Dr. Harwood rightly advises,
We don’t want to build a theological system on a single text. Also, we want to avoid eisegesis (reading our theological pre-commitments into the text). So, we’ll broaden the investigation by examining the inherited sinful nature view through the lenses of biblical theology, systematic theology, and historical theology.
I would caution that neither do we want to build a theological system on a single, narrow question, such as whether or not God holds each man guilty for Adam’s sin. Unfortunately, this seems to be what he is doing. Broadening the investigation sounds good; but he provides little depth as he follows through. Dr. Harwood challenges us, “Let’s affirm what the Bible affirms and resist any theological system—even our own—which demands we affirm more than the Bible clearly reveals.” Is it not just as important to discover all that the Bible reveals? To affirm what the Bible affirms about any doctrine requires that we note everything that the Bible has to say regarding the issue in question. The Witness of Scripture ought not to be treated like a witness in court, and forced to answer only “Yes,” or, “No,” to a question framed in such a narrow way that the full truth of the matter is obscured.
The full Biblical truth of the relation of mankind to the sin of Adam remains obscured if one only asks about individual accountability and guilt. The Witness of Scripture should be allowed to tell the whole truth, and this requires that we also ask what relation has mankind to Adam himself.—What is the nature of our solidarity with him and his sin? Unfortunately, Dr. Harwood does not address that question in this paper, and so his investigation is left wanting.
Dr. Harwood provides twenty-one passages of Scripture in support of his contention that God holds men accountable only for their sins as individuals. He frequently repeats the phrase, “no mention of Adam’s guilt.” But one has to wonder whose guilt God had in mind in some of these examples he listed. Whose guilt justified God in destroying all the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, in Gen. 19? Whose guilt justified God in killing the firstborn of Egypt, in Ex. 12? Whose guilt justified God in killing Achan’s children, in Josh. 7? Whose guilt justified God in killing David’s baby son, in 2 Sam. 12? Why is it that God told Abraham that if He finds only ten righteous people in Sodom, He will spare the city—and then He killed all those children? I repeat Dr. Harwood’s challenge to embrace the Reformers’ cry of Sola Scriptura… and look to the words of these men I cite:
Heb. 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
If it had been only Levi’s body that was said to be in Abraham, then Levi could not have done anything. Scripture
consistently presents the parental relation of the father in this manner.
Gen. 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen. 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six;
2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.
In this passage, Gehazi is cursed with leprosy—and all his descendants forever. Such a curse parallels the depravity that fell upon Adam and all his descendants. The fact that every descendant of Gehazi, no matter how many generations removed, bears the full curse of his leprosy, implies that every descendant was “in the loins of” Gehazi in a responsible, participative, real way.
In Deut. 5:9, God makes a startling statement about such generational consequences: “…I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me…” Much the same is found in Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Jer. 32:18.
The reason that God was justified in killing the children of Sodom and Gomorrah (and of David, Achan, etc.) was that all men sinned while still in the loins of Adam. While I agree that the Bible does indeed affirm that God holds individuals personally accountable before His Judgment Seat for only their own sins as individuals, it also is clear from Scripture that God held the nature of mankind accountable while it was still within Adam, and brought down several temporal judgments upon that human nature—judgments that are not personal to any individual (except Adam and Eve) but are impersonal, natural consequences upon all members of the race. One of those natural consequences is the fact that we are mortal and are not promised any length of days—God has a right to decide when and how each of us dies, and none who sinned in Adam has any grounds for complaint.
