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 those condemned it is and rightly so because they wilfully sinned and did what they knew was against God.
To those who die not under condemnation, death is but the next step to a better life with God.
Therefore there is no need for mankind to have corporately sinned in Adam. Each person must answer for their own free will choice to sin against God and man, while the rest are saved by His grace and mercy.
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 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.”
Augustine wanted Adam’s sin to cause his posterity spiritual and eternal death.
And Landis states: “This was and is our position, and the doctrine thus defined has always been the faith of our Church”
yet you say:
“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.”
????… for…
But Dr. Harwood, as you say, “Dr. Harwood provides twenty-one passages of Scripture in support of his contention that God holds men accountable only for their sins as individuals.”
How would affirming what he thinks the Bible teaches against strengthen his position?
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 inherited condemnation. Of course, Landis and Hodge and the whole Reformed church did at that time hold that condemnation for Adam’s sin was well-grounded on that participative union—but it does not necessarily follow, and may be discarded without discarding the substance of the Augustinian principle.
As I understand him, Dr. Harwood is not necessarily against such a participative union, but only if it requires inherited condemnation. What I have offered neither requires inherited condemnation nor is it against inherited condemnation, but it can bring both sides closer together while bringing them closer to the Biblical truth. Whether one likes it or not, Augustinianism fits well with Scripture, and does not suffer from the inconsistencies and contradictions that the other two views suffer from. And most importantly, perhaps, it puts a level of reality back into the way that God deals with people. The conditions of the world and of humanity have not fallen upon us as unjust calamities; and neither are we treated as sinners prior to ever sinning (condemned for someone else’s sins). But rather, God deals with us according to the real, spiritual union that mankind had in Adam; and just so, God deals with believers according to the real, spiritual union of believers with the Spirit of Christ within them.
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 own conclusions extreme. So why do you cite them as if you walk in agreement with them and yet call their conclusions extreme?
Why do you call us to get back to the Augustine principle when in reality part of it is what you seem to be calling extreme? Rather what you are doing is extracting from the principle just the parts that support your theory, which is what it seems you are doing with Romans 5 and 6 where death is equal to condemnation.
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 on all because all (individually) sinned. As far as I’m aware, while there are plenty of other verses dealing with the fact that we sin, there is no verse which comes remotely close to actually suggesting that we all sinned in Adam. It is my impression that doctrines which are central to the Christian faith are generally explicitly dealt with by the Biblical text. Most problems occur because people try to read into the text things which simply are not there.
Heb 7:9 is often quoted in support of the concept of corporate guilt but I am not convinced by these attempts. The verse is saying nothing about guilt but about paying tithes! It explains how one priestly line is distinguished from another and that the priestly line of Levi is subservient to that of Melchisedec. The writer even indicates that this is a figure of speech and not ‘actual’ when he uses the phrase, “so to speak”. NASBEC. Is it not stretching things a little too far to conclude from this verse that we are all involved directly in Adam’s sin?
Although not stated explicitly I believe many people are lulled into the belief that there is some biological implication in the phrase “he was still in the loins of his father….”. While there is of course the obvious genetic link, I can assure you that there is no biological sense in which Levi was present when Abraham paid his tithes to Melchisedec. At best only half of Levi could have been present and it’s impossible to be clear what that half constituted either. Which brings me to the passage in Deut 5:9. This verse is misrepresented if we read it simply as supporting the idea that God punishes children for the sins of their fathers. It is not that simple. If it did it would be in direct conflict with Ezekiel 18 which could hardly be clearer on the matter. I would also argue that while there is no biological component in Heb 7:9, there could be one here! Why does the verse mention three or four generations. It seems a rather arbitrary length of time for sin to have its effect. Unless you equate it with the possible age range of a living family unit. Then it starts to make sense. In addition there is the phrase at the end of the verse “of those who hate me” which often seems to be overlooked if not ignored. What Deut 5:9 is saying is that God will punish fathers for their sins and the effect of this punishment will also be felt on the whole of the family IF the family continues to ‘hate’ God. If we live in direct opposition to God’s laws then we will suffer the consequences as will others around us, but it is contingent on living in opposition to God’s laws. Contrast this with the promise to those who love God. If we take it as a thousand generations, the word is assumed, it is basically saying ‘for ever’. There have not been a thousand generations since these words were first penned! The verse should be highlighted as showing the abundance of God’s grace towards those who love and follow him rather than a vengeful God inflicting punishment on the ‘innocent’.
Your treatment of God’s dealings with Gehazi is symptomatic of reading something into the text which just is not present. There is nothing in the passage about Gehazi’s descendents being “in his loins in a responsible, participative, real way.” Absolutely nothing! This is simply a case of foisting ones own preconceived ideas onto the text. Gehazi’s descendents felt the results of his actions in the same way that all children have to suffer for the wrongs of their parents. If you make a rash purchase of some stock and lose the ‘family fortune’, guess what, your children are going to suffer. But it would be adding insult to injury would it not, to blame them for your stupidity or to suggest that they were present when you were committing this folly? 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. As ever, I don’t want to appear overly critical but the whole concept of inherited guilt is, I fear, more one of our own construction than anything which is correctly found in scripture.
