One of the major issues for me in regard to the question of infant salvation is the idea of Original Guilt. Even though this appears to be a frequent point of division between Calvinists and Arminians, at its essence this is not a matter of God's sovereignty, but a matter of determining the exact nature of God's judgment of humanity.
Presently I see more evidence against the idea of Original Guilt than for it, but I still find evidence in both directions so I am laying out what I have found so far so others can provide input.
The core of the question at hand is by what exactly does God judge us? There seem to be three potential sources of material God can judge a person: the actions that person performs during his life, that person's inherited sinful nature, and the sin of Adam. How exactly are these things taken into account in regard to God's judgment of us?
And to complicate the matter more, it appears that there may be more than one form of judgment (since that is a very general action) and it may be possible but God could rely upon different factors for different forms of judgment. For instance, there is the final judgment at the end time. But the Bible describes judgments of smaller scope that, while still a depiction of God's holiness and righteousness, do not appear to employ all the rules and dynamics that are talked about in relation to the final judgment. (For example, the story of Jonah and Nineveh. While that incident says much about both God's judgment and mercy, there is no indication that certain dynamics like "Christ's imputed righteousness" played effect here like they will turn the final judgment.)
(Note: in this essay I am assuming that most people who believe in Original Guilt also believe in Original Sin. If anyone believes that people inherit the guilt but not the sinful nature I would be curious to hear how they think that would play out and how in the world they reached that conclusion.)
Romans 5 is at the heart of this issue, and that is what I will be focusing on in this essay.
To begin with, there is a chain of cause and effect that I believe most Christians would agree with. Adam sinned, which led to our sin, which in turn led to our condemnation. Since in general even the proponents of Original Guilt would agree that our actions play at least some role in our judgment, they should not have much to disagree with in that chain of cause and effect I just described. The real question is what other causes and effects are connected alongside that chain. To believe in Inherited Guilt would be to say that Adam's sin caused two effects: the inheritance of a sinful nature and the inheritance of his guilt, which in turn both cause condemnation.
Now, I am not clear how most people would define that condemnation in relation to its causes. Do the inherited sin and the enacted sin generate the exact same condemnation or different forms of condemnation? If a person has both (as I suppose most people would) then would their resulting condemnations be redundant? And if there are two parallel cause/effects along the chain how do Bible scholars know when Paul is referring to one or the other or do they assume that Paul is always talking about both of them at the same time?
Another point I should make before diving into the text is that there is two subtly different understandings of Original Guilt. The first is the idea of Inherited Guilt, which I thoroughly disagree with. That is pure inference. Paul never suggests that the guilt, or the condemnation, is inherited. The other understanding of Original Guilt, which I believe is more plausible, is that when Adam sinned, we and the rest of humanity sinned with him. This is a subtle distinction that most of the time does not make much difference but there are some circumstances where the distinction is important. But either way, I believe both lead to problems.
With those initial points laid out, I will now proceed to the text in question.
"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-" (Romans 5:12)
Here it is important to note that the Greek word for "spread" (which also is translated as "pass") is dierchomai, one of the common words for "go" or moving from one place to another, with the prefix of di, which suggests "through" or "by means of". This verse is not talking about the inheritance of sin; that is dealt with in the later verses. This verse is explaining how death has traveled throughout humanity. He says "because all sinned." This is an argument for how death spread to all men. He is making a case that all men die because all men sinned. This argument would make no sense if Paul believed that we were condemned to die because we inherited Adam's guilt. In general, the inherited guilt would come before active sin, so then death would be spread by passive sin before it could be spread by active sin.
Thus, this passage must either be interpreted to mean that there is no Original Sin or that when Paul says "all sinned" he is saying that we all sinned through Adam.
As Paul says in Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death." A wage is something a person earns, not something a person inherits. The question in my mind is whether or not one of the sins I have committed is eating of the forbidden fruit in Eden.
