Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
Here is the situation that was concluded from the last post: We are born with a propensity, bent, inclination to sin. Because of this, we sin—it is our nature. Yet when we do act according to our nature and sin, we are held guilty by God and ultimately condemned to eternal punishment. Not only this, but we are already condemned for the sin of another—namely Adam—before we commit any personal sins. We are held guilty for something someone else did. Umm . . . can someone say “check please.” I did not vote for this. I did not ask to be this way. I did not even have a chance. I am sorry, this just seems unjust.
It is not hard to see why unbelievers scoff at such a foreign and seemingly cruel proposal. As well, it is not difficult to see why believers would decide to either remain agnostic concerning these issues or change their theology to look more Pelagian. Seriously. This is not an easy subject. We must understand how absolutely shocking this seems.
As Pascal put it, the flow of guilt seems unjust. Seeing as how the most difficult interpretation presented during this series has been adopted and defended, how do we dodge the obvious stumbling blocks? How do we avoid the unjust conclusion that we are held guilty for the sin of another? Or do we just bite our tongue, hold our nose, and swallow it? Certainly, no one would complain about the fairness of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but the idea that condemnation is first imputed to all people with no distinction is difficult to grasp.
Before I propose a resolution, I would like to say something important. You and I do not have a vote in truth. Whether or not something is palatable does not determine whether or not it is true. We do not create God in our image. God could have been an evil God and He would still be God. He has never asked for a raise of hands on anything. He did not create a democracy which determines His attributes or actions. If He were to create each person and send them directly to Hell just for fun, then the truth of such circumstances, while grotesque, would still be true. In short, there is nothing you or I can do to change anything. It would seem that our postmodern culture, while bringing some good critique and questions, has begun to settle itself in a position in which God is created with first regards to the level of their emotional acceptability. This, while nice, is not a luxury that is justifiable nor possessing integrity (ok, enough of that for now—another blog).
Having said this, I am thankful that God is not such a God. I am thankful that without my vote, He is a loving, gracious, and merciful Father.
Now, I would like to propose a possible resolution to our current subject of imputed sin by using St. Thomas Aquinas’ hierarchy of angels as an illustration. Hang with me; this is just an illustration that is not necessarily meant to be a parallel truth.
Aquinas developed a system of angels in which every angel is created with a distinct nature. According to Aquinas, there is no distinct species named “angels.” What we refer to collectively as angels are all actually individual distinct creations of God. Because they do not reproduce of themselves there is no spiritual or physical relation to one another. This is why Aquinas believed that there is no redemption for angels (Heb 2:16). According to Aquinas, if Christ were to redeem the angels, He would have to identify with the angels in every way. Seeing as how each angel is a distinct species, He could not become one single species called “angels” in order to redeem the entire group. In order to redeem them, in theory, He would have to become each individual angel and die for them one at a time. Why? Because there is no solidarity found in angels for there to be a representation.
Whether or not Aquinas’ proposal about angels has any truth to it makes no difference for our present discussion; again, it is simply being used as a illustration. What is important is that Christ could become the species “man.” Since man’s being is linked with that of Adam in both physicality and spirituality, Christ could represent the entire human race all at once. Because we are vitally linked to the first Adam, we can be vitally linked to the “second Adam,” Jesus Christ.
At this point some may say that it is unfair because the proportions are different in those related to Adam and those related to Christ. While all men are related to the condemnation of Adam, not all men are related to the justification in Christ.
While this may be true, it might still be understood as a gracious act of God that we were all linked together with the first Adam. I propose that it was not a necessary act of God to link us with the first Adam. Nor do I believe that it was the natural outcome for Adam’s posterity to be linked with him in death, sin, or condemnation. God, in theory, could have let each individual person have the same chance in the Garden as he did with Adam. He could have caused each person to be born without any connection to Adam whatsoever. Each individual would be its own species. Each would have been an individual creation who, if and when they sinned, would not be connected to anyone before or after. In this manner, the fall would come on an individual basis, not corporate. Each person would be linked to only one person, himself or herself. Each person’s condemnation would be his or her own. There would be no linkage to the rest of humanity. Each person would be spiritually and physically autonomous. This being the case, Christ could not represent “mankind” because there would be no man kind. There would be no solidarity to make any representation functional. We would be like the angels of Aquinas’ hierarchy without a redeemer.
