Ken blogs at SBC Open Forum.
Adam Harwood spoke at the 2013 John 3:16 Conference, and the paper he presented there is available on the conference e-book at SBC Today. Like Dr. Harwood, I deny that anyone is born condemned for Adam’s sin; but unlike Dr. Harwood, I find in Scripture such a real union of mankind in Adam as to justify the inheriting of all the temporal penalties for Adam’s sin, including the spiritual death and depravity that all are born into. Dr. Harwood identifies as a Traditionalist, and is mainly arguing against Calvinists. But as a Baptist centrist, I propose that there are certain propositions that can pull the two ends of the spectrum together—and this is especially so when it comes to this question of original sin.
There are some problems with how Dr. Harwood presents the “inherited guilt” view. He states:
Augustine taught this in the 5th Century. It’s sometimes called natural headship. In his later writings, Augustine said all people are guilty of Adam’s sin because they were present with him in the Garden physically, or seminally.
Augustinian realism is not about physical presence, but an immaterial, morally participative presence. This participative presence is grounded on a human propagation that is of the entire being and not merely of the body, making Adam’s progeny more than mere physical descendants. Dr. Harwood continues:
In the 16th Century, John Calvin called Adam our representative head who acted on our behalf in the Garden. This is called federal headship. Covenant Theologians call this view imputed guilt. They point to a covenant of works between Adam and God, which Adam transgressed for humanity when he sinned. Wayne Grudem explains: “As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam.” In addition to a sinful nature, all people inherit from Adam the guilt of his sin.
Federal headship did not arise until Cocceius, a century after Calvin; however, Augustine’s principle of realism was not abandoned until much later. Some explanation of the history will be helpful. George P. Fisher describes the three main theories (of the “inherited guilt” view):
There are three theories respecting original sin which we shall have occasion specially to consider in this Article. The first is the Augustinian; the second may be called the Augustino-federal or the semi-federal; and the third the federal theory.
The fundamental idea of the Augustinian theory is that of a participation on the part of the descendants of Adam in his first sin; in consequence of which they are born both guilty and morally depraved. The fundamental idea of the federal theory is that of a vicarious representation on the part of Adam, in virtue of a covenant between God and him, whereby the legal responsibility for is first sinful act is entailed upon all his descendants; participation being excluded, but the propriety of his appointment to this vicarious office being founded on our relation to him as the common father of men. The Augustino-federal or semi-federal theory is a combination of the two, the covenant relation of Adam being prominent, but participation being also, with more or less emphasis, asserted…
…The federal doctrine is the offspring of the seventeenth century. In fact it may also be said of it, in the form in which it is now held, that it is the offspring of the eighteenth century; since, in the preceding age, the great majority of the theologians who adopted the theory of a covenant coupled with it the Augustinian principle. That is to say, they maintained the Augustino-federal or semi-federal doctrine as above defined.
Fisher states, regarding the influence of realism:
It is a fact that realism, either in the extreme Platonic form or in the more moderate Aristotelian type, prevailed from Augustine down through the middle ages, being embraced by the orthodox schoolmen, and ruling both the great schools during the productive, golden era of scholastic theology. That the realistic mode of thought extensively influenced Protestant theology at the Reformation and afterwards, admits of no question. But since it is far from being true that all Augustinians have been avowed, much less, self-consistent, realists, it is better when we speak of them as a class, to say that they are swayed by a realistic mode of thought than that they are the advocates of explicit realism. It should be added that realism, as far as it affected Augustine, was rather a prop than a source of his doctrine. The fact of innate sin was so deeply lodged in his convictions that he was ready to welcome any plausible support or defence of it that lay within his reach….
Fisher continues:
…We may say here that a great mistake is made by those who imagine that creationists—that is, those who believe that each soul is separately created—cannot be realists. Whether they can be consistent and logical realists may, to be sure, be doubted. At the present day traducianism—the theory that souls result from procreation—is accepted by theologians who believe, with Augustine, that we sinned in Adam. But this is very far from being the uniform fact in the past. Even Anselm, like the schoolmen generally, was a creationist. He, with a host of theologians before and after him, held firmly to our real, responsible participation in Adam’s fall, and to the corruption of our nature in that act, and yet refused to count himself among the traducians. We must take history as it is and not seek to read into it our reasonings and inferences. If we do not find philosophers self-consistent, we must let them remain self-inconsistent, instead of altering their systems to suit our ideas of logical harmony.
The early Reformed Church was under the sway of “a realistic mode of thinking” (as Fisher calls it) when it came to Adamic unity and depravity. Total depravity itself comes from the idea that souls are propagated in such a way as to have shared responsible existence with and in their progenitors. To be spiritually propagated out of Adam is also to have acted in Adam—and this is exactly the original idea of being “in Adam.” The idea of soul propagation was first taught by Tertullian, and then came down through Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan to Augustine. Although Augustine was hesitant to commit himself to any philosophical explanation of traducianism, he gave many excellent arguments for it and none against it. His doctrine of original sin and his debate with Pelagius was as fully grounded on traducianism as Pelagius’ arguments were grounded on the denial of traducianism.