"For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." (Romans 6:4)
Wayne Grudem wrote of this passage "Here Paul points out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people do not have God's written laws. Though their sins were "not counted" (as infractions of the law), they still died. The fact that they died is very good proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam's sin."
Here Grudem makes a number of assumptions. He is assuming that the only way they could have died was because of being guilty for Adam's sin, and that their sins were not counted for anything. Yet Paul says there was still sin during that time, and the book of Genesis has many examples of God judging people for sin, so God clearly counted their deeds toward something. Also, in verse 13 Paul does not say "sins", which would unquestionably refer to actions, but the more ambiguous "sin" which could still be referring to actions but could also be referring to the more general state of sin. I will further explore this idea later.
I said most of that to show that though Paul may have agreed with Grudem's theology in these matters, this passage does not prove Grudem's point like Grudem says it does.
I would love to go to a point by point analysis of this passage but I think I need to sum up the main ideas I want to highlight and that then individual verses can be brought up in the comments.
One of the pivotal concepts in this issue is the analogy between Adam and Jesus. That to me is the strongest support for the idea of Original Guilt; the reasoning being that if the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to us, so must the sin of Adam have been imputed to us in an identical manner. Thus, to question the imputation of Adam's sin would be to question the imputation of Jesus' righteousness.
There is a lot of weight to that argument, and I have great respect for it, but it has limits. The main problem with that reasoning is that there is not a 1:1 relationship between the imputation from Adam and the imputation from Christ. Paul himself says that "the free gift is not like the trespass." (v14). While Adam was a type of the one to come, they are not perfectly symmetrical. Paul himself lists exceptions to the symmetry, and in no way does he suggest that his list is exhaustive.
For example, in verse 17 he says "If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned to that one man, much more will those who receive abundance of grace and of the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Yet even Christians who have Christ's righteousness imputed to them still die physical deaths.
Earlier Grudem argued that physical death was a proof of condemnation. But if a person who is washed in the blood of Christ is above condemnation, how is it that they can still die? As I said before, clearly the analogy between Adam and Christ is not entirely symmetrical, so it is not rational to say that any dynamic that appears on one side must also appear on the other side.
With that said, in many ways the concept of imputed sin makes a lot of sense and I think the later parts of chapter 5 more strongly supports that idea then the earlier parts. However, I cannot overlook the fact that this is still one half of a chapter, while the rest of the Bible seems to consistently contradict it, which is what I will address next.
If we have Adam's sin imputed to us, then that would essentially trump any sin we commit within our physical lives. Why is it that the rest of Bible never says that we are guilty of hell soley because of Adam's sin? Why would it put so much emphasis on what actions people perform during their lives? If you read the Bible for face value, you would generally get the impression that all men are supposed to live without sin and yet they are not capable of it. And yet if the doctrine of Original Guilt is true, then it wouldn't matter even if someone lived a perfect life, they sinned before they were born through Adam. Paul depicts the Law as a tool to show us our inability. But if the doctrine of Original Guilt is true then our inability is irrelevant.
Which brings me to the other issue within this issue: the nature of Jesus Christ. As it says in Hebrews 2:17-18, "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." and in Hebrews 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."
How is it that Jesus did not sin even though he was tempted? Because of his divine nature. So would proponents of Original Guilt say that Jesus inherited the fleshly body of Adam and even the sinful temptations of Adam and yet somehow Adam's sin is not imputed to Jesus? How is that? The Bible talks about Jesus' divine nature overriding the sinful nature of humanity, but where does it talk about the imputation from Adam being overridden?
Some people say that because Jesus did not have a human father the chain of inherited guilt was broken, but the Bible never describes such a principle. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but the doctrine of Original Guilt is already based upon some amount of inference, so here we would have an inference based upon inference. Inferences based upon inferences can be true, but the further you go with such a chain the more fragile and dangerous the reasoning becomes.
Also, as I said before it is much harder to defend the idea of inherited guilt. Original Guilt is more defendable if it is seen as an instantaneous action in time that immediately applied to all of humanity. So that would mean Christ's exemption did not take place when he was born but he was exempt the moment Adam bit into the forbidden fruit. The Bible says nothing about anything like that.