I believe that God, in his grace, knowing that when given the chance, each individual would follow Adam in his sin, declared all people guilty of Adam’s sin, thereby creating a solidarity. This solidarity made humanity redeemable by a representative. Christ could only redeem mankind all at once because mankind fell in Adam all at once. Therefore, God allowed all men to sin “in and with” Adam (federal headship view). By an act of grace, knowing that all would choose the same as Adam, God imputed Adam’s sin to humanity. The link was graciously made initially in Adam so that it might be made the second time in Christ.
If this is the case, we see that there was a unique solidarity that is found in Adam that cannot be parallel to any other. It is true, as the Bible says, that the son will not suffer for the sins of his father:
Ezekiel 18:20 20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Yet this passage has no application to our present issues since it is dealing with individual sins, not corporate sins from a representative of the entire human race. Adam was humanity. Humanity fell. Humanity was condemned for this sin. Humanity was punished with spiritual and physical death. Humanity inherited the sinful inclination and humanity is held guilty for the fall. This is why the sins of another cannot be imputed to us the same way. But this is why Christ, being fully God and fully man, could represent the new race of humanity. This is why Christ is called the “second Adam.”
1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
I believe very strongly that we are born with a sinful nature within a condemned race. We are guilty along with Adam (humanity) and God had every right to turn His back on Adam (humanity), because in Adam, humanity turned its back on God. Because of this sin, humanity stands condemned in a state of spiritual and physical death. Yet God, in mercy and grace, intervened and sent a Second representative who imputes righteousness instead of condemnation, hope instead of dread, life instead of death.
This is why I can say “Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Are We Condemned for the Sin of Another (Part 4: The Resolution)
- Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 2)
- Are we condemned for the sin of another? (Part 1)
- “A Short Defense of Imputation” or “Am I Really Condemned for the Sin of Another?”
- “Will One Sin Really Send You to Hell for All Eternity?” or “Why is Hell Eternal?”
Print This Post
Loading ...
Lynne Monds on 02 Mar 2009 at 12:51 pm #
Dear Mr. Patton,
Thank you for this quite comprehensive “brief defense” of original sin. It included a statement that brought up a question for me:
“I believe that God, in his grace, knowing that when given the chance, each individual would follow Adam in his sin, declared all people guilty of Adam’s sin, thereby creating a solidarity.”
My question is: if the God of the book of Job was so sure of Job’s righteousness that he would place a bet on him in a wager with Satan, (Job of course not even having the benefit of redemption through Christ) how is it the God of Genesis would think that all Adam’s progeny would follow Adam in his sin.
Are we talking about the same God here?
Thanks so much!
Lynne Monds
admin on 02 Mar 2009 at 12:55 pm #
Lynne,
Thanks for the comments.
Concerning Job, I would not give him too much credit in relation to this. While he never denied or cursed God, he did have his share of problems. Notice God’s rebuke of him and his attitude and his repentance in chapter 40 and following.
Lynne Monds on 02 Mar 2009 at 4:29 pm #
Thank you for a surprisingly quick response, Mr. Patton. You are very generous in your support for your readers.
Just one more question if you will indulge me.
Did God consider the seventh from Adam, Enoch, to be a good bet for righteousness?
Hebrews 11:5 says of him: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”
What gave Enoch the chariot to heaven that Christians gain only through the “second Adam”? Hebrews seems to imply it was Enoch’s own righteousness—but perhaps there is another answer.
Thank you again!
Lynne Monds
admin on 02 Mar 2009 at 4:54 pm #
I wish I knew, but I would take the Augustinian approach to such in that I would not build theology from obscure texts. We don’t know enough about the situation to tell.
Lynne Monds on 02 Mar 2009 at 5:15 pm #
Thank you, Mr. Patten.
That theology should not be built from obscure texts is something we can both agree on. Yet the entire theology of original sin itself derives from an obscure text: Romans 5:12—or at least from some interpretations thereof.
As a matter of fact all Christian theology is built from obscure texts written thousands of years ago. If we can both agree that Christianity should not build a theology around Hebrews 11, can we also agree it should not build a theology around Romans 5?
That for me would be a worthwhile resolution to this discussion.
Lynne Monds
C Michael Patton on 02 Mar 2009 at 5:27 pm #
I would not place the Hebrews passage and Romans 5 in the same category. Romans 5 certianly has had some disagreement as to the particulars (e.g. is “sin” in 5:12 a historic aorist; how the “many” is parallel in the accounts of Christ and Adam, etc.), but that original sin is taught is something that most Christians have always agreed upon (with some differences in the Eastern Church). As well, Romans 5 is not the only passage from which this concept is derived.
