This book will be written chapter-by-chapter through the Parchment & Pen blog. The printed form of the book, along with a study guide, will be released in connection with the DVD/Workbook study entitled: The Discipleship Program. A projected release date is May 2011.

During the time of the “Enlightenment” of the seventeenth century, the western world “woke up” to a startling realization. Man (re)discovered that he was filled with potential. Having had his abilities suppressed for over a thousand years, man took of the banner of hope. Advancements in technology, science, and medicine, propelled the dreams of what man could be if just given the opportunity to discover and set his intellect free. According to eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, the Enlightenment was “mankind’s final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.” The dignity of man was emancipated from the authoritarian structures of religious institutionalism, tradition, archaic morality, and, yes, even the Bible. Man was now the captain of his fate and the master of his soul. Thus, the dignity of man was discovered. As Chuck Swindoll would put it, we thought we were “something on a stick.”

However, things did not go as well as we hoped. Yes, there were and continue to be great advancements in science and technology. But for all of this, death, poverty, hunger, holocaust, and war demonstrated that the great emancipation did not rescue man from his greatest problem: sin. The discoveries of the vastness of the universe only served to make us shrink in our confidence in knowledge. The theory of evolution suggested that man was evolving into a “higher life form” which was supposed to be better than the previous life form. However, pride, selfishness, hate, rape, murder, and all forms of what we call “inhumanity” continued to excel. Besides all this, without God in the picture, who was to define what “better” was? Who was to define morality? Who was the authority to define what it meant to be “enlightened” or evolved? Through this, man (re)discovered both his dignity and his sin.

Dignity

Man is good. Man is very good. You are very good. This is not just something from the enlightenment philosophers, but from the Bible itself. The first book of the Bible is called the book of Genesis. Genesis means “starting or beginning”. Though the book covers thousands of years of history, its first few chapters are about the creation of all things, with a special emphasis on man. Having accounted for God’s creation of the earth, stars, sun, moon, sky, sea, and all the animals in twenty-five short verses, there is a dramatic pause in the narrative as something different is about to take place. “Then God said . . .” This is the introduction to the creation of man. The creation of everything else has been going at break-neck speed. But what was about to take place was different in so many ways. While everything God created was special and miraculous, the creation of man demanded a different sort of attention:

Gen 1:26-27
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Nothing else in all of creation is like humanity. Man alone is said to be created in the “image of God.” Notice the three-fold repetition of the phrase “in God’s image.” Both male and female carry this dignity. Out of all the details that God could have given about the “hows” of creation (questions that we often want to know first), he gives us the “what” of creation. We alone are image bearers of the eternal God. This means that we are like God. Amazing!

David, in the Psalms ponders this wonder:

Psa 8:4-5
“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honor.”

How are we like God? Good question. Theologians (those guys who do nothing but study the Bible) don’t know exactly what it means to be in the “image of God.” It could include volition (the ability to make choices), responsibility, morality, spirituality, dominionality, or rationality. It probably is a combination of all of these. It is not that the rest of the animal kingdom doesn’t have these to some degree, it is just that man is special, possessing them to a much greater degree.

The point is that any study of the Biblical view of man must include a central focus on humanity’s dignity as image bearers of God. God wants us to know that we are the central part of the creation of the universe. Everything else, all the stars and galaxies, all the mysterious life teeming in the oceans, all the beauty of the plants, trees, and mountains, and all of the wonders of the world are seen as backup music to the creation of the woman and the man. I know I am running the risk of sounding cliché here, but you are special. No matter what your race, nationality, age, or IQ level, you are created in God’s image. As such, you bear incredible dignity. Congratulations!

Fall

I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not. There is a “b-side” to this record. And the “b-side” is not good. Man is in the image of God, yes. Man is dignified just by virtue of being a human, yes. We are the “apple of God’s eye”, yes. But something bad happed and it effects us all: Sin entered the picture.

After God created his masterpiece, he placed them in a Garden called Eden (really more like an orchard). He crowned man’s dignity with responsibility, giving humanity the opportunity to act as God’s vice-regent here on earth. He said, “Let man rule over everything I have created.” He also gave them a warning:

Gen. 2: 16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (emphasis mine)

God gave this command to man in order to allow him to freely choose to obey or not obey. God did not want to force his love and acceptance on man so he gave him opportunity to rebel. Sure enough, man rebelled. He disobeyed God’s command and fell into sin. Here is how the narrative goes:

Gen. 3:1-7
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? 2 The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ’ 4 ‘You will not surely die,’ the serpent said to the woman. 5 ‘For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”

This event is what we call the “Fall”. As we will see, this fall has affected every man who has been born since. The dignity that man has as image bearers of God is still present, but it is infected with sin.

