Phil Donahue's Concept of Jesus' Death on the Cross

Alex D. Ogden

A couple of years or so ago while flipping the channels on the TV we came across an interview with Phil Donahue, the now retired talk show host. He was being interviewed by Tim Russert on CNBC. Hearing Phil comment on “original sin” quickly caught our attention. A few days later I caught a replay of the interview and was able to get a better idea of what it was Phil was talking about.

Let me remind you that Phil Donahue is a Catholic. He told in the interview how he had attended Catholic schools throughout his childhood and he still considers himself a Catholic, even though some of his views obviously contradict Catholic teaching, including the view that homosexuality is not sin and that we should all be accepting of the gay lifestyle.

In the interview Phil was expressing his own reservations about "the whole redemptive story." He said he just couldn't believe God would bring us into this world already stained with original sin, the sin of Adam in the garden of Eden. He just couldn't picture God doing that and then went on to add that if we aren't born with original sin then there wasn't any need for Jesus to come and die on the cross. Notice in Phil's understanding of the scriptures (the product of a lifetime of Catholic teaching) the only reason we need Jesus is because Adam sinned in the garden of Eden and not because we ourselves are sinners. To Phil Jesus came and was nailed to the cross not to die for our sins but only for the sin which Adam committed. Jesus died the cruel death of the cross to remove the guilt of Adam's sin, not the guilt of our own sins, according to Phil Donahue. Thus, since Phil doubts the doctrine of original sin he also questions the death of Christ on the cross.

Let me say I completely agree with Phil when he questions the doctrine of original sin. When you read Genesis chapter 3 and the punishments pronounced by God following Adam and Eve's sin in the garden, you find not one word about the guilt of their sin being passed on to their children and grand-children and so on as the Catholic doctrine of original sin teaches. Why would God be so clear about the woman having increased pain in childbirth and yet not say one word about the guilt of their sin being handed down through the ages as a consequence of their sin? Surely if the doctrine was true we would find it in Genesis 3 if no where else.

I also reject the doctrine of original sin because of Ezekiel 18:20, which reads: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." How could Ezekiel make it any clearer? We don't bear the iniquity of our parents but only our own wickedness.

Yes, I agree with Phil Donahue that the doctrine of original sin just doesn't make any sense. How could the God of Heaven be a loving and just being and yet hold me accountable for sin someone else committed? It is completely illogical as well as without any scriptural basis.

Should we also agree with Phil in his idea that the only reason we need Jesus is because of original sin? Absolutely not. The manmade creed of inheriting sin from Adam is by no means the only way a person could need a Savior. We need a Savior because we sin. Sin "is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn.3:4). Whenever we violate God's law we are guilty of sin. As we read earlier, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek.18:20). That's why we need a Savior, because we have become dead through our trespasses and sins (cf.Eph.2:1). We need a Savior to save us from the consequences of our own sinful actions.

What about Mr. Donahue's apparent rejection of the death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary, since original sin is false? No where do the scriptures teach that the death of Jesus on the cross was only because of the sinfulness of one man, Adam. The death of Jesus on the cross was necessitated because "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom.3:23). He is the "propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn.2:2). Indeed the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was needed because we have all sinned.

If men would simply be content to study and follow God's word, rather than the doctrines and precepts of men, he would be able to see clearly the truth that sets men free❧