However, between Augustine and Luther came Rosceline’s nominalism, which philosophically undercut any possibility that the union with Adam had any real substance to it. Nominalism is the denial of any union of species within substantial reality, relegating all such unions to mere perception of union in the mind. In theology, this is the denial of any union of immaterial nature of mankind in Adam, and the relegation to a mere union in God’s chosen perception. In the broad picture, it is the diminishment of substantial reality—a paradigm from which God’s judgments and justice have no standard other than His own sovereign will. Realists say that God does something because it is right, while nominalists say that what God does is right merely because He does it. Thus, the realists look for a substantial union of the immaterial nature of men in order to ground within reality the justice of passing the penal consequences of Adam’s sin onto His posterity. Nominalism, on the other hand, results in an empty representationism, “constituted” by decree or covenant alone, since God’s justice needs no grounds within substantial reality—all that His justice needs is His own will. Realism says that you cannot be guilty unless you commit a crime, while nominalism says you are guilty if God says you are guilty, and no commission of crime is needed.
The effect of nominalism on theology was so gradual that the name itself was left behind and all but forgotten. Yet, the changes it wrought in theology over the centuries were deep and broad. The first change was to reinforce the idea of creationism as opposed to traducianism. Racial union was not something substantial within Adam himself, according to nominalism, but was, rather, something only within the all-observing Mind of God. The moral union with Adam was entirely a matter of how God chose to view us in the situation. Therefore, there was no objectively existing entity of human nature that sinned in Adam and was immaterially propagated to mankind. Rather, all that exists are individuals, and the soul is created out of nothing in every case. Nominalism’s influence in the Church ensured that special creation of the soul would be the prevalent view (as it is to this day).
Although Calvin disliked traducianism, and was not an explicit realist, he and most who followed him were not ready to abandon that “realistic mode of thinking” that was the essence of Augustine’s doctrine. So they inconsistently held onto the idea that all men shared a responsible existence in Adam, by virtue of the [moral] “nature” of all men existing in and propagated from Adam. This they held even while maintaining that the soul is specially created out of nothing in every case. As Fisher explains it, ”the great majority of the theologians [prior to the eighteenth century] who adopted the theory of a covenant coupled with it the Augustinian principle. That is to say, they maintained the Augustino-federal or semi-federal doctrine…”
Eventually, in Turretin for example, there is an attempted reconciliation in the idea that special creation of the soul is according to the natural laws which God set up at creation, such that God creates the child’s soul with the nature of the parents as part of what is considered natural propagation. By glossing over the supernatural nature of a creation out of nothing, and emphasizing terms that tend to imply propagation from the substance of the parents (such as communication of depravity, etc.), they effectively taught that depravity is propagated just as humanity is propagated. While this might explain (albeit poorly) inherited depravity, it does nothing to explain the kind of union in Adam that involves a sharing of the responsibility for his sin (the shared existence of the moral nature or soul). Therefore, the realistic mode of thinking (the Augustinian principle) was eventually dropped in favor of the nominalistic federal representation. What began with the idea of men being held justly responsible for a sin that we all owned by our shared action in Adam became the idea that men are sovereignly held responsible for a sin that is as alien to us as is the righteousness of Christ. While the early Reformed Church taught that Adam’s sin was imputed to us because it is ours, the later (current) federal view teaches that Adam’s sin is ours because it is imputed to us.
Dr. Harwood’s assessment of the “possible Christian views” is over simplified and neglects significant points:
The inherited sinful nature view says all people inherit from Adam sin and mortality; the inherited guilt view affirms those but includes Adam’s guilt. Both are Christian positions. Nevertheless, I’ll argue that the inherited sinful nature view finds stronger support biblically, theologically, and—for Southern Baptists—historically.
Some will nuance or qualify their position. Even so, I can’t imagine another category. When the question is: Who is guilty of Adam’s sin? The answers are either: only Adam or Everyone. So, there are two possible Christian views and both appeal to the Bible.
While pressing to answer the question, “Who is guilty of Adam’s sin?”, Dr. Harwood neglects to address the questions that are equally important in determining what the different Christian views actually are: “Why and how is anyone guilty of Adam’s sin?” In his rush to defend the idea that only Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin, Dr. Harwood’s neglect of these questions leaves his own view (as presented here) without explanation for the apparent injustice of God’s passing of the temporal penalties of Adam’s sin (mortality, sin nature, etc.) onto billions of descendants who—according to him—have no guilt whatsoever for that sin. His appeal to Biblical texts that affirm that God “will judge every man according to his deeds” seems to contradict that first judgment that falls on every man, that of the mortality and sin nature that Adam incurred.