Sin

Let us briefly define sin. Sin is not a popular word, but it is impossible to be a Christian disciple without believing deeply in its reality. The Bible clearly says that every human has sinned.

Rom. 3:23
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

The “all” here includes you.

Sin means, among other things, to “miss the mark.” It has the idea of overstepping boundaries. In short, sin is disobedience and rebellion against God. I don’t know if you have ever been involved in a national rebellion. I imagine most of you have not. A national rebellion is when people of a country seek to overthrow the leadership of that country. When we talk about sin, we are talking about humanity’s attempt to overthrow the command of God. It’s a divine coup d’etat, if you will. In one way or another, we don’t like God’s program so we attempt to replace him as leader. The replacement is always ourselves.

Sin is falling short of God’s perfection. God is perfect in every way. When we fail to live up to his perfections—when we disobey—we have set ourselves up as king and raised our own flag of supremacy over his. It is not as though we are trying to reach something that we are not tall enough to reach. It is that we willfully turn our backs on God’s plan. This is what happened when Adam and Eve decided that their judgment to eat the forbidden fruit was superior to that of God’s.

Imputed Sin

When Adam and Eve sinned, God could have done one of two things. He could have left man to his rebellious fate, the whole race being condemned to live a life in rebellion toward Go or he could have chosen to “fix” what was broken. If he had chosen the first option, man would be hopeless and God would still be righteous. But God chose a second way. God chose to redeem man. This redemption would need to provide forgiveness of sins and allow God to remain righteous all at once. God immediately initiated his plan to redeem the world through the sacrafice of his Son. He started to fix what man broke and replace the flag of man with his own.

When Adam sinned, the entire race of man was condemned with him. This is often referred to as “imputed sin”. ”Imputed” is an accounting term. It is appropriate since we are all born with a debt. This debt is the dept created in Eden. This is a debt that every human, including you, have inherited directly from Adam and Eve.

Notice what Paul says:

Rom. 5:18-19
“Therefore, as one sin led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

The one sin that led to condemnation (dept/imputation) for all men was the sin of Adam. You and I are born into a condemned human race.

Inherited Sin

It has often been said that our sinful nature is the primary Christian doctrine that can be empirically proved. In other words, it does not take long to recognize our tendency to rebel. Selfishness, laziness, hate, deception, sexual perversion, and anger are in our very genes. Just think about your own life for ten seconds and you will see what I mean. Why is this? The answer is found in a Christian doctrine called “inherited sin.” Just as you inherit certain traits from your parents (i.e. the color of your eyes, your height, and skin color), so you also inherit a tendency to rebel against God.

The best way to think of inherited sin is to see it as a spiritual infection. This infection, like a virus, spreads to all mankind. We are born with a sinful inclination or disposition. Just as you are born with a hunger for food, you are also born with a hunger for sin. We are born rebels. We can’t help but sin. Its in our nature. Listen to the words of the Psalmist:

Psalm 51:5
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Paul says that we are rebels “by nature”:

Eph. 2:3
“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

And Jeremiah says we are hopeless in our condition:

Jer. 13:23
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.”

Just as we cannot change our genetics, the fall has infected us in such as way that we cannot change our sinful disposition.

Think of it this way: We were using accounting terms earlier. Let’s expand a bit here. Not only are you born with a massive debt in your bank account (one so large that it could never be paid off), we are also born with a spending habit. We are in debt and we, from the moment we are born, are making that debt greater.

Conclusion

Man was created good. Everything that God creates is good. We are in God’s image. We are still in God’s image (Jam. 3:9). But this image has been tainted, infected, and marred by sin. As a Christian disciple, we must come to a firm conclusion on our dignity and depravity. Our dignity is the result of God’s creative genius. Our depravity is a result of our sin. While there are good things that people do from a human standpoint (i.e. love their children, help the poor, stay off drugs), from the standpoint of our relationship with God, we are born rebels. Outside of God’s grace and mercy, there is no one who does good.

You must have a high view of humanity with respect to God’s creation, but a low view of humanity with respect to our standing before a perfect God. Therefore, pride and the Christian disciple do not mix.

