The Adventist understanding of sin, its origin, and how God chose to deal with it, is best set forth in the writings of Ellen G. White.
John M. Fowler, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000), pg. 265
The doctrine of original sin addresses the biblical teaching on humanity’s nature, the inherited guilt of being “in Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:22), and the pervasive stain of sin. According to this doctrine, when Adam sinned, all humanity sinned “in him,” and sin spread to all people (Romans 5:12). Adam’s act of rebellion brought condemnation/guilt upon the entire human race (Romans 5:16), resulting in humanity being born spiritually dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) and by nature, children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
Paul’s argument in the latter half of Romans 5 introduces the concept of Federal Headship, which posits that God deals with humanity through representatives—one acting on behalf of many. In this framework, God appointed two key representatives in history: Adam (the first Adam) and Christ (the second Adam).
Paul further explains that death reigned even before the giving of the Mosaic Law (Romans 5:13-14). The law, in some sense, was present before Moses as it was written on the hearts of all people (Romans 2:15). However, because the law had not yet been formally revealed, those living before Sinai did not sin “in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” meaning they did not violate an explicit divine command as Adam did. Adam broke the one law given to him—not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His descendants, however, were not subject to a specific, revealed law until God gave the law at Sinai. Nevertheless, death still reigned, underscoring the reality that all humanity was “in Adam.”
Paul identifies Adam as a “type” of the one who was to come, namely Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam” (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49). This typology highlights the parallel between Adam and Christ: just as Adam’s disobedience brought condemnation to all, Christ’s obedience offers righteousness and life to all who are “in Him” (Romans 5:18-19).
Objections to the concept of headship often center on its perceived unfairness—how can all be held guilty for the actions of one man? However, this same principle of headship is the basis for the gospel: through headship, believers can be declared righteous by being transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, with Christ as their new representative (Colossians 1:13-14; 1 Corinthians 15:22).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church categorically denies the doctrine of original sin and, by extension, the principle of headship. This rejection aligns with their broader theological framework and helps explain their opposition to the doctrine of original sin.
In his excellent little book on this subject, Italian reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, writes:
As to the first matter, we must remember that, both in the Scriptures and in the [Church] Fathers, it [original sin] has various names. In Romans 7:8, 23, it is called sin, and the law of the members, and concupiscence. Elsewhere, it is termed the lack of original righteousness, the corruption of nature, an evil imagination (Gen. 8:21), the kindling [of hate and evil, Gen. 37:8], a weakness of nature, the law of the flesh, and others of such kind. Long ago, the Pelagians used to deny the existence of such sin; today the Anabaptists do the same.
Peter Martyr Vermigli, On Original Sin, pg. 2
The same is true with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. On this subject, they, like their Anabaptist ancestors, stand on the side of the Pelagians.
What Adventist Scholarship Claims
Within Adventism, original sin is often attributes the idea of original sin to Roman Catholicism—surrendering the theological contributions of people such as Augustine of Hippo to be exclusively Roman Catholic.
For example, SDA theologian, Gerhard Pfandl, in a paper titled Some Thoughts on Original Sin, writes:
The Augustinian theory of original sin, which to a large extent has become Roman Catholic doctrine, includes the idea that Adam’s guilt is inherited by every newborn. Babies, therefore, must be baptized to wash away this inherited guilt. Adventists generally deny that we inherit Adam’s guilt. The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia states: “SDAs believe that man inherited a sinful nature with a propensity to sin, and their writings either reject or fail to stress the idea that men inherit the guilt of Adam’s transgression.”
Gerhard Pfandl, Some Thoughts on Original Sin, pg. 19
We also find in the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology an attempt by SDA theologian Aecio E. Cairus to refute the aforementioned interpretation of Romans 5, where he writes:
Romans 5:12 contains a bone of contention for translators and interpreters. The word “because” in the RSV stands for the Greek (ἐφ’ ᾧ), literally translated “on which.” The Vulgate translation gives basis to the concept of “original sin,” by which every descendent of Adam, having sinned in Adam, is personally held accountable for the first sin. However, “in whom” is not the idea expressed by the Greek (ἐφ’ ᾧ), but (ἐφ’ ᾧ), a common Pauline phrase (cf. Rom. 2:1; 7:6; 8:3, 15; 14:21, 22; 16:2). Furthermore, nothing in the context requires a theory of transmission of blame. The phrase (ἐφ’ ᾧ), means “on the basis of which” and may legitimately be translated as “because of which or whom.” This would fit the context well: Sin and death entered the world through one man, because of whom all sinned (cf. Rom. 5:19). The RSV use of “because” is misleading: one expects “because” to be followed by the cause, whereas what follows (ἐφ’ ᾧ) in Romans 5:12 is the effect. “Because all men sinned” should not, then, be understood as the reason that “death spread to all men.” Such an interpretation does not fit the context.
Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000), pg. 215
While this sounds nice on the surface, there are some serious oversights here as a result of over generalizations.
They start by arguing that the Greek phrase (ἐφ’ ᾧ) means “on the basis of which” or “because of which or whom,” and denies the Vulgate’s “in whom” interpretation.
They are correct that the phrase (ἐφ’ ᾧ) is indeed challenging to translate and is typically rendered as “because,” “on account of,” or “on the basis of which,” depending on the context in which the phrase is found. However, the suggestion that it excludes the concept of humanity’s union with Adam (as implied in “in whom”) is overly narrow.
Grammatically, (ἐφ’ ᾧ) has causal implications, often linking a prior condition to its effects—hence why the order of the cause and effect in the text does not create any problems for the original sin interpretation. This fits like a glove with the context of Romans 5, where Paul is arguing for a causal relationship between Adam’s sin and its consequences for humanity collectively. Which is why theologians throughout history, such as Augustine, have argued that the phrase can carry the sense of solidarity or corporate identification.
They then claim that nothing in the context of Romans 5 supports the idea of original sin or the transmission of blame/guilt.
This ignores the central concept of Adam as a representative head of humanity in Romans 5:12-19. Paul’s entire argument hinges on a contrast between Adam and Christ, the first Adam and the second Adam. Just as Adam’s disobedience led to condemnation for all who are “in him,” Christ’s obedience leads to justification for all who are “in Him” (Romans 5:18-19). What the Handbook puts forth undermines Paul’s parallel between Adam and Christ, which is central to the context and passage.
They then argued that “because all men sinned” is describing an effect, not a cause of death spreading to all men.
This interpretation misunderstands Paul’s logic in Romans 5:12. The phrase “death spread to all men because all sinned” clearly implies a causal relationship. Death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23), and Paul’s argument traces this penalty back to Adam’s sin. While it is true that humanity individually sins and is guilty for such, Paul’s focus in Romans 5:12-19 is on the corporate consequences of Adam’s sin, not merely individual actions.
Then they referenced other Pauline uses of (ἐφ’ ᾧ) (e.g., Romans 2:1, 7:6) to ultimately argue against the Vulgate’s translation.
While these other occurrences of (ἐφ’ ᾧ) may help illuminate its grammatical range, the specific context of Romans 5:12 must take priority. Paul’s argument is about the historical entry of sin and death into the world through Adam and the universal consequences of that event. The Handbooks broader linguistic analysis is valid but not determinative for the theological context of this passage.
Ultimately, the Handbook does not engage with the broader argument Romans 5:12-19 is presenting. Paul uses Adam and Christ as typological figures. Adam’s sin brought condemnation (guilt) and death to all of his progeny, while Christ’s obedience brings justification and life to all of those transferred from the fallen, condemned family of the first Adam into the glorious, righteous family of the second Adam. Denying the corporate nature of Adam’s sin weakens Paul’s argument that salvation is similarly corporate in Christ. Without this parallel, the core of Paul’s soteriology in this passage is compromised. A more faithful reading considers both the grammatical nuances of (ἐφ’ ᾧ) and the corporate solidarity Paul presents in this pericope.
Conclusion
While most Seventh-day Adventists (including their theologians) agree amongst themselves that the concept of original sin is rooted in Roman Catholic teaching, there is significant internal division on the extent of sin upon humanity.
One perspective holds that humanity inherits a disposition to sin but not the guilt of Adam, effectively rejecting the notion of Adam’s federal headship and original sin. The other perspective denies that sin is inherent in human nature altogether, asserting instead that sin consists solely in individual choices outside of oneself, where sin remains until one makes a knowing decision to act. This view fails to recognize the connection between human nature and sinful behavior.
Both perspectives, however, accept the concept of an “age of accountability,” a theological innovation of the 19th and 20th centuries, posited to explain why children who cannot exercise faith by their own free will are not condemned to Hell.