In addressing why and how anyone is guilty of Adam’s sin, there is a major difference between the realistic (Augustinian) view that says that all men spiritually participated in Adam’s sin through the presence of the nature of all men in Adam, and the Federal view that says that men are accounted guilty even without any culpability due to God’s designation of Adam as their representative. By asserting that there are only two possible views, and characterizing the “inherited guilt view” as merely adding Adam’s guilt to that which is also held by the inherited sinful nature view (Adam’s sin and mortality), Dr. Harwood dismisses as insignificant the additional idea of the older Augustinian view that includes mankind’s spiritual participation in Adam’s sin. By avoiding the inclusion of this realistic principle, he frames the debate in a way that is ideal for defeating his opposition. It is not difficult to shoot holes in the inconsistencies and contradictions of the purely federal/covenant system. But it is difficult to establish that the souls of men are created out of nothing, and the moral, spiritual nature of all men was not present in and propagated out of Adam. It is one thing to show that individuals are not born under condemnation for Adam’s sin, but quite another to show that they are not corporately culpable for a participation in it (resulting in a just passing down of the temporal consequences).
This will be continued in Part 2
Okay, folks, so here’s the deal. In the spirit of the peace report from the Calvinism committee, I have opened the door a crack for posting and discussion on Calvinism related topics.
This is an important topic, and I encourage you to discuss the topic, not to take side streets into silliness.
I dislike the Yankees.
Side street taken. 🙂
Dave,
I’ll try to remember to put in the “blockquote” codes next time… 🙂
Dave,
This isn’t really a Calvinism topic, as many Arminians hold to Federal Headship.
Just saying…
Mike,
It becomes a Calvinism topic when the principle that today’s Calvinists and Traditionalists have agreed to discard is the very principle that can both pull the two ends closer together and bring them closer to the Biblical truth. Currently, the standard Calvinist position is that all are born under the condemnation of the imputed sin of Adam, and the only alternative they see is a denial of the union of the race in Adam. As well, the Traditionalists position is to deny imputed guilt by denying the union in Adam as a basis for that imputed guilt. If both sides could agree with the older Augustinian principle that the moral nature of all men was in Adam and participated in his sin, then their disagreement would be limited to whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate (the race as a whole in Adam) and not personally or individually committed by men.
Ken,
Not everyone in the SBC is a C or a T.
Those who are neither fall on either side and in between.
And not all C’s and T’s walk lock step.
For example, I am a C who denies imputed guilt. I also deny I participated in Adam’s sin.And there are others who have commented on this thread who probably agree with me, and they may be C’s or T’s or just B’s.
‘sigh’
ANOTHER chapter of ‘sinners in the hands of an angry blog’
oy !
Christiane,
I can understand why this would make you uncomfortable. Topics like this would’ve made me very uncomfortable back when I was lost and running from God.
David
it was a ‘pun’, Vol
I believe in a faith which has a sacred Scripture, this: ‘God is love’
and because of that, I, at least, am able to say ‘Jesus I trust in You’
after reading some of the stuff about people seeing God as hating sinners, I am thankful to God not to be a part of such a scene, Vol.
Maybe it was the discussion about Westboro that did it, but I am not one to see a God Who hates His Creation or any of those who bear His image . . .
the one who came bearing hatred towards mankind was satan, Vol, not God
I have to admit that the concepts get tangled even for someone that enjoys philosophy and theology. I did a cursory stroll through the New Testament a few months ago trying to construct a meaningful, scriptural basis for this line of theology and my opinion is that the cupboard is rather bare to support it.
So that got me thinking and I remembered this from Exodus:
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Without attempting to use that verse to support the various explanations for how sin is according to Scripture 100% successfully propagated to all people (at least who are also not 100% God), it does “pull back the cover” on God’s thinking. He doesn’t owe us an explanation of it. But I would argue that we also shouldn’t attempt to describe it–other than as a matter of speculation–past what the Bible actually says.
Even then: we Westerners have this notion that we can figure everything out to an infinitesimal level of detail. My concern with that thought process is that it is actually only infinite in the division it leads to. In fact, the scientific method really is a poor framework for dealing with Scripture in its entirety. Why you ask? Because in science what we try to do is construct every higher fidelity models that match the behavior of the universe to math. That’s why there are “paradigm” shifts from things like Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics. We learn more.
And yet what we see in this “progression” in thinking actually is kind of scary. The further you get from the time of the Bible and of Jesus being physically present on the earth–speaking of realism–the more tangled the philosophy becomes.
I will argue that there is a sense in Scripture that Augustinian “realism” is a reasonable explanation for Romans 3:23. And let’s be clear: what we’re looking for isn’t just support for the Total Depravity argument of Calvinism. What we’re looking for is a theological understanding of the truth claims of the epistle to the Romans in its entirety regarding the universality of sin and by extension the BF&M section that relates to those concepts.