Finally, because a document is ancient, does not discredit it in any sense. If it does, then we are pretty much devoid of all ancient knowledge upon which most current understanding is built.
Do you have a reason for rejecting documents that are 2000 years or older? How far back can they go and you will consider them? To the enlighenment? Or am I misunderstanding?
Lynne Monds on 02 Mar 2009 at 7:14 pm #
Thank you, Mr. Patton.
I’m not sure why you say “because a document is ancient, does not discredit it in any sense” or “Do you have a reason for rejecting documents that are 2000 years or older?”. I did not think we were having a conversation about rejecting documents, but rather about how theology is built. And my response was simply in agreement with your comment that “..I would take the Augustinian approach to such in that I would not build theology from obscure texts.”
Even though I do not selectively build theology from one or two obscure texts, I actually accept the entire Bible–Romans and Hebrews and Genesis, wherein Enoch was translated–with equal reverence. I am deeply grateful for the the comprehensive body of Holy Scriptures for giving me the theological basis for my thoughts, words and deeds.
Regarding the Holy Scriptures, Romans 5:12, I take Paul’s words to have the literal meaning of my King James Version: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
In other words, because Adam brought sin into the world, therefore have all men sinned and have suffered death thereby.
Employing then this scripture to build a theology, I conclude that I should not sin, or I will suffer the wages of sin, which is death.
Now at this point I will say that I wondered why you said, “I would not place the Hebrews passage and Romans 5 in the same category.” They are both attributed to Paul, after all. And if we are going to select one over the other for theological soundness, I would choose Hebrews, since it is written later than Romans and therefore should be considered to update his earlier views.
So continuing my endeavor to build a theology from the epistles of Paul, I learn from Hebrews 11:5 that anyone who is as righteous as Enoch can go to heaven. So I strive to be righteous.
And so on with the other passages as I read through the Scriptures.
This, I believe, is the way to build theology–through communing with a multitude of passages, not just one or two selectively chosen to justify a certain perspective. Using this practice we obtain a broader picture brought forth through the many prophets that God used to tell His story of plan to bring home His wayward earthly children.
Thank you again for this interesting dialogue.
Lynne Monds
C Michael Patton on 02 Mar 2009 at 7:37 pm #
The passage about and your implications of Enoch are obscure and minimal. Because of this, I would not compare it to the doctrine of original sin. In all of church and doctrinal history the church has recognized that there is no comparison between the two. Frankly, it is a bit of a waste of time to argue, as you seem to be, that the implications you draw for some doctrine tied to the Hebrews passage about Enoch is either as clear or as expedient as the doctrine of original sin drawn from many passages and dealt with by theologians from the very beginning.
BTW: No one believes that Paul wrote Hebrews…or, vertiually no one. But that is beside the point since who wrote it does not add the kind of value relavent to this conversation.
Lynne Monds on 02 Mar 2009 at 8:46 pm #
Thank you, Mr. Patton.
I was never taught that I could simply reject a Biblical passage because I thought it was not “clear and expedient” . I was rather taught that given two seemingly contradictory passages, I had to do my best to reconcile the two through reference to other Scriptures and theological documents.
You wrote: “Frankly, it is a bit of a waste of time to argue, as you seem to be, that the implications you draw for some doctrine tied to the Hebrews passage about Enoch is either as clear or as expedient as the doctrine of original sin drawn from many passages and dealt with by theologians from the very beginning.”
As you will remember, I was not using the Enoch passage to contradict original sin per se, but rather (along with the entire Book of Job) to take issue that God thought mankind would be as helplessly sinful as Adam.
Despite your response to my comment on the God of Job (“Concerning Job, I would not give him too much credit in relation to this. While he never denied or cursed God, he did have his share of problems. Notice God’s rebuke of him and his attitude and his repentance in chapter 40 and following.”), the fact remains that it was God who bet on Job’s righteousness, and it was Satan who bet on Job’s sinfullness. And despite Job’s “share of problems”, all “theologians from the very beginning” have agreed that God won the bet.
So it’s not just a few obscure passages that say God believes in the righteousness of man (thereby obviating the need for any collective brotherhood of original sin to give us a sense of solidarity), but rather an entire book in the Old Testament. And, I might add, one that could hardly be considered an obscure text.