Romans 3:9-20 provide us with the most scathing understanding of where we stand. Allow me a bit of license here as I make this very personal!

“What then? Are you better than anyone else? Not at all. For we have already charged that all are all under sin; 10 as it is written, “You are not righteous, no one is; 11 You don’t understand. You don’t seek for God; 12 You have turned aside and become useless like everyone else. You do not do any good. There is not even one who does. 13 Your throat is an open grave. With your tongue you always lie. The poison of asps is under your lips. 14 Your mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. 15 Your feet are swift to shed blood. 16 Destruction and misery are in your path. 17 The path of peace you have not known. 18 There is no fear of God before your eyes.” 19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that your may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because all the good works you can try to do will not justify you in His sight. The rules were given so that you would know you cannot keep them.

Do you get it? Dignity and depravity. Enlightenment leading to closed mouths. Not evolution, but devolution. Do you see our hopeless condition? Do you recognize that without God’s grace through Jesus Christ, we are helpless, hopeless, and without purpose? The Christian disciple must realize how sinful he or she really is in order to receive God’s mercy. You don’t just kinda need God’s help. God says we are all absolutely lost without it.Similar Posts:

• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• Are We Condemned for the Sin of Another (Part 4: The Resolution)
• Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
• Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?
• The Discipleship Book: Christ

I am comforted by the fact that some of the greatest saints in the Bible did not have it all together. They all wrestled with their own flesh and selfish tendencies. So  much so, I am persuaded to say that a lack of sinfulness is not necessarily the primary mark of a Christian. Most of you would agree. However, many of you would be quick to point out certain sins that are so hideous that they cannot be committed by a Christian. These are the “really bad” sins. What are these sins? I wish I had a list. Is it murder? Deception? Homosexual practice? Adultery? Supporting cultural political moves which destabilize society (ahem…nationalize health care)? Which sins are so bad that  they have crossed that line?

Let me use Peter as an illustration. Poor Peter. Had he known that we were going to use him as our personal scape goat for all-time, he would have rethought his enthusiasm to be involved in Christ’s ministry! This illustration comes from his visit to Cornelius’ house along with his vision on the rooftop of Simon the tanner’s house. At this time, Peter received a vision that illustrated God’s desire that Peter extend the proclamation of the Gospel beyond the ethic boundaries in which Peter found comfort. He was to go to a Gentile named Cornelius and present the Gospel. Until this time Peter would not have made such a bold move as associating with a Gentile or bringing them what he conceived to be the “Jewish Gospel.” In fact, Peter invokes the common religious law in defense of his previous assumptions. As he put it, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” (Acts 10:28). The word used here for “unlawful” does not describe that which went against the Mosaic Law of God, but the cultural stipulations of the Jewish religious community. This term for ”unlawful” (athemitos) is used of wanton or callously lawless acts (NET; BDAG). In other words, it was not against the God’s Law for Peter to associate with Cornelius or any other Gentiles, but it was against the Jewish customs of the day. John Pohill describes it this way,

No specific law forbade Jews to associate with Gentiles, but the purity regulations rendered close social interaction virtually impossible. Robertson (WP 3:141) cites Juvenal’s Satire 14.104f. and Tacitus Hist. 5.5 as evidence from Gentile writers that such Jewish refusal to associate with Gentiles was in fact the practice. According to S. Wilson, this passage is the closest in Acts to actually abrogating the Jewish laws (Luke and the Law [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], 63-73). (Polhill, John B.: Acts. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1992 The New American Commentary, 26). 

Craig Keener describes the situation,

Devout Jews would not enter into idolaters homes lest they unwittingly participate in idolatry; they apparently extended this custom to not entering any Gentile’s home. It was considered unclean to eat Gentiles’ food or to drink their wine; although this purity regulation did not prohibit all social contact, it prevented dining together at banquets and made much of the Roman world feel that Jews were antisocial. (Keener, Craig S.; InterVarsity Press: The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. Ac 10:27). 