In Part 2, the Realistic alternative was set out in order to demonstrate how well the realist position can illuminate the Adam-Christ parallel found in Rom. 5:12-19. However, adopting the Augustinian principle of a real participation in Adam’s sin does not require one to adopt the full realist view. If you would prefer to leave the explanation of how we could have been in Adam in such a real way as to participate in his sin to mystery, and simply affirm the bare Biblical fact that all were in Adam in that real, participative way, you have much in common with most of the Church from the Reformation to the nineteenth century. There is an important difference between affirming that the nature of all men participated in Adam’s sin and explaining the metaphysics of how such a real union occurred. While the affirmation was nearly universal in the early churches of the Reformation, only a minority of explicit realists attempted to explain it. The Church was satisfied without an explanation, but nonetheless stood firmly on the revealed truth of Scripture. Robert W. Landis (who was neither a traducianist nor an explicit realist), The Doctrine of Original Sin, (Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson, 1884), pp. 11-13, states:
The doctrine… which had been plainly announced by Augustine, and always entertained by the Calvinistic church, affirms (1), The natural and federal headship of Adam; (2), That the threatening in Genesis 2:17, included not only the loss of original righteousness, but spiritual and eternal death; and (3), That in this threatening both Adam and his posterity were included; and consequently, that all the evils which his posterity suffer result from the first transgression, since in that transgression (as Paul affirms) they “all sinned,” and were thus constituted… veritable sinners. In other words, they, by participating in that offense, became culpable; and hence from that first sin, wherein “all sinned,” originated the hereditary corruption in which we all are born. This was and is our position, and the doctrine thus defined has always been the faith of our Church…
…The Protestant Church, as we have stated, held and taught that the posterity of Adam participated in the first offense, and that therefore it was justly imputed to them, as well as to our first parents themselves, who were guilty of its formal perpetration…
…[The Church] has always disclaimed every attempt at philosophical solution, and is, therefore… quite as unwilling to sanction the solution which philosophical realism proposes as to sanction the solution proffered by nominalism. She has always accepted the inspired statement (that “all sinned” ) as a fact; and in that fact, though of itself wholly inexplicable, her inner consciousness has ever recognized an explanatory principle, which furnishes an intelligible and all-sufficient basis for the solution of all the great problems which have been started respecting the calamities of the race, and their reconcilableness with the holiness, justice and goodness of God.
Not only would affirming the Augustinian principle bring Calvinists and Traditionalists closer together on this issue, it would also strengthen both positions right where they are. Those who hold to an imputed condemnation would not have to compromise that position, but would instead find much stronger ground for justifying such a doctrine. And those who deny inherited condemnation but affirm an inherited sin nature (as well as acknowledging that many temporal consequences result from Adam’s sin) would not have to compromise that position, but would instead find a much stronger reason for inheriting the consequences of what someone else perpetrated.
I want to echo Dr. Harwood’s sentiments by saying that “these are family differences.. Family members sometimes disagree but they love and support one another—even in troubling times.” I admire Dr. Harwood and agree with much of what he teaches. I sincerely hope that he receives this critique as it was intended: as a means by which iron may sharpen iron, and not as in any way against him personally.
Ken, You as I believe in the idea of an age of accountability, where those who are not knowledgeable of the Law are not under the Law, and if they die in that state, they are not condemned. Or So what do you think becomes of most of the children whom the Israelites killed if they had been left alive to serve their false gods? They probably would have perished in their sins. Die young and go to Heaven or die older and go to Hell? The world looks at death as punishment and to those condemned it is. To… Read more »
what IS your religious background?
Mike,
For believers, God does turn the curse of death into a blessing in the end. But death is not good—it is not the friend of God but His enemy that He will destroy at the last day. Death is a corruption of God’s creation. It is not something beneficial but a necessary correlate to sin in the world.
