providence over doctrine and translation, and how should it shape the way a church treats long-held theological conclusions that may rest on a disputed rendering?
Another way to ask: If a mistranslation helped shape Western teaching that everyone sinned in Adam, what does that say about God guiding doctrine and Bible translation? How should a church handle long-held beliefs that might depend on a disputed translation?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s argument, the mistranslation shows that major theological trajectories can be influenced by translation errors, so churches should hold long-established conclusions with humility and re-check them against the best textual and historical evidence. The transcript doesn’t spell out a full doctrine of providence, but it strongly implies we should not treat disputed renderings as unchallengeable foundations for dogma.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the Latin translator “incorrectly rendered it…‘in whom all have sinned,’” and that phrase was taken to refer to Adam.
  • Result: Latin-speaking Christians “mistakenly thought Paul was saying that all mankind somehow sinned in Adam.”
  • He contrasts this with the Greek: “because all sinned,” which matches most English Bibles and his reading of Paul’s “three simple statements.”
  • He notes this “led to Latin-speaking Christians having a slightly different view of the fall than did Greek-speaking Christians.”
  • He traces later Western development: Augustine “based his doctrine of original sin” on Romans 5:12 and later “innovated…predestination and…total depravity,” doctrines “never before…taught in the Church.”
Discussion Follow-ups What should carry more weight in your church: inherited systems or careful rereading of the text? How can a church revisit conclusions without becoming unstable or cynical?