Greg,
Where the Church has been and how it got to where it is seems reasonably clear to me. Could it be that what you see as “tangled” is just reflecting an unfamiliarity? The “cupboard” isn’t really bare—just dusty. As for infinite divisions, I don’t see those either. Historically, there have only been a half dozen or so on this topic. There has been a progression of understanding, as with every other theological area—as well as reformation at times. I think this is due to the fact that God has given the task of systematic theology to His Church, rather than making Scripture a theology textbook.
“nominalism says you are guilty if God says you are guilty, and no commission of crime is needed.”
I’m guilty. And I have trespassed against God’s moral law.
I need grace and mercy. I need an atoning savior to be my substitute for my eternal and well-deserved punishment. He chose me (from eternity past) to receive the covering of Christ’s shed blood. Praise be to God.
Here’s the George P. Fisher link</a, if anyone's interested.
My wife was the librarian of a Christian elementary school for about 20 years. One of the popular books she had was the “McGuffey” reader. I don’t know exactly which grade levels of the reader she had available on the shelves.
The first page of the A, B, C’s in one of the editions of the primary reader started out as follows:
A is for ADAM . . . In Adam’s fall we sinned all
I guess this is an example of teaching kids early about linkage between Adam’s sin and our own predicament. According to a Wikipedia article I’m looking at right now, McGuffey was a Calvinist.
Wow! I think what we are doing to God’s word is no less than what lawyers are doing to the constitution of the United States. Look, some things we just don’t know, some things we don’t need to know, and some things is none of our business.
We say that no one knows all the Bible, but yet we try to explain it all.
I think there is a danger here, and we should watch were we step. Some subjects is a mine field. We should ask ourselves are we hurting or helping.
Jess,
Every thinking believer has a theology, and that theology has to have a foundation. Some believers examine that foundation in detail and depth, while others are content to assume that their foundation is sound. But those who do not examine such foundational doctrines are not leaning on them any less. The most prevalent theory today, the federal, is the most assumed of any. People are often surprised to learn that alternatives even exist. The head-in-the-sand approach is not really less dangerous—it just requires less effort.
Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin.
I sin too much, i don’t need his sin to be condemned.
Who does anyone know that has felt convicted by the Holy Spirit for Adam’s sin?
not me, Mike. Like you, I did all of my own sinning….and felt very guilty about them…
David
Good point, Mike. According to Federalism, we should not feel guilty for that sin of which we are “most justly” held guilty, any more than we should feel proud of that righteous that was accomplished by Christ and imputed to us. But what is overlooked is that, while unearned salvation is grace, unearned condemnation is injustice.
Hi Ken,
This will be a short response, shorter than your work deserves, but it is late and my mind and body are tired.
You raise excellent points in numerous places. There are areas (as we have discussed many times) where I am in substantial agreement with you, and there are a couple of areas where I think you could strengthen your critique.
First the agreements:
1. For any discussion of post-Medieval theology, the realism-nominalism question is absolutely crucial. The whole fragmented concept of modernity is built upon the foundation of nominalism, but scarcely a Christian understands it. Nominalism undercut the reality of a “nature” (Greek “physis”) as technically defined by the church in the patristic era. When the “via moderna” (nominalism) ascended to prominence in the 14th and 15th centuries, the idea of a universal human nature was functionally discarded. The idea of a divine nature would have been discarded too (taking with it the Nicene faith), except that the nominalists who wanted to remain faithful to Catholicism (like Ockham) yielded their philosophy to the proclamations of the church. The Reformed scholastics of the 17th century were almost immersed in the via moderna, which, as you correctly note, yields federalism – the only possible link left between us and Adam when nominalism forces the denial of a universal human nature.
2. For a realist (as we both are), federalism and even semi-federalism do not do justice to explain how humanity is linked as one race. And you are correct that it is really easy to critique any theory of inherited anything (humanity, sin, guilt, or whatever) in a federalistic framework.
3. As a bit of a corrective, you are right in that Calvin was a man with one foot in nominalism and the other in realism. Luther, however, was a thoroughgoing nominalist in my opinion (the deus absconditus is the clincher for me). The 2 great reformers were not equal in their philosophical groundings. However, both the Reformed and Lutherans became more nominalistic in succeeding generations, as you point out.
4. You present a very accurate discussion of Augustinian realism. As someone who has some experience in Augustine’s views of nature and grace, you are accurate in your description.
Now for the (slight) disagreements and/or constructive advice
1. I think you could make a lot more of the differences between special creationism and traducianism as an anthropological question without invoking the transmission of sin. Let’s, for the moment, relegate the transmission of sin to the side and just focus on the propagation of humanity. Traducianism has a great advantage over creationism anthropologically because it allows humanity to be a holistic unity, rather than an inherently dualistic being. If creationism is true, then the body and soul have different origins (the body from the sex cells of the parents, and the soul from God). Thus, humanity would then be a dual being – a Platonic idea that has no foundation in the Hebrew world (the Hebrew language does not distinguish between body and soul the way Greek does). I would argue for traducianism on the merits of its anthropological advantages alone, regardless of how sinfulness is propagated. I’d make that a foundation plank in the argument just as you have done with nominalism.
