<p>This article defends the nonlapsarian position against recent objections raised by T. Parker Haratine. It begins by recapping Haratine’s proposed dilemma for nonlapsarianism (what he calls <i>Allegorical Accounts</i>), and then offers several lines of response. I argue that Haratine overlooks some aspects of nonlapsarianism that, when clarified, largely immunise it against his critique. In particular, employing the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic sinfulness and/or admitting other types of sin besides the “full-blown” variety allows the nonlapsarian to affirm jointly all the propositions Haratine takes to be inconsistent with a rejection of Original Sin. I thus conclude that nonlapsarianism is a more resilient theological option than Haratine supposes.</p>