It would be nice if we could just brush away inexpedient passages by citing “theologians from the very beginning”, but that would not help us when we ran into others whose theologians from the very beginning claimed something else. And they always will.
Here for your review is the Wikipedia entry on the Pelagians:
Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ad. 354 – ad. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam’s sin was “to set a bad example” for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as “setting a good example” for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.”
So the doctrine of original sin has not been agreed upon by theologians from the beginning, nor is it agreed upon by many today. For this reason, rather than relying on the everyone-has-agreed-from-the-beginning-that-this-passage-is-irrelevent argument, I would rather discuss the merits of the doctrine of inherited sin based on what has been affirmed by all the Biblical passages that spoke of it–including the Ezekiel 18 chapter that you rejected earlier–and then use our good minds and communion with Spirit to reconcile any seeming disparity.
Thank you for your engagement in this discussion, Mr. Patton.
Lynne Monds
C Michael Patton on 02 Mar 2009 at 9:02 pm #
I would just return to the original statement I made, don’t build doctrine off of obscure passages.
Thanks for the conversation, sorry I cannot engage too much.
Matthew Blank on 03 May 2009 at 4:06 am #
I think the point of the Enoch story was missed in this discussion. His name is brought in a discussion of faith…by faith…by faith. The whole point is that we must have faith in order to please God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Indeed, without faith we would rather curse God than please Him. Faith is the key. Let us all humbly thank God for our faith his Son Jesus Christ and repent of our sin that makes little of His love.
Dan Hagan on 01 Jun 2009 at 10:38 am #
All,
Respectfully…
How does one classify any of “the very word of God” as being obscure?
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Also, the story of Job was certainly not for God’s edification… He knew the outcome even before the Creation. I see the story of Job as a demonstration of perseverance, by faith, while under extreme suffering. This lesson was meant for all who have since heard this story, believed it to be the truth, and were encouraged by it…
Humbly, In Christ,
Dan…
Matthew Swartz on 04 Jul 2009 at 12:45 am #
This was an interesting post, Michael (and the responses were interesting, too).
Your “interpretation” of how it’s just for us to be held accountable based upon the idea that we all “would have done the same thing as Adam” is informative and insightful.
What I like even better is that you put it forth as an OPINION, not an ABSOLUTE FACT. R.C. Sproul was guilty of doing this (saying that the “Bilical Teaching is that in Adam, we all ate the sour grapes” when he should have said, “MY PERSONAL OPINION IS “). There is NO final answer on THIS SIDE OF DEATH and I think that God is VERY KIND for having it be this way.
The problem that I have with your interpretation, though, Michael, is this. If 5 billion out of 5 billiion people, when confronted with the choice “to sin or not to sin” (since BEFORE this, man did not have a sinful nature) what are the chances that 5 billion out of 5 billion people WOULD HAVE CHOSEN SIN?? That’s like saying, “What are the chances of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 5 billion out of 5 billion times??” Not even 1-in-5 billion! No, 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 (5 billion times removed).
But if given a transient nature (a term that the Theologan “Jonathan Edwards used to describe the ‘ability to sin or not to sin’) BEOFRE the fall (whereupon AFTER, it went from “able to sin or not sin” to “able only to sin”), it may be that given enough time and opportunities, it might be VERY UNLIKELY that any individual would choose NOT TO SIN on ALL of those opportunities. So that could be the key and it may well be along the lines of what you were saying that sooner or later, we’d have fallen to the temptation. But this still leaves something UNSOLVED: if it is so inevitable to NEVER SIN (given the ability to sin or not to sin), then it DOES seem UNJUST to be condemned for ONE SIN whereby it would SEEM (to my own frail human interpretation) that we should not be “eternally condemned” unless we sinned more than say, 50% of the time or maybe 60% of the time. BUT HERE IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD as they say. The “whys” and the “hows” of imputation of sin and the “how is it just to punish ALL for the sins of ONE” or “how is it just to punish a person for sinning ONCE when given a transient nature, the odds of NEVER SINNING if given even 10 occasions would be “1 in 2 to the 10th” or 1/1024?” must remain unanswered.
Shame on R.C. Sproul for saying “This IS the answer” and playing with people’s minds when it’s better that we DON”T know the answer ON THIS SIDE OF DEATH (some of us would like to believe that WE ALL would have sinned IN ORDER THAT then, God would be JUST while others of us-and I am one of these latter people-would like to believe that WE-ourselves-might NOT HAVE SINNED.