Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Brothers and sisters,
I find myself engaged in a discussion in our local congregation regarding Original Sin. In particular, the question has come up in more than one way: 'Did Adam merely pass on a 'disposition to sin' or the guilt of that sin as well?' or 'Are we guilty of Adam's sin or just inclined to sin at birth?'. I'm going back this weekend, time permitting, to Charles Hodge's 'Systematic Theology' to see how he weighs in. I've not heard the argument framed this way, and find myself inarticulate in this matter. To help me deal with this issue in faithfulness to God's word (I have no formal training), I've attached an excerpt of the ongoing conversation....
The main question I asked in my original email is "Is humankind charged with the guilt of Adam's sin?" A secondary question, for those who would answer "yes" to the main question is "How do you reconcile us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin with the teaching in Ezek. 18 and other places, that each person is accountable to God for "his own sins" and not those of others?"
I want to emphasize here that I'm not asking whether Adam's sin "corrupted" the human race. I think it is abundantly clear in Scripture that Adam, as it were, ruined it for us all. His sin caused all his progeny to be born with a sinful nature. Namely, a nature that is radically corrupt and hence, it is inevitable that we will sin. It's just a matter of time.
The question is whether Adam's sin cause us to be "corrupt at birth" or whether it cause us to be "condemned at birth". And now that I said "at birth" I probably ought to list the three competing positions as I see them. One view (Realists) holds that when Adam sinned we sinned because we were "in some sense" there with him when he sinned. This view has us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin due to our "participation" in it and we were found guilty before we were even born. The second view (Federalism) holds that Adam was our representative (federal head) and as such, his sin was charged to our account. This view has us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin due to "imputation" and we are guilty at birth (actually at conception). A third view is that we are charged with guilt, not before birth or at birth, but when we first sin and we are charged with guilt due to "our own" sins.
This third view is the one I'm leaning toward. I'm not sure if this is the one that is closest to the truth, but let me tell you why I'm leaning in this direction and then you can tell me why I should be leaning the other way
First, it seems to me that the Scripture teaches that we are responsible (=held accountable) for our own sins and not those of others. For instance, Romans 14:12 tells us we will each give account of "ourselves" to God. And in Ezekiel 18 we are told that a son who does not follow in the wicked ways of his father will NOT die for the father's sins (18:17). In vss 19 and following, in response to the question "Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?" God answers "The soul who sins is the one who will die." (18:20) One might object here by pointing out that due to our sinful nature, it is inescapable that we will sin and hence, this text in Ezek 18 actually inculpates us all! Or as Victor said in his below email "it confirms our guilt". I agree that we are all blameworthy and I agree that we are all guilty, but notice the point at which we are charged with guilty, the point at which our soul dies - it is the point at which our soul sins. This is consistent with the third view above.
Second, when Ezek says "the soul that sins is the one who will die", I take that to mean spiritual death, that is to say, separation from God. Isa 59:2 tells us that our sins separate us from God. There we read "But your iniquities have separated you from your God ...". And in Eph 2, Paul first tells the Ephesians that they were "dead in their transgressions and sins" (vs. 1) and later goes on to remind them (2:12) that "at that time" i.e. when they were dead in their sins, "at that time" they were separate from Christ ... So being dead in our sins is equivalent to being separated from God. Now consider Rom 5:12 in light of what I'm saying about death and separation. Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -". If we interpret "death" here to mean "separation from God", then this verse tells us that separation from God came to all men because all sinned (this is consistent with Isa 59:2 and Eph 2). And since separation from God = condemnation, it follows that condemnation came to all men because all sinned. Notice that we are dead = separated from God = condemned because of our own sins (... because all sinned, vs 12). Again, the point in time at which we are condemned (=charged with guilt) is the point at which we are separated from God, which is the point at which we sin.
One might raise the following objection to what I'm saying here: What about Rom 5:18 which says "... just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." This verse tells us that the result of "one trespass" (=Adam's) was condemnation for all men. It doesn't say the result of "each person's trespasses" is condemnation. My response to this objection would be that we all have to put on our lawyer hats and read every word of every verse carefully so we don't put meaning in that isn't there. The verse says only that the result of Adam's sin was condemnation for all. It does not say that all were condemned, by participation in or imputation of, Adam's sin. It says nothing of the "how". It speaks only of the "result". In fact, I would argue that "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" in the sense that Adam's trespass resulted in the radical corruption of our nature, which in turn makes it inevitable that we will sin, which in turn makes it absolutely certain that God's just judgment and our deserved condemnation will follow. Hence, Adam's trespass will result in our condemnation but this is not the same thing as us being charged with the guilt of Adam's trespass. (A similar argument holds for Rom 5:16 where we read "... The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation ...")