Besides, along similar lines as what I said before, it makes no sense that not having a human father would interrupt the imputed sin but not the sinful nature. (To be tempted and yet not sin, Jesus must of had, on some level, a desire to sin, but that fleshly nature was nullified by his divine nature.)
Romans 5 seems to make a strong (though not exactly explicit) case for Original Guilt and I am open to believing it. But I would have to say that it is also one of the most awkwardly written passages in the New Testament and it seems like that passage is the only source of this doctrine, a doctrine that even if true does not easily fit with the rest of Scripture, so I am eager to hear what other Christians would have to say about it.
7 comments:
Also, I forgot to mention that another break in symmetry within the analogy between Adam and Christ is that Paul consistently uses the same words of quantity (such as "many" and "all men") referring both to those under Adam and of those under Christ. If you viewed quantity as part of the analogy then this passage would be saying that all men will be saved, but I assume that most people would agree that these groups are referring to different scopes of people.
I do not see the distinction you are making between “inherited sinful nature” and “the Sin of Adam.” The two are one and the same; the sinful nature that everyone man has inherited from Adam is a result of Adam’s sin, yes, but Adam’s sin in and of itself has nothing to do with us except insofar as it has caused us to inherit a sinful nature—for which we are judge guilty and condemned to hell on this basis alone; our own sin (committed throughout the whole of our life) incurs upon us only additional guilt and judgment from which we cannot of ourselves make ourselves clean. So then when man is judged by God for his sin, at the base of this sin for which he bears guilt always stands his inherited sinful nature which of itself is enough to condemn him to hell—this shows the great weight of Adam’s failure to be a perfect reprehensive head for the human race, but on the flipside also shows the glorious perfection of Christ who indeed was and is the perfect representative head of his chosen people—, and in addition for this he is judged for his own sin as a result of this inherited nature.
Therefore it is more properly understood that Adam alone bears the judgment for his own sin (in so far as the specific sin itself is concerned), while every other man is judged by God first because the guilt of the sinful nature which each inherits from Adam is enough to condemn them, and second he is judged for his own specific sin for which he is additionally guilty.
Aaron: I do not see the distinction you are making between “inherited sinful nature” and “the Sin of Adam.” The two are one and the same;
You say that they are one and the same, and yet then you say: "but Adam’s sin in and of itself has nothing to do with us except insofar as it has caused us to inherit a sinful nature". Would you say that our sinful nature has nothing to do with us except that we inherited it from Adam's sin? I don't think so, because though they have a connection, they are not interchangeable because they are not the same thing. For one thing, there you are describing Adam's sin as a cause and inherited sin nature as an effect, and based upon the laws of Causality, the cause and the effect cannot be the same thing. Perhaps in my essay I did not make the proper distinction between “inherited sinful nature” and “the Sin of Adam”, but do you actually believe that there is no distinction at all?
As far as inheriting Adam's guilt, I already raised a strong argument for how that contradicts Scripture, and I'm open to being to the possibility of being wrong, but you can't keep upholding that idea without addressing my argument against it, much less while avoiding all of my arguments against Original Guilt in general.
I do appreciate your proposed answer to my question about the relationship between the dual condemnations. In response to that then I would ask where in Scripture do you see that dual nature associated with God's judgment? Is that belief based solely on inference?
For that matter, what Scriptures were you basing your statements about inherited guilt on?
I am sorry that I have not presented my scriptural basis yet but I am still preparing it and I will. As far as not answering some of your arguments I am sorry that I have not done so more directly but my first comment was only meant to address a few things at a time.
I have found that if two people have quite different premises than often it is futile to try and argue specifics. Therefore questions must be ask to clarify if we hold the same basic assumptions. But if in the end we do not than in all fairness you must be prepared to answer arguments that go to the roots of your own.