Ken, In wanting us to all affirm the Augustine tradition, why do you write against it? To quote from your post: “The doctrine… which had been plainly announced by Augustine, and always entertained by the Calvinistic church, affirms (1), The natural and federal headship of Adam; (2), That the threatening in Genesis 2:17, included not only the loss of original righteousness, but spiritual and eternal death; and (3), That in this threatening both Adam and his posterity were included; and consequently, that all the evils which his posterity suffer result from the first transgression, since in that transgression (as Paul… Read more »
Mike, You quoted from the paragraph that I cited from R. W. Landis. He was a Reformed theologian writing to a Reformed audience regarding the innovations of Charles Hodge (specifically, gratuitous imputation of sin). As such, all three parties (Hodge, Landis, and the intended audience) agreed with inherited condemnation. However, the Augustinian principle that I have insisted upon throughout the three parts of this essay, is the principle of an immaterial presence in Adam that is real enough to qualify as participative, resulting in the passing of all the consequences of Adam’s sin onto his posterity—but not necessarily resulting in… Read more »
Ken,
If I add or take away from what you say, is it still attributively the same as what you said? In other words, you call it the principle of Augustine, but change it, and thus make it something else. And while he was consistent in his hermeneutic, you are not. One can not borrow just part of someone’s theory, and deny part of it and still call it their theory.
Mike,
Who made that rule—you? You have not and cannot establish that my hermeneutic is inconsistent. Where is the inconsistency? I did not change the principle of participative union. I merely deny that such a union demands inherited condemnation. In the case where an eminent theologian of the past has become known for a distinctive “explanatory principle” (as Landis calls it), then there is nothing improper about affirming that principle extracted from some of its more extreme conclusions, as well as attributing that principle to the theologian from which it has been universally associated.
Ken, In your interpretation of Romans 5 as well as 6:23, you claim that the word death used means both physical and spiritual. And clearly in both places it also means condemnation. But you deny that sinning in Adam brings condemnation. In both places we are told that sin brings condemnation, one directly [Romans 5] and one by contrast [Romans 6:23]. You use both places to promote your theory, yet deny the condemnation they speak about. Landis affirms condemnation for mankind by Adam’s sin. That is the principle he speaks about. He, Augustine, and the Reformation fathers wouldn’t call their… Read more »
You mentioned: “I would caution that neither do we want to build a theological system on a single, narrow question, such as whether or not God holds each man guilty for Adam’s sin. Unfortunately, this seems to be what he is doing.“ I don’t see that Dr. Harwood is building the whole of a theological system upon this one point as you suggest. He is simply stating the fact that people constantly misrepresent Romans 5:12 and suggest that this verse supports the theory that we all sinned in Adam. I believe he correctly suggests this verse states that death reigns… Read more »
Andrew Barker, It is one thing to say that, due to your father’s stupidity, you were born into poverty; but quite another to propose that, due to your father’s sin, you were born spiritually dead—without God and without hope—and with an inescapable inclination toward sin. You cannot deny the fact that those things that were penalties upon Adam for his sin have fallen upon us who did not sin his sin as individuals. Adam’s penalty is clearly our penalty, but his sin is not our sin… unless as Augustine said, all were that one man. So then, where is the… Read more »
Ken, thanks for the reply. I’m afraid I can’t really answer a lot of your questions, since from my point of view they contain preconceptions which I don’t hold and therefore the questions don’t really arise in the way you put them. I don’t want to waste either your time or mine in knocking points to and fro for no good reason. But I’m happy to offer the following comments. For example, you quote “due to your father’s sin, you were born spiritually dead”. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. How can somebody be born ‘dead’. It’s… Read more »
In your view, Andrew, why then do babies suffer the penalties and consequences of sin, such as death, when they have not personally sinned?
Read what I said earlier and comment on that if you must.