And here's a passing note with respect to Romans 5:18. If we interpret the first half of this verse as teaching that condemnation (=guilt) was charged to all immediately after (and due to) Adam's one trespass, then it seems that we must interpret the second half of the verse likewise, which would mean that justification was credited to all immediately after (and due to) Christ's one act of righteousness. And thus we have arrived at universalism, which is not a good place to be. If, however, we interpret the first half of 5:18 to teach that we are condemned (=charged with guilt) when we sin and because of our individual sins, then the second half of the verse would mean that we are justified (=credited with righteousness) when we individually believe in Christ's one act of righteousness. The latter interpretation makes more sense to me.
I will close with a final thought. Earlier I said we need to put on our "lawyer hats". I know it is very easy to read meaning into a verse unbeknownst to ourselves or to say a verse says something that it doesn't really say. And hence we must all endeavor to not say more than the verse says and to not pour meaning into (eisogesis) but rather, draw the meaning out of (exegesis) the text. For example, just today I was reading in the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary and the author said "Paul does not comment on this issue ... but later states that all sinned in the first man." (Rom 5:19). What? All sinned in the first man? That would mean that I sinned in Adam. That would mean that when Adam sinned, I really did sin (so the Realists win!). Wait a minute. What exactly does Romans 5:19 say? It says "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also ..." Clearly, it says "in Adam were were made sinners", which is NOT the same as "in Adam we sinned". The first speaks to our nature being corrupted and the second speaks to us being condemned. By the way, I like the NIV Bible Commentary, but even with authors I like, I find that I must always be asking "Is that really what the Bible says?", "Is that what it means?", and "Is that consistent with my understanding of God's Word?"
I find myself engaged in a discussion in our local congregation regarding Original Sin. In particular, the question has come up in more than one way: 'Did Adam merely pass on a 'disposition to sin' or the guilt of that sin as well?' or 'Are we guilty of Adam's sin or just inclined to sin at birth?'. I'm going back this weekend, time permitting, to Charles Hodge's 'Systematic Theology' to see how he weighs in. I've not heard the argument framed this way, and find myself inarticulate in this matter. To help me deal with this issue in faithfulness to God's word (I have no formal training), I've attached an excerpt of the ongoing conversation....
The main question I asked in my original email is "Is humankind charged with the guilt of Adam's sin?" A secondary question, for those who would answer "yes" to the main question is "How do you reconcile us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin with the teaching in Ezek. 18 and other places, that each person is accountable to God for "his own sins" and not those of others?"
I want to emphasize here that I'm not asking whether Adam's sin "corrupted" the human race. I think it is abundantly clear in Scripture that Adam, as it were, ruined it for us all. His sin caused all his progeny to be born with a sinful nature. Namely, a nature that is radically corrupt and hence, it is inevitable that we will sin. It's just a matter of time.
The question is whether Adam's sin cause us to be "corrupt at birth" or whether it cause us to be "condemned at birth". And now that I said "at birth" I probably ought to list the three competing positions as I see them. One view (Realists) holds that when Adam sinned we sinned because we were "in some sense" there with him when he sinned. This view has us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin due to our "participation" in it and we were found guilty before we were even born. The second view (Federalism) holds that Adam was our representative (federal head) and as such, his sin was charged to our account. This view has us being charged with the guilt of Adam's sin due to "imputation" and we are guilty at birth (actually at conception). A third view is that we are charged with guilt, not before birth or at birth, but when we first sin and we are charged with guilt due to "our own" sins.