2. I would go back to the Eastern Fathers (as an alternative to Augustine) and work through their understanding of original sin. I would also work through their construction of nature and person. John Cassian, in his dialog with Augustine, plainly states the Eastern concept of original sin. If you could merge such a view with traducianism, you could come up with a viable third alternative to add to what Adam Harwood has already done.
I’m too tired to think anymore tonight. I need to hit the hay. Maybe we can talk more tomorrow. Good night, Ken.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thank you for your in-depth analysis. You’ve given me a lot to consider, so I’ll be thinking about it for a while. I don’t have much time today, but hope to continue tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Jim,
I’m glad to read the agreements, and I appreciate your considerable reply.
As for Luther and the Lutherans, they were usually traducianists, unlike Calvinists. Luther backpedalled on it prior to his death, but his followers kept it for a few centuries.
As for disagreement #1, I have thoroughly addressed the traducianism issue from every angle, in a separate, lengthy, ongoing work (of which you have read some—I’ll send it to you for review when I’m done with it).
As for #2, the more that I read of the Easterns, the more I dislike them. But I will continue to look into them some more.
Ken,
Thanks for the careful thought you put into reading my essay and replying to its content. I look forward to reading part two.
I have already drafted a 700-word reply, but I am reluctant to post it until I read part subsequent posts. You might, for example, address an issue in part two that I have anticipated in my reply.
Also, I am taking my kids to Six Flags today and begin moving my household to New Orleans Seminary on Monday. For those reasons, I cannot promise I will be able to post a reply any time soon if at all.
I did, however, want to write to acknowledge your post and thank you for giving serious time and attention to this serious topic. You have sharpened my thinking on this difficult topic and for that I am grateful.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Adam,
Thank you for dropping by. It’s understandable that you would want to wait until the final part is posted. Congrats on the move to New Orleans.
Thanks for your gracious comments, and I look forward to discussing things further with you, if the Lord allows.
Ken,
You do realize that Traditional Baptists believe that man inherited Adam’s sin nature; right? That we all inherit his fallen condition? That we all are sinners, because of Adam’s fall? That we also inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin; death; hard work to live; pain in childbirth; cant live in the Garden; etc; right?
Yes, Volfan, I realize that. But by denying any just basis for holding us guilty for Adam’s sin, Trads in effect deny any just basis for the passing of Adam’s temporal penalties onto the race. How is it just that I inherit this sinful nature and environment that inclines me to sin? Men are judged for the sins that inevitably result from their sinful nature, but men had no choice to be otherwise (to have any other than a sinful nature).
Ken,
Yes, the truth of the matter is that the whole creation fell with Adam, that day. The consequences were that tragic for all of creation….not that all creation was guilty of committing Adam’s sin…but, the whole creation suffered the consequences….just as we do. Thus, we sin, because we’re sinners. Like a hog going to cold mud on a hot, humid, July day; we run to sin. And, we commit our own sins….and, the Bible is full of passages describing how we’re gonna answer to God for the sins that we’ve committed on this Earth. I do not believe the Bible teaches that we’re gonna answer to God, one day, for the sins of Adam, Eve, or Uncle Bubba….we will all answer to God for OUR OWN SINS.
David
David,
I agree that we will answer only for our own sin. But we suffer the natural consequences (that you describe) for the sin of all men while in Adam. The sinful nature that you acknowledge can either be given to us directly by God, or it can be passed down to us through propagation. Which is it? If the former, then God must have a reason for corrupting our moral nature; and if the latter, then through what medium is a moral nature propagated? Morality is not of the cells and sinews, but of the heart and spirit; so unless the spirit itself is propagated along with the body, there is a chasm between Adam and his descendants across which moral nature cannot jump.
We inherit Adam’s sin nature, because we’re descendants of Adam, and we’re a part of this fallen universe. We inherit it thru Adam…BUT, that still does not mean that we are guilty of Adam’s sin…….but, we’re all sons and daughters of Adam.
DAvid
By saying, “We inherit Adam’s sin nature, because we’re descendants of Adam, and we’re a part of this fallen universe,” do you mean that God is justified (in passing Adam’s penalties onto us) due to the mere fact that our bodies are descended from Adam? Or, do you mean that the sin nature is transmitted by propagation? We are not personally and individually guilty of Adam’s sin, but we are—if the nature that was made sinful (the spiritual narture) is naturally propagated from Adam—corporately responsible for that sin that we all committed while in Adam’s loins.
Ken,
Inheriting Adam’s sin nature is a consequence of the fall. It’s just the way it is. It’s passed down from Adam, because God is every, last, one of us’s Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Greaaaaat Grandfather.
Yep, yall are kin to me…deal with it.