I agree that things should be broken down and addressed a few things at a time, and apologize for my hastiness. I have had so many people say that I am wrong about this without explaining how I am wrong and I am dying to know exactly how I am wrong. I knew when I wrote my last comment and still know that I do not completely understand where you're coming from, and it is important to clear up the premises first. I need to be patient.
We just got back home (8/22 pm), while I was gone I took my book with me: "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler/Thomas Howe, it's a bummer that he's (Norman) an Arminian, it's amazing how that doctrine permeates so much of his answers to difficult Bible questions (and are therefore weakened quite a bit in a lot of cases), but sometimes his answers are pretty good. The one thing that I was thinking about answering quickly last night is that there is more than one way to be tempted, you can have a temptation presented to you (Jesus did), or you can be tempted in your heart (Jesus was not), and since Jesus is God in a bod, He is incapable of committing any sin, otherwise He probably could have been secretly committing adultery in his own heart for 30ish years while He walked around as a single unmarried man looking at girls, among other possible sins. Jesus did have temptations presented to him "tempted", but His heart never once for a millisecond, even slightly desired any evil temptations (He doesn't have a sinful human nature, so no proclivity to sin like we have), He was/is the 2nd Adam, He had to be, and is 100% perfect in His heart & actions, and 100% obedient to the Father, unlike us. So that's one thing, hopefully that helps a little with only one aspect of your questions. I know that I'm not giving any verses here, but it's a place to start.
Now we're getting somewhere! From your (chozen1z) post I see that there are at least two points in my above essay that I was jumping to conclusions on. First, I knew that the Greek word "peirazo" is the same word that is sometimes translated "to test" and is sometimes translated "to tempt", but I realize that in my mind I have only emphasized one direction of that relationship. I would occasionally point out to people that in the first chapter of James, when he uses the word "test", he is using the same word for "tempt", so that James 1:2 could be almost translated "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet [temptations] of various kinds". I say almost because in that context "test" does make more sense, but it is still not a perfectly accurate translation.
But like I said, I haven't been applying that relationship both ways. With that identified ambiguity in the word "peirazo", the same point could be made that Matthew 4:1 could be almost translated "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be [tested] by the devil." Unlike the English word "temptation" , which is directly associated with a desire to sin, "testing" is a more general term that does not necessarily involve a contest of whether or not a person sins. Also, "tempting" puts emphasis on the circumstances of the temptation, while "testing" puts emphasis on the end results of the test and what factors caused that end result. In other words, when the Bible says that a person was "peirazo"ed, that does not by itself require for that person to have been tempted in the same specific way that we think of being tempted to sin.
That is the first point. Secondly, (and partially as a derivative of the first mistake) I improperly inferred that Jesus must have had a sinful nature. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where such an idea is explicitly stated. In fact, Wayne Grudem points out that "When Paul speaks of Jesus coming to live as a man he is careful not to say that he took on 'sinful flesh,' but rather says that God sent his own Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin' (Romans 8:3)".
Since it is possible to see Jesus' temptations as simply testing, then I suppose it could be likened to the following analogy: Some people might be sorely tempted by the desire to blow their entire paycheck on frivolous clothing, but I personally could not relate to such a temptation. In fact, a person would have to just about force me at gunpoint to go shopping for clothes in the first place.
But that analogy brings up my one concern with that comment post. I have a hard time reconciling the part about Jesus's desires ("His heart never once for a millisecond, even slightly desired any evil temptations") with Hebrews 2:17 & 4:15, not that it doesn't fit, but it could use some clarifying in relation to those passages.
I'm "tempted" to tackle the rest of this particular question of Jesus' nature in this thread, but to make this discussion more modular I have started a new post with the rest of my current thoughts on this issue here. Any other discussion in regard to Jesus' sinlessness can be posted on that thread to free up this thread for people to raise other concerns with my essay on Original Guilt. Ultimately I want to somehow connect the results of that thread back to this thread, (sort of like creating a multidimensional pipeline!)
Post a Comment