It is important to note that Peter’s presupposed prohibition was not only absent from the Mosaic Law, but it was counter to one of its main priorities of representing God to the nations. God chose the Jews to be a holy people who were to separate themselves from the evil practices of other nations. But they were also to be a kingdom of priests that brought God’s message of hope and redemption to all the world (Ex. 19:6). This ethnic prejudice that had become so common to the Jews was not part of God’s plan. In fact, it was a prideful act of racism that was sinful in the sight of God. As Kent Hughes puts it,

God was confronting Peter’s prejudice. Peter had bound all the peoples of the world, except for his own race, into one loathsome bundle. God used a vision to bring a radical change in the attitude of the leading apostle of the early church, and it is a good thing he did (Hughes, R. Kent: Acts : The Church Afire. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books, 1996 [Preaching the Word], S. 149). 

The sin of prejudice is dealt with quite frequently in the Bible as well as God’s intent to bring the message of redemption to them (Gen 6:24; Lev. 19:34, 24:22; Isa. 49:6, 66:9). There are not many sins that are as outside the Christian worldview as the sin of pride and prejudice (Prov. 6:17). God does not pronounce any special favor on anyone because of their inherent disposition or nature (Deut. 7:7-8). Yet Peter, due to cultural accommodation and pride, disrespected the clear proclamation of the Scriptures and held fast to his prejudice.

Not only this (and this is key), Peter carried this pride and arrogance for ten years of his redeemed life. The events recorded in Acts 10 occurred ten years after Pentecost. Another way to think of this is that for ten years Peter lived with the indwelling and convicting presence of the Holy Spirit, yet this major sin had yet to be confronted by God. The best comparison I can think of is if someone were to become a born again believer and live for ten years in an unashamed unconfronted life-style of fornication. This brings to light the seriousness of this blind spot.

Can you imagine what this would look like? A year after Pentecost, Peter walking down the road, intent on sharing the good news of God’s mercy, filled with God’s message of love and redemption, runs into a sticky situation. A Gentile trips and falls in front of him. Hurt from the fall, the Gentile asks for help. Peter, not wanting to pollute himself and hinder his chances at getting into the synagogue to tell of God’s mercy, passes by without making eye contact. Five years later, with much more experience and understanding of the hope he carries so boldly, Peter is presented with another difficulty that has become all too common in his life. Another Gentile, listening intently from the “court of the Gentiles” at the local synagogue where Peter is preaching, approaches Peter with great excitement and asks if he will come to his house and tell his family about what God has done. Peter turns him down, believing that it would be unlawful for him to associate that closely with those outside of the covenant community.

In addition, this was not the last battle Peter had with this prideful sin tendency. It seems the struggle went on. Not long after this account, we have another recorded in Gal. 2:11-14 where Peter has to be confronted by Paul for similar actions. So bad was Peter’s sin that Paul charged Peter with hypocrisy.

I don’t want to be too hard on Peter considering how greatly God used him, but we need to wrestle with the ramifications of this. The implications are important.

Personal: I just spoke with a man recently over the phone. I have never met this person, but he felt the need to call me. He was distraught by his own sinfulness. He wondered why God takes so long to change him. His assumption was that since he was a Christian, he should not have such a long and drawn out struggle with sin. Why is he failing so often? He has been a Christian for more than twenty years yet he continues to fall into serious sin.

I am not suggesting that all our battles with particular sins will be long and drawn out, but this passage teaches us that there can be sins that are blind spots. Peter’s blind spot was pride and prejudice. We all hope that God deals with our sins early, but don’t be too discouraged when you suddenly come to a realization that much of your Christian life has been infected by something terrible and shameful. God deals with things in his own timing and it is hard to say when He will intervene and bring to recognition that which we were foolishly blind to.

Relational: Don’t judge others too harshly. Don’t suppose that just because when you became a Christian God took care of this sin and that sin that His acts in others lives are going to mirror yours. God seemed to deal with Paul on this issue early on, but not Peter. Peter struggled with things that Paul did not and I am sure that Paul struggled with things that Peter did not. Don’t make your experience the standard to which all must conform. There may be serious sins in someone’s life for some time before God deals with it. Be patient and ready to exhort, but do not judge without wisdom.

How sinful can a Christian be? Well if you take Peter as an example, I would say that believers can have serious sin issues. I don’t know how long this can last, but in Peter’s case it went on for ten years. As hard as it is for us to realize, Peter’s example teaches us that just because someone is living a sinful lifestyle, this does not necessarily mean that they are not believers or that God is not working in their lives. Neither does it justify or alleviate the seriousness of the sin. We must keep these in balance.