Andrew, I did re-read what you said earlier. I was thinking of this you wrote, “Do we suffer because of Adam’s sin, of course we do. But we all die as a result of our own sin and we don’t need Adam’s help in that.” Ken even mentioned this notion you put forth “So then, where is the justice that you insist upon—that God only holds individuals accountable for their own sin? Any child who dies prior to individual sin has suffered the penalty for Adam’s sin.” So, back to my original question, “In your view, Andrew, why then do… Read more »
Andrew, Your answer seems to be a non-answer. You entered this discussion with an argument in defense of Dr. Harwood’s essay; but when it comes to defending your position, you don’t want to waste time “knocking points to and fro for no good reason.” The concept of spiritual death is not some new, novel idea. Rather, it has traditionally been understood that the threat to Adam, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,” was carried out as stated even though physical death was delayed for over 900 years. The death that was immediate was spiritual.… Read more »
Ken, the concept of spiritual death may have been around for a good while, but it’s not a phrase found in any scholarly translation. I have found it in a youth transliteration. As such I don’t recognise it as a valid Biblical concept but rather one which has been formulated by theologians. It may or may not be valid because of that. It is important because if man comprises body soul and spirit, what you are in effect saying is that everyone is born with a dead spirit. Could you explain what a dead spirit is? I think not, but… Read more »
Andrew, A concept is not a phrase. Do you think that all the concepts of Scripture can be fully understood by simply reciting the text—that no further explanation or expounding with extrabiblical words is helpful? Milk may be consumed straight from the glass, but meat requires a fork and a knife. A dead spirit is one that is not in union with God. When a sinner believes in Christ, he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and by that indwelling is raised to spiritual life. He is united with God through Christ. Mankind was created to have this spiritual union… Read more »
Our inclination towards sin maybe inescapable but no one has to sin. Every sin is an act of free will by a person with both the knowledge and the power to do otherwise. An inclination only inclines one, it does not force one to act. That is why for there to be sin one must be morally accountable. Likewise if one is forced against their will, they are not accountable. Likewise if one has no knowledge or understanding, they are not accountable. Men have a spirit, are moral agents and are morally accountable, but not the moment they are conceived.… Read more »
Mike, you wrote,
“Our inclination towards sin maybe inescapable but no one has to sin. Every sin is an act of free will by a person with both the knowledge and the power to do otherwise.”
Are you talking about natural man apart from Christ? Where do you get this, man’s natural inability to not sin, in scripture?
Les, Does every unbeliever always lie every chance he gets? Always steal? Are there no examples in Scripture where an unsaved man did something right? Moreover Les, I think that this idea is of common sense. In most countries there is a moral code that without some adherence to it there would be chaos. The basis for judgment is to punish or reward choice. We read from Romans 2: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the… Read more »
Mike, you didn’t answer my question. Narrowing the focus a bit, you said, “…Every sin is an act of free will by a person with both the knowledge and the power to do otherwise.” It looks like you are saying that natural man has a natural ability to not sin. If EVERY sin is an act of free will and man, any man or all men, has the power to do otherwise, then natural man has the power to never sin if he but excercises his free will. Uses his natural power. Is that what you are saying? Where is… Read more »
Les,
In one sense you are right, no man is God and we know that He alone is perfect.
But neither does man have the excuse: “I couldn’t help myself.”
In the end, I am not really talking about every sin, for it only takes one, the first one, to receive condemnation and to also be judiciously hardened.
Do you have an excuse for your sins? Do I?
Does an unsaved person?
Could not each one of us, ‘not sinned’?
Mike,
I think I see now what you were getting at. I have said before, and not original to me, that we can’t not not sin in our natural and carnal state. Double negative and all.
And I agree that we cannot say that we have an excuse for our sins. I’m not sure what you’re meaning by the last sentence “Could not each one of us, ‘not sinned’?” So I’ll leave it for now.
Blessings brother.
Ken you quoted : “A dead spirit is one that is not in union with God. When a sinner believes in Christ, he is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and by that indwelling is raised to spiritual life.” I like this because dead is being equated to separation and time and time again we find that death in the Bible is viewed as being separated from God in one way or another. God does not hear us because we are dead and can’t say anything or that he can’t actually ‘hear’ us. It’s our sins which separate us from God… Read more »
Andrew,
All of mankind who are actually put “in Christ” are indeed saved. But in order to be in Christ, Christ must be in you; and that only happens when we come to Christ in faith and are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
When Adam chose sin, the Spirit of God left him. Had Adam not sinned, his descendants would have been born in vital spiritual union with God just as Adam had. But since Adam sinned and spiritually died, all his descendants are born in the same sad spiritual condition.