🙂
David
Ken,
You said,
“We are not personally and individually guilty of Adam’s sin, but we are—if the nature that was made sinful (the spiritual nature) is naturally propagated from Adam—corporately responsible for that sin that we all committed while in Adam’s loins.”
You are saying that we are not individually responsible but corporately responsible. To be responsible means that one has a choice to do what is right or not. We agree that Adam is responsible and he did wrong.
But what say did I have in Adam’s decision? I wasn’t alive. i wasn’t conscious. I wasn’t able to influence the decision good or bad.
In other words, the individuals who inherit the consequences also inherit the spirit or nature of Adam, and those who inherit the spirit or nature of Adam also inherit the consequences. They have no more say in their birth as they do in Adam’s choice.
So why is mankind corporately guilty? See to say one is responsible for a sin is also to say they are guilty of that sin. But in order for there to be guilt there has to be choice.
Am I corporately guilty for my father’s sins? Am i guilty for my grandfather’s sins? And so on.
What are the consequences for those sins? For that guilt?
And why if I am guilty does the Holy Spirit condemn me for these sins I am guilty of: my dad’s. my great grandfather’s, and all the way back to Adam’s?
Now if a CEO of a company messes up and the company goes belly up, are all of the workers guilty? Yet they suffer the consequences of the wrong decisions that their representative head committed.
Am I guilty of my dad’s sins? Yet I, as a child, suffered the consequences of the poor and sinful choices he made. As do his grandchildren. And i am talking about the sins he committed after I was born.
And it would be folly to think that my sins have not affected my children. Those before abd after they were born.
Likewise, we are also affected by the sins of others. Even as others are affected by our sins.
Those that are sinners, who have chosen to sin, have no beef with God because of such affections. They deserve trouble and punishments. Those who are never sinners, like the young that die young, go to Heaven, by the grace and mercy of God. Though they never sinned they were affected by the sins of others and are granted eternal life.
That we are born into a fallen world with selfish desires does not mean we have to sin. We sin because we want to. We sin knowing it is wrong. We sin with the ability to do what is right. We are without excuse for our sins. We are only guilty of our own sins. But we suffer due to the sins of others. Sinners deserve to suffer. Blaming Adam for our suffering for sin is just another excuse.
Mike,
That part of you that makes you a moral agent—the part that is really in control of whether or not you choose to sin—that part was not made “brand new” when you were conceived, but was instead a “hand-me-down” from Adam. That part of you came from Adam, and while it was in him, it chose to sin.
But since every man is his own individual, and since God only holds men accountable for their own individual sins, then being corporately guilty does not mean that you as an individual stand “guilty” before God for that sin. It simply means that you must suffer the natural consequences for that sin just like every other person who sinned in Adam and is descended from him. That we do suffer those consequences is an undeniable fact. Some say that individual guilt and condemnation come along with such consequences, while some deny that we even deserve to suffer such things; but the truth is in the middle: we suffer the temporal consequences as a race because we as a race were in Adam and chose to sin in him, but we are not held individually condemned or guilty.
Ken,
And my body was a hand me down as well.
Identity begins at conception.
I wasn’t until I was conceived.
Therefore i am not guilty in any way for the choices of my forefathers.
Mike,
What you’ve just said only amounts to a denial of the concept of corporate spiritual existence. It does not invalidate or disprove the concept.
Ken,
True enough.
But i also deny that the Bible teaches it or speaks to it.
Thus it isn’t provable from the Bible since it is not there.
But then it is not disprovable either, except to say it is not in the Bible.
Now the Trinity is provable from the Word.
Corporate guilt of Adam’s sin is a theory based on speculation.
It sounds good to the ear and you write very well but it isn’t in the Bible.
So my goal is to stick with what the Bible teaches, when i teach or promote a thing as truth.
How about this? We inherit Adam’s sin nature and we live in a fallen universe. If that’s so, why must we see death as a penalty? Sure, no one likes death, but think about it. If we don’t die, we live as sinful human beings, in a fallen universe, forever. Death is our freedom from it (as Christians).
Bill,
That’s an interesting idea, but Scripture sees death as a penalty—and most people who die are not Christians. On the other hand, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and yet, even believers must physically die. The best answer is that these things came upon mankind as a judgment for the corporate sin in Adam while we were all still within Adam’s loins, and so these penalties pass to us in the form of natural consequences of being descended from Adam. Also, the principle of physical death entered the physical world as a result of Adam’s sin, corrupting the very laws of nature so that all things decay and grow old—including the bodies of men. But none of us can claim unfairness or injustice for not having been born into the very conditions that Adam initially benefitted from, since none of us can divorce ourselves from the action of our own nature, corporately present in the one man.
I see something in this discussion that might lead us into trouble.
I think I see some equivocation (giving different meanings to the same word or phrase) going on with “human nature.”
I think there are two different ways we can discuss the concept of human nature, and the two are not interchangeable.
The first use of human nature is what we see by observation and experience. It is a general rule of how humans tend to behave. In this sense, it is proper to speak of “sinful human nature,” because as a general rule, humans behave sinfully.