In short, lets be careful. Let’s pray that God reveals our blind spots (we all have them). Let’s not get to down when we go years before discovering these blind spots. Finally, be careful how you judge other people. Don’t make them live up to your experience and standards, which, from God’s perspective, is not as great as you think.Similar Posts:

• Do People Who Commit Suicide Go to Hell?
• A Theology of More
• Why is God So Silent?
• So What's the Point?
• Why is God So Silent in My Life?

During my ordination, one of the questions that I was asked by a seminary professor was “Are all sins equal in the sight of God?” I hesitated. Not because I did not have a strong opinion on this, but because I was not sure what the answer was that he was looking for. Are all sins equal in the sight of God? My ordination may have depended on the answer.

It is very common within popular evangelicalism to answer this question in the affirmative. This was one of the main assumptions in a book that I just recommended last week. Most find this theological concept very appealing and accept it, I am afraid to say, without doing much homework.

I think this tendency to assume that all sins are equal in the sight of God comes by means of three influences.

1) A reaction by Protestants against the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sins (sins that kill justifying grace) and venial sin (sins of a lesser nature that do not kill justifying grace).

2) A tendency within our evangelistic church culture to express common ground with unbelievers—i.e., if all sins are equal in God’s sight, then your sin is not worse than any other. This way we are not coming across as judgmental or condescending.

3) Some biblical passages that have been interpreted in such a way (discussed below).

I don’t believe, however, that all sin is equal in God’s sight. I do believe that telling people that it is does serious damage to people’s understanding of the character of God and of the seriousness of certain sins. There are many reasons for this, but let me start with a reductio ad absurdum and them move to a biblical argument.

I often ask people who say that all sin is equal in the sight of God if they live according to their theology. Think about this. If all sin is really equal in the sight of God, and one really believes this, then God’s consternation and anger will be equal for whatever sin we commit. Equally important is the fact that our relational disposition before God should suffer equally from the conviction of the Holy Spirit for all sins. Most Christians understand what it means to have a conscience weighed down by unrepentant sin. But this weighing down normally only comes from those sins that we perceive to be more severe. If it is true, however, that all sin is equal in the sight of God and one actually lived according to that theology, then they should be just as troubled spiritually and just as repentant before God when they break the speed limit as when they commit adultery. After all, breaking the speed limit, even by 1 mph, is breaking the law and breaking the law is sin (Rom 13).

But nobody does this. We all see speeding down the road as water under the bridge of God. Apparently our conscience bears witness that it is not as bad as other things, even if we confess differently. Either that or the ability for our theology to actually affect the way we believe and think is non-functional in this situation.

Next (and more importantly) I think that it is biblical and necessary to say that some sins are more grievous in the sight of God than others. This also translates into the non-politically correct assumption that some people are sinners to a greater degree than others. Even though Protestants may not agree with the theology behind the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins, there are many instances in the Scriptures where degrees of sin are distinguished.

1. Christ tells Pilate that the Jewish leaders have committed a worse sin than him, saying, “He who has handed me over to you has committed the greater sin” (Jn. 19:11, emphasis mine).

2. Certain sins in the law are distinguished in a particular context as an abomination to God, implying that others are not as severe (e.g. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 7:25, Deut. 23:18, Isa. 41:24).

3. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is set apart as a more severe sin than blasphemy of the Son (Matt. 12:31)

4. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists particular sins in such a way as to single them out because of their depraved nature, separating them from others.

5. There are degrees of punishment in Hell depending on the severity of the offense (Lk. 12:47-48).

6. Christ often evaluates the sin of the Pharisees as greater than the sins of others. You strain out a gnat while you swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24). If all sins are equal, Christ’s rebuke does not make any sense. (See also Lk. 20:46-47)

7. Similarly, Christ also talked about the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). If all sins are equal, there is no law (or violation of that law) that is “weightier than others.” They are all the same weight.

8. Unforgiveness is continually referred to as a particularly heinous sin (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:23-35).

So where does this folk theology come from? Most people would refer to Christ’s comments in the Sermon on the Mount. Most particularly, reference is made to Matt. 5:27-28 as justification for this way of thinking.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery’” but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27-28 27).