This third view is the one I'm leaning toward. I'm not sure if this is the one that is closest to the truth, but let me tell you why I'm leaning in this direction and then you can tell me why I should be leaning the other way
First, it seems to me that the Scripture teaches that we are responsible (=held accountable) for our own sins and not those of others. For instance, Romans 14:12 tells us we will each give account of "ourselves" to God. And in Ezekiel 18 we are told that a son who does not follow in the wicked ways of his father will NOT die for the father's sins (18:17). In vss 19 and following, in response to the question "Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?" God answers "The soul who sins is the one who will die." (18:20) One might object here by pointing out that due to our sinful nature, it is inescapable that we will sin and hence, this text in Ezek 18 actually inculpates us all! Or as Victor said in his below email "it confirms our guilt". I agree that we are all blameworthy and I agree that we are all guilty, but notice the point at which we are charged with guilty, the point at which our soul dies - it is the point at which our soul sins. This is consistent with the third view above.
Second, when Ezek says "the soul that sins is the one who will die", I take that to mean spiritual death, that is to say, separation from God. Isa 59:2 tells us that our sins separate us from God. There we read "But your iniquities have separated you from your God ...". And in Eph 2, Paul first tells the Ephesians that they were "dead in their transgressions and sins" (vs. 1) and later goes on to remind them (2:12) that "at that time" i.e. when they were dead in their sins, "at that time" they were separate from Christ ... So being dead in our sins is equivalent to being separated from God. Now consider Rom 5:12 in light of what I'm saying about death and separation. Romans 5:12 says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -". If we interpret "death" here to mean "separation from God", then this verse tells us that separation from God came to all men because all sinned (this is consistent with Isa 59:2 and Eph 2). And since separation from God = condemnation, it follows that condemnation came to all men because all sinned. Notice that we are dead = separated from God = condemned because of our own sins (... because all sinned, vs 12). Again, the point in time at which we are condemned (=charged with guilt) is the point at which we are separated from God, which is the point at which we sin.
One might raise the following objection to what I'm saying here: What about Rom 5:18 which says "... just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." This verse tells us that the result of "one trespass" (=Adam's) was condemnation for all men. It doesn't say the result of "each person's trespasses" is condemnation. My response to this objection would be that we all have to put on our lawyer hats and read every word of every verse carefully so we don't put meaning in that isn't there. The verse says only that the result of Adam's sin was condemnation for all. It does not say that all were condemned, by participation in or imputation of, Adam's sin. It says nothing of the "how". It speaks only of the "result". In fact, I would argue that "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" in the sense that Adam's trespass resulted in the radical corruption of our nature, which in turn makes it inevitable that we will sin, which in turn makes it absolutely certain that God's just judgment and our deserved condemnation will follow. Hence, Adam's trespass will result in our condemnation but this is not the same thing as us being charged with the guilt of Adam's trespass. (A similar argument holds for Rom 5:16 where we read "... The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation ...")
And here's a passing note with respect to Romans 5:18. If we interpret the first half of this verse as teaching that condemnation (=guilt) was charged to all immediately after (and due to) Adam's one trespass, then it seems that we must interpret the second half of the verse likewise, which would mean that justification was credited to all immediately after (and due to) Christ's one act of righteousness. And thus we have arrived at universalism, which is not a good place to be. If, however, we interpret the first half of 5:18 to teach that we are condemned (=charged with guilt) when we sin and because of our individual sins, then the second half of the verse would mean that we are justified (=credited with righteousness) when we individually believe in Christ's one act of righteousness. The latter interpretation makes more sense to me.
I will close with a final thought. Earlier I said we need to put on our "lawyer hats". I know it is very easy to read meaning into a verse unbeknownst to ourselves or to say a verse says something that it doesn't really say. And hence we must all endeavor to not say more than the verse says and to not pour meaning into (eisogesis) but rather, draw the meaning out of (exegesis) the text. For example, just today I was reading in the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary and the author said "Paul does not comment on this issue ... but later states that all sinned in the first man." (Rom 5:19). What? All sinned in the first man? That would mean that I sinned in Adam. That would mean that when Adam sinned, I really did sin (so the Realists win!). Wait a minute. What exactly does Romans 5:19 say? It says "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also ..." Clearly, it says "in Adam were were made sinners", which is NOT the same as "in Adam we sinned". The first speaks to our nature being corrupted and the second speaks to us being condemned. By the way, I like the NIV Bible Commentary, but even with authors I like, I find that I must always be asking "Is that really what the Bible says?", "Is that what it means?", and "Is that consistent with my understanding of God's Word?"