The second use of human nature is the technical theological term that lists the set of properties required to anthropologically define what a human is. In this sense, it is NOT proper to speak of sinful human nature, because sin is not something that makes us human. In the technical sense of “human nature,” human nature is not sinful, nor can it be.
I hope this helps out the conversation.
Jim G.
Jim,
I don’t see it as equivocation. I think the distinction you are recognizing is that between those traits that are essential to human nature and those that are inherent in human nature. You are right that sinfulness is not essential to human nature; however, when man fell in Adam, sinfulness became inherent in human nature (at least in those who descend from Adam).
Hi Ken,
But Jesus descends from Adam. He is fully human through Mary, thereby descending from Adam. Sinfulness is not inherent in him.
Nor is it inherent in our post-resurrection humanity.
Jim G.
Jim G.
In the case of Jesus we see that he had only a human mother. Is it then possible, given the paternal nature of descendance in the OT, that we inherit our sinful natures from our fathers alone, and not at all from our mothers?
Thus Jesus would have the second use of human nature that is the technical theological term that lists the set of properties required to anthropologically define what a human is that he derived from his mother, but he would not have the first use of human nature that is what we see by observation and experience, the general rule of how humans tend to behave sinfully.
Or simply He was human by Mary but His spirit was of of God, is God.
Hi Mike,
“Is it possible we inherit our sinful natures from our fathers alone?”
I suppose it is possible, though I think not likely. Ambrose and Augustine took that approach, and largely western theology has followed them. I think such an answer raises more issues than it solves, however, such as a host of anthropological issues about men and women on which we can only speculate. As you wrote in another reply on this blog, I’m not willing to lay so much theological weight on speculation.
“Or simply he was human by Mary but his spirit is God”
This can be dismissed as a possibility. It is Apollinarian, as it denies the full humanity of Christ. We can’t go in that direction.
Jim G.
Jim,
Adam sinned and ruined his spiritual nature. All those who are spiritually descended from Adam have a spiritual history of having sinned in him, a spiritual condition of death and depravity, and are in need of a Savior. Jesus assumed our humanity, but He did not assume our ruined spiritual nature, nor did Jesus ever sin in Adam. Therefore, while the physical nature of Jesus came from Mary, the human spirit of Jesus was created out of nothing just as Adam’s was. Jesus is the Last Adam—the spiritual progenitor of a new race. If Adam’s spirit could be made out of nothing (Adam did not spiritually descend from himself) and still be human, then so could the human spirit of Jesus. Besides, the multitude of creationists/federalists must admit that Jesus’ human spirit was created out of nothing just as it is in every man, since they argue that an immaterial substance cannot be divided so traducianism is impossible. So if any creationist wants to argue that Jesus cannot be human if His spirit did not come from his mother, then no man is human in their system. Anyway, the virgin birth ought to make this glaringly obvious. It wasn’t just a sign—it had a functional purpose.
In one sense Adam is our representative, for which one of us could say that if it were ‘me’ in the Garden, i would have not sinned?
Does God have to place each of us in every possible condition in order that we might not be able to find an excuse for our sin?
If we deserve the consequences for Adam’s sin because we were somehow there ‘in spirit’ then why don’t we sin every time we can? Unbelievers do not so sin. They do not lie every time they can, for example.
And yet Ken, and others, say we sin because we were in Adam, in some way.
Yet Adam sinned and he had no fallen sin nature.
Now maybe if we were in a somewhat closed society where God’s Law was the rule for all social interaction, maybe our children wouldn’t sin. But we aren’t. But Israel was. They in a sense represented mankind in a different way, one that we, like Adam in the Garden, can not replicate in our own time and place, and yet we are still held condemned for our own sins.
Condemnation happens when we are mature enough in understanding to know we are desiring the wrong, when we know wrong is wrong, and yet we choose the wrong. In other words, condemnation happens because we know right from wrong, and under no compulsion, we choose to sin.
That we are in a world, slathered in sin, with other fallen people and God is not just to convict us unless we were somehow ‘present’ in the Garden is contrary to the understanding we have as individuals.
Yes sin is a sickness to overcome as well as an evil to shun, but even so, there is no reason to go as far as saying that ‘we’ were ‘in’ Adam in spirit and deserve therefore the consequences [or as some also say, the guilt] that surround us and are in us today.
The argument against God is moot. We have no excuse for our sin because we didn’t have to lie. We lied because we desired something of this world as opposed to trusting in God and the rewards of the next world. As we read:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
So if we trust God there is no need to lie. Rather it would be better to suffer now than to lie. or to do any sin. So then in another place we read:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
God did not make us become fools. God did not make us exchange the truth for a lie. God did not make us to worship and serve a creature and not Him.
We willingly did these things.
And therefore we will be punished JUSTLY unless we escape justice by the mercy of God through the blood of the Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.