Is there a difference in the eyes of God between thinking about adultery and actually doing it? Absolutely. If we say anything other than this, I believe we do damage to God’s character and encourage the act based upon its premonition. The point Christ makes in Matt. 5:28 is not that lust and the actual act are equal, but that they both violate the same commandment, even if the degrees of this violation differ. Thus, Christ was telling people – and particularly the religious establishment of the day that thought they were safe because they had fulfilled the letter of the law – that the law runs much deeper. The spirit of the law is what matters. Therefore, if you have ever lusted, you have broken the sixth commandment. If you have ever hated your brother, you have broken the fifth commandment (Matt. 5:22). But, again, the breaking of the principles of the commandment is the issue, not the degree to which it is broken.

This is the same argument that James makes in Jam. 2:10 when he says “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” He is not equating all sin, but showing how any violation of the law, no matter how small, is still breaking the whole of the law because the law is connected to such a degree.

Think about this (another reductio): if you believe that adultery and lust are equal in the sight of God, then here are the consequences: any man or woman can justify divorce based upon the fact that in Matt. 5:32 Christ condemns divorce except for marital infidelity. All they need to do is make the safe assumption that their spouse has lusted to some degree during their marriage. This will make their divorce justified and biblical. In the same way, if a man were to lust after a woman on the internet, he might as well commit the actual act since in God’s eyes he already has. Or (I am rolling), if you have ever lusted after a girl, then you are under God’s mandate to marry her since in God’s eyes you are one with her (1 Cor. 6:16).

I think that this way of thinking is not only wrong biblically, but it also has repercussions that lead to a distorted worldview and to discrediting the integrity of God and the Gospel of Christ.

It is true. All people are sinners (Rom. 3:23). All people are sinners from birth. But not all sin is equal.

I think this is a safe way to stay humble and accurately represent the biblical witness:

While not all people sin to the same degree, we all share in an equally depraved nature.

In other words, no one is less of a sinner because of an innate righteousness about which they can boast. All people have equal potential for depravity because we are all sons of Adam and share in the same depravity, even if we don’t, due to God’s grace, act out our sinfulness to the same degree.

If you disagree with this, just think—really think—about what you are saying about God. You are saying to an unbelieving world that your God is just as angry about the act of going 56 in a 55 as he is about the act of one who rapes and murders a six-year-old girl. Do you really want to go there? Do you really think this position is sufficiently supported to justify such a belief? Can you really defend it? If the Bible teaches it, fine: we go with the Bible and not with our emotions or palatability decoder. But I don’t believe that a viable case can be made for letting our theology argue for such a belief. I can’t think of many more things in Evangelical pop-theology that is more wrong, more damaging, or more misrepresentative of God’s character and the nature of sin.

I answered with the above answer during my ordination. I was relieved when I saw the approval of the ordination committee. They were all concerned that I might be one who, even with seminary training, retained this belief that most Evangelicals have. I have often wondered whether or not they would have passed me if I had answered according to the traditional Evangelical folklore, saying that all sins are equal in the sight of God.Similar Posts:

• “One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity” . . . and other stupid statments
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?
• "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
• “If there are Modern Day Prophets, then the Canon is Still Open” . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)

Fast forward ten years…

Things are much different now. I don’t have quite as much figured out. Passions are secure, but have been nuanced by the scars of my soul. Things I was so confident about before now make my spirit blush with frustration, salted with a bit of shame and bitterness. Fixing things is not as easy as it seemed back then. Complications have arisen. People are complicated. I am complicated.

Last week as I discussed spiritual growth with a discouraged Christian gal, I began to see my own plight in hers. She could not understand why she is not a “good” person. “I have been a Christian for thirty years and I feel as if I am less sanctified now than ever. I don’t understand. Maybe I am not even saved.”

As I reflected on this throughout the day, I realized that she and I are the same. Wait… Let me attempt to give you my previous definition of sanctification:

Sanctification n. The state of experiencing growth that is measured by becoming more Christ-like. Interpretation: You are getting better and better. You are not as mean as you were before. You don’t complain as much. You have a better outlook on life. You are never depressed. Your problems are dealt with in a more mature manner: you know, the way Christ dealt with them. Oh, and you also have more figured out than you did before.

Ten years after having this conception, I reflect on my own condition and find myself filled with frustration. Sure, I am not controlled by many of the sins that controlled me before, but I will have to call a strike on all the signs of sanctification listed above. New sins have arisen. Sins of personality. Grumpiness. Complaining. The inability to react to situations with a calm trust. Quick tempered. And you know what? There are some people I just don’t like and cannot be nice to. Sheesh, twenty years ago I was voted the nicest person at John Marshall High. Don’t believe me? Check the Yearbook. Finally (and you’re not going to believe this), I am progressively finding it harder and harder to not make up excuses about going to church on Sunday mornings, unless I am teaching or preaching—then I am gung-ho! 