Ken, nobody is going to disagree much with saying that all those in Christ are saved. The problem with your position regarding Adam’s sin is that if you say ALL sinned in Adam and they had no chance or opportunity to do otherwise i.e. guilty as charged right from the word go, then why is it that ALL mankind are not put in Christ and hence saved? If by one man’s sin ALL are damned then by one man’s sacrifice ALL can be saved. That I would suggest is the logic of your position. I appreciate you don’t hold that… Read more »
Andrew, First, all are NOT condemned. All did sin in Adam through a real, substantial, participative union of origin in him; however, only Adam sinned as an individual so only Adam is individually accountable. The rest of us sinned only as a corporate spiritual whole. In other words, it was not my individual person that sinned in Adam, but the moral, spiritual nature of the race that sinned in Adam. Since God is absolutely just, the penalties of that sin fall upon us precisely according to how we participated. Because we participated not as individuals but as the nature of… Read more »
“Second, all DID have a chance to do otherwise, while still in Adam, and instead all chose to sin.”
Ken I understand where you are coming from on this, but I don’t see any scripture to back this up? Are you saying that before I was I made a moral choice to sin in Adam?
Andrew,
The spiritual, moral nature within you existed in your fathers before you, back to Adam. Human spiritual existence (in the descendants of Adam) is first corporate and then individual.
As for Scriptural support, I’ve given you some already. But let me ask you this: have you considered that lack of support for the common assumption that God creates the spirit of every child out of nothing, and only your body came from your parents? You see, Scripture is not explicit either way, and yet, this issue is so foundational that a choice must be made between them. Even those who claim to take the high road of avoiding any decision on the matter have a theology that is built on one of these views (if they have any theology… Read more »
Ken, I think there is a difference of opinion on just what counts as scriptural support, because from what I’ve seen, you’ve produced no substantive scriptural backing for your views. To be honest, I think what happened was Augustine made a cardinal error and mistranslated Rom 5:12. This is now generally accepted as an error but the problem is that the concept of all sinning in Adam was out there and rather than ditching it as coming from error, Reformed thinkers have tried to support the idea using other passages. I would suggest that Heb 7:9 for example would never… Read more »
Andrew, The idea of soul propagation did not begin with Augustine. Around the year 160, Tertulian (the first to expound the doctrine of the Trinity, coining the term) taught that the soul is propagated with the body—that sin cannot be transmitted along nonentity, but rather, the transmission of sin requires the transmission of the sinning soul. Such a concept of the spiritual union of origin (by propagation)—that mankind sinned “en masse” in Adam preceded Augustine. As for Rom. 5:12, the aorist tense indicates a single past accomplished action. It does not say that death spreads, but that death spread to… Read more »
Ken, I wasn’t suggesting that the concept of soul propagation started with Augustine. I was simply stating that Augustine was probably the one person most directly responsible for the concept of all sinning in Adam. May be incorrect there as well. But certainly Augustine wrongly translated Rom 5:12 didn’t he and that has been compounded by Reformed thinkers ever since? Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Sorry.
Andrew,
The mistranslated Vulgate verse seems to me to be somewhat of a red herring. It makes for too easy a target for those opposed to an Augustinian realism and are eager to avoid engaging the substance of the view, preferring a quick and superficial dismissal.
Will you answer the ongoing request for the Scriptural support for your own view?
Ken, I don’t think Augustine’s mistranslation of Rom 5:12 is a red herring. Many adherents to Reformed theology appear to hold it as a key text in support of the idea that we all sinned in Adam. Herein lies the problem. I believe this verse has kicked off a whole line of thought with people basing doctrine on an incorrect translation. The fact that the verse is badly translated doesn’t appear to deter them. My rule of thumb is to look for two or three verses supporting a doctrine before I give it weight. I am struggling to find verses… Read more »