And if we seek the excuse: But I was born with a sin nature, it will be shown that [a] we had the knowledge of right and wrong, [b] we had the power to not sin [as evidenced by when we chose against sin], and [c] we turned away from the One we should worship to worship lesser objects, so that excuse is without merit or grounds.
We don’t sin because we have a sin nature. We sin because we are selfish and don’t trust God.
Any reason given for why we sin can be compared to Adam, and why Adam sinned. And they will be similar.
Likewise notice that in Romans, Paul builds his case against humanity in chapters one through three, without mention of Adam. In chapter three, he, after showing why we need a savior, brings in Jesus:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Adam isn’t introduced until chapter 5, after Abraham [chapter 4]. Paul explains the human condition, but it is a misread, after reading the foundational arguments in chapters 1 through 3, to make Adam’s sin preeminent in our condemnation. Paul has told us that we choose to sin and our condemned. We choose to worship the creature. We choose to dishonor ourselves. Unless we are but robotons who are just reacting to stimuli within and without, and without the freedom to choose our own acts, internal and external, than Adam is not to blame for our sin.
Mike,
Through one man’s disobedience, the many were made sinners. The many are not made sinners by their own sins. “Through one man sin entered into the world…” and that world is the world of men. As David said, we are all shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin. Our sinfulness does not originate in some decision in our lives, but rather, it originates at our conception (and prior), and is merely manifested by that first sinful decision we make. Try as you may to dismiss the penal aspect of the conditions into which we are born, such as mortality, the fact remains that what was threatened to Adam in case he sinned, and was executed upon him when he sinned, has also been put upon us. “The wages of sin is death…”—are we to think that God passed onto us the wages without any sin on our part?
Your contention that all humans sin on their own just because they are human logically results in Christ being super human. Human nature is not essentially flawed or sinful, but those whose moral nature descended from Adam inherit the sinfulness that Adam caused to inhere in his nature by his sinning.
Ken,
You quote from Romans 5.
Let us look at the whole verse and not just part.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Since all men do not go to Heaven, we know [from a previous chapter {3} of this same letter] that it is only by faith that those condemned by their own sin get life. Thus we see a condition to get life. Likewise we see in chapters 1 through 3 a condition for condemnation: personal sin. So yes Adam’s sin brought sin into the world and affected his progeny and as a result of our poor choice [we choose to sin] we are condemned.
Otherwise Ken, we could read this as saying we are condemned because we are born of Adam. But that is what you are not saying. You are not saying we are condemned by Adam’s sin but rather we are suffering consequences that are less severe than condemnation because we corporately sinned in Adam.
That is not what this verse says.
You said: “The many are not made sinners by their own sins.”
But according to Paul in Romans chapters ONE, TWO, and THREE, as well as numerous other places in the Bible, we are sinners because we sin. For example, from chapter 2:
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
Wrath is gained by EACH person, not corporately but individually. Tribulation and distress for EVERY soul that does evil. But not for those who do good. And those who do not DO the Law will be judged. Those who DO will be justified.
You also said:
“Try as you may to dismiss the penal aspect of the conditions into which we are born, such as mortality, the fact remains that what was threatened to Adam in case he sinned, and was executed upon him when he sinned, has also been put upon us. “The wages of sin is death…”—are we to think that God passed onto us the wages without any sin on our part? ”
Again let us look at the whole verse and in context:
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Death in this passage does not mean physical death. For all die physically even if as little children they do not sin. Rather death in this passage is eternal death, the outcome of chosen sin not the outcome of being born of Adam. The outcome of what things? The outcome of doing those things of which we should be ashamed- our personal sin.
Or are you ashamed of and convicted of Adam’s sin?
You finished…
“Your contention that all humans sin on their own just because they are human logically results in Christ being super human. Human nature is not essentially flawed or sinful, but those whose moral nature descended from Adam inherit the sinfulness that Adam caused to inhere in his nature by his sinning.”
No it doesn’t.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
We have a choice to not suppress the truth in unrighteousness and we choose to sin instead.
Jesus was tempted in all ways even as we are and was without sin.
Even your own writings affirm that Jesus was different in some way than other men, do they not? Do you not say that Jesus was not born of Adam and did not have a fallen nature? So then why shouldn’t we say of you that you say Jesus was super human? Thus it is but a straw man argument you proffer.
And it also seems strange that you divide human nature from moral nature as if we have more than one nature. Morality is based on Law or what is right and wrong. When we choose to sin and suppress the truth in unrighteousness God allows us to become futile in our speculations and our hearts to be darkened. God also gives us over to impurity, to degrading passions, and to a depraved mind.
So why then did Adam sin? And when confronted by the choice, we all also choose to sin. And even now after being born again, I choose to sin. But to go from those things to say I was “in” Adam corporately so I am corporately guilty of that sin so God is just in making me suffer and to suffer the consequences of sin is a speculation.
I don’t see it as a plank to bring together C’s and T’s since speculation is not a place to build theology on.