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 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. Every child who is conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity has suffered the penalty for Adam’s sin. Death, both physical and spiritual, is not a misfortune, but “the wages of sin.” Justice demands that the wages only go to those who’ve earned them.
What is your understanding about how men are born with an inescapable inclination toward sin? If you hold that God creates the spirit of the child ex nihilo, then how do you propose that God creates the spirit of the child morally corrupted or sinful? Does all the corruption of mankind find its creative source in God Himself?
The reason that Heb. 7:9 says, “so to speak,” is because Levi was not acting as the individual, Levi, but only as in corporate, spiritual union with his progenitor. It was not half of Levi, or one-sixteenth, but all of Levi; because Seth was not begotten in the image of Eve, but of Adam only—and sin did not enter into the world through Adam and Eve, but through one man only.
You are right that Deut. 5:9 is not speaking of everlasting condemnation, since Ezek. 18 tells us otherwise. However, Deut. 5:9 IS telling us that the God who is just does justly pass some consequences of the father’s sin onto the children. As God’s dealing with Gehazi also demonstrates, that which is a divine penalty for sin upon the father can justly pass upon the children in the form of natural consequences. If the question had been asked of Jesus regarding a descendant of Gehazi, “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” the answer would have to be that this man’s forefather sinned and caused his leprosy.
Can you find anything in Scripture to suggest that God brings the consequences of Adam’s sin upon the race as a mere misfortune and not as the result of all men’s sin in Adam?
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 a nonsense, unless the death talked about is taken as separation. In which case I can quite see how we are born separated from God because of Adam’s sin but not being personally responsible for it.
I’m not sure I like the concept of spiritual between Levi and Abraham either at least not in any true spiritual sense. Our spiritual union is with God and we are not united spiritually with any other living person in the same way, are we? Even marriage on earth is not continued in heaven so I can’t see any spiritual reality in what you are saying re Levi and Abraham.
God’s dealings with Gehazi are indeed earthly and the physical punishment was felt by his family, whoever they were. But there is no spiritual punishment administered. As an aside, it’s quite likely that his family line would have died out since if they were all afflicted with leprosy they would have difficulty in marrying?
Your last question also begs the question. Can I find a scripture to suggest that God brings the consequences of Adam’s sin upon the race as a mere misfortune and not as a result of all men’s sin in Adam? I don’t agree with the premise of all men sinning in Adam and no, I don’t see sin as a mere misfortune. Your words not mine!
I am quite happy to go along with Rom 5:12 though. Sin enters the world through one man, Adam and death reigns on all men because all men (individually) sin.
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 babies suffer the penalties and consequences of sin, such as death, when they have not personally sinned?”
Thanks Andrew.
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. If you want to understand what spiritual death is, then look to the spiritual life that Christ brings to the one who comes to Him in faith. Simply, physical death is separation of the spirit from the body, and spiritual death is separation of the spirit from God. All are born spiritually separated from God and not in vital spiritual union with Him. You said, “we are born separated from God because of Adam’s sin but not being personally responsible for it.” Why then are we penalized without responsibility? Don’t dodge hard questions because of “differing perspectives”—show that your perspective is better.
As for Levi’s spiritual union with Abraham, it fits with many things in Scripture, such as God’s command to man, to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Just as His command to every other creature, which propagated itself in its entirety, we have no indication from the text that man was to propagate only half of his being. An immaterial union of origin in Adam may not be exactly like the spiritual union with Christ, but it is sufficiently alike to provide the important parallel between Adam and Christ. Spiritual inbeing in both cases causes a sharing of identity.
Death reigns even when one has not yet personally sinned, such as death of the unborn. What then? Is death a misfortune—and if not, then what is it? Are we mere victims of Adam’s sin and God’s decision to punish the whole race for what a single man (and woman) did? You seem to get slippery here, since you deny that this is a misfortune but you don’t offer to tell us what it is.
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 I will wait on that.
I could say more but I find these exchanges get too involved if more than one or two points are made.
Regards
Andrew
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 with God, and without it we are ever searching to satisfy the inner thirst. When man, in Adam, was cut off from spiritual union with God, man turned inward and became self-centered by nature. It is this natural selfishness that is the sin nature (or the inescapable inclination toward sin).
Sin and righteousness, worship and rebellion, are spiritual matters. They that worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Since animals have no spirit, they neither worship nor sin, but simply have no moral comprehension. Men have a spirit, are moral agents, and are morally accountable.
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.
Children are self centered and selfish but not sinners until they have both knowledge and understanding.
Even the pagans, for the most part recognize those truths and incorporate them into their culture.
Romans 5 tells us:
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 3 tells us:
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
and also:
for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
and earlier:
“There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good…”
Sin is described in Romans chapters 1 through 3 as an act in violation of the Law, or one’s conscience which reflects the Law. It is an act done in knowledge by the will. That power is what makes man a moral agent. he has the power to choose right or wrong and will be held accountable for his choices.
Paul is not talking about the newly conceived, or the children, but those considered moral agents with the power and understanding or morality.
Before one has reached that place in their life, they are not a moral agent, they are not under the law and they are not held accountable for their moral actions, for their actions are not yet moral.
This is what makes up a human: a mind, a body, and a spirit. And until that mind reaches a certain level of moral maturity, that person is not yet a moral agent and not yet accountable for their choices.
Adam was such a moral person, and he is accountable for the choice he made. Now it seems pretty clear that when God uses the term ‘Adam,’ He means man as in mankind, not just the male, for in the garden both Adam and Eve sinned. And she fell as well, but not because Adam sinned. They both knew right from wrong seeing how God had told Adam [Gen. 2] and also seeing how Eve also knew of the command [Gen. 3].
They were sinners because they were moral agents, knowing right from wrong, and with the power and ability to choose and in doing so they choose what they knew was wrong.
No other human person was in Eden. They were kicked out and prohibited from returning. They were cursed and also given a promise.
No other human sinned in the garden, just those two.
And saying that my spirit came from them doesn’t make me a human who sinned in the garden. Nor does it make me accountable for their actions. And the Bible does not teach otherwise.
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 work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Now how can their conscience defend them if they never obeyed the work of the law written on their heart?
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 the scriptural basis for this?
As to this, “Does every unbeliever always lie every chance he gets? Always steal? Are there no examples in Scripture where an unsaved man did something right?”
Of course every unbeliever does not always lie or steal every chance he gets. And of course unbelievers can do something right. But is his right action from faith? Does he always have 100% pure thoughts? Can he? You are talking about deeds, which I still don’t concede any man has the power to be perfect at. What about sin in thoughts? Does any unbeliever have the power to always please God?
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 bringing about this apparent deafness in the Almighty!
If you follow this line of thought through the story of Adam’s fall you see that the death talked about refers to becoming separated from the Tree of Life and from the intimate relationship with The Lord God.
So getting back to the original question which broadly speaking is did we all sin in Adam, I think this poses a problem for those who hold this view. If we all sinned in Adam and if this is unavoidable for ALL mankind, don’t you think that this gives ammunition to those who would argue that in Christ ALL mankind is unavoidably saved, whether or not they like it. Personally speaking I wish this were the case, but I fear it is not.
Why we are born separated from God I’m not sure, other than we are born of sinful parents. But then quite how God imparts a spirit to each individual at birth is a mystery in the first place. But this separation is a result of Adam’s sin and we all are affected by it, but that doesn’t imply or require our complicity in Adam’s sin.
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 ALL are indeed saved (neither do I) but why the discrepancy. Why does God condemn the ALL because of one man and yet not save the same ALL because of His Son! Is the death of His Son not adequate in some way?
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 the race, the penalties do not relate to us as individuals but only as members of the race. For example, physical death is one of those penalties, and it completely disregards whatever moral merit or demerit the individual may have. Every member of Adam’s race must physically die, even those who have been made perfectly righteous in Christ—even Christ Himself was mortal until He was resurrected. For believers, “there is therefore now no condemnation,” and still we must physically die. Why? It is because such Adamic penalties are impersonal and race-based. Not only did we sin in Adam, but we also incurred those penalties while still in Adam; and we did not escape them merely by being propagated out of Adam as individual descendants.
Second, all DID have a chance to do otherwise, while still in Adam, and instead all chose to sin. The moral spiritual nature within you is where the seat of moral will is, so that part of you that decides whether or not to sin did not originate with you but came from Adam—and while it was still in Adam it chose to sin rather than to do otherwise.
Third, God could have saved all if that suited His plan. But when we take into account how God saved a remnant of His people in the Old Testament, as well as taking into account the reality that many are not going to be saved, then it must be concluded that something in God’s just nature requires that sin have consequences on the race—that much of the race will perish due to the sin of the race in Adam.
“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 at all). Augustine himself was hesitant to adopt traducianism; but he could find no other explanation that fit as well with God’s justice and the whole of Scripture.
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 in a million years be viewed as saying anything about all sinning in Adam, were it not for the fact that people went there fishing! This is classic eisegesis.
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 all men—long before all men even existed. The verses that follow tell us that all die directly because of the one sin of the one man.
Wat exactly IS your idea of Scriptural support, Andrew? Can you show us some examples of what YOU consider Scriptural support for God creating the soul of the child out of nothing? I say that Scripture does NOT support such a view.
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 which say that we all sinned in Adam though.
As for my ideas about how a person’s spirit is formed at birth, I thought I had indicated that it’s a mystery to me and I’m not so sure anybody can give a categorical answer. But I would suggest that just as we inherit our DNA from parents and are still unique individuals, it’s likely that this is the same with our spirits. But I stress, I wouldn’t be firm on this because I can see anything in scripture which covers it much. It’s certainly not what I would class as a major doctrine or essential for salvation etc.
Hope this isn’t too evasive for you but I don’t have time to go into great detail.
Regards
Andrew