Why aren’t I getting “better”? I don’t know. I could blame it on so many things, but blame would just be another sign of my sorry state. (Don’t unsanctified people blame a lot? Adam?).

However, this has caused me to reassess myself and my view of sanctification. What does it mean to be made “holy” (the word from which we get “sanctification”)?

New life stages present you with new ways to show off your fallen nature. Kids. Four kids. Four kids under ten. Marriage. Death. Sadness. Time allows for more disappointment in others and yourself. You simply have more baggage to deal with than before. Oh, and then there are those times when you get depressed. Wait! Christians are not supposed to be able to get depressed. Especially those who teach theology. Goodness, what use is all that I do if I am now, ten years later, starting to get depressed? I used to be able to straighten depressed people out with a wave of my magic wand of proper biblical interpretation! Guess that does not work quite as well as I thought.

Ten years later, either I am not being sanctified (which is possible) or I need to rethink sanctification.

My hopes and thoughts are here:

Sanctification n. The process of Christian development that has more to do with how dependent you have become on the Lord, not necessarily about being “good.” Sanctification has more to do with how often you are broken before him, not your stoic ability to deal with pain. Sanctification has more to do with a recognition of your weaknesses than of your strengths. Sanctification has more to do with repentance than with the things that don’t require repentance. In the end, sanctification amounts to the progressive movements you make toward the side of God because you have no where else to go.

But then there are the fruits of the spirit. Oh yeah, those. Doesn’t joy cancel out depression? Doesn’t peace defeat irritability? Doesn’t faith do away with being scared that something bad is going to happen to my kids? No perfect little red bow on this post.

I am trying to rethink sanctification because I have to.Similar Posts:

• People are the Problem
• "Let's Make Mommy Happy" or Martin Luther on Zoloft
• De-waving the Magic Wand: A Note on Sanctification, Doctrine and Worship
• When I Feel Disqualified from Ministry Due to Depression
• "Will God Protect My Kids?" – What Am I Supposed to Say

What is “Red Stuff”? You will have to listen.

What is your “red stuff”?Similar Posts:

• What is Sin? A simple definition
• Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More
• Observations that I have learned from “My Life”
• The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain
• Theology Unplugged – God Sightings 2

I don’t think I am alone.  For I have noticed an interesting phenomenon whenever he pours out his soul in a post such as this recent one, Uncle Lord. People began to open up.  You can almost hear the sighs of relief through the internet, sighs that have come from weary souls burdened with life’s pains, bottled up with angst over the possibility of exposure yet suddenly uncorked to reveal authentic expressions.  The relief echos “You too, Mike? Man I’m glad you said that because here is what I have going through…”  The relaxation soon turns to ministry, as people chime in with encouragements and prayers.  In some sense, I find myself surprised not only by Michael’s openess but more so by the unveiling of others.   And then I have to think about why I am surprised.

I believe the fall of man has much to do with our unwillingness to expose ourselves.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they immediately looked at each other and were embarrassed prompting the covering up of themselves (Genesis 3:7).  Then the unthinkable, they heard the rushing wind of an upset God coming towards them.  They ran for cover (Genesis 3:10).  They did not want to be exposed.

So what does that have to do with us?  I believe that the sin we inherited from our ancestral parents brought it the consequences of spiritual death and the reality of condemnation, an insidious principle that creates shame and guilt (Romans 5:12).  As believers in Christ, we are absolved from the penalty of sin but certainly not its presence.  Paul tells us in Romans 7:23-25, that there is an ever present principle that constantly seeks to rear its ugly head.  This keeps us in a state of hearing our short comings shout at us to shut up and keep our mouths closed.  Sin and faults and failures puts us back in the garden hiding behind the bush with our ancestral parents, even though positionally this is not the case.  Paul has to remind us of this in Romans 8:1, that therefore there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.  This may not be the exact expression of your theology but  at the very minimum I think we all can agree that there are feelings of shame experienced with episodes or impressions of personal failure.

Now as Christians, we know that Christ bore our sins once for all and that John tells us in 1 John 1:9 that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.   But I don’t believe it is enough to just know that are sins are absolved, that we constantly come short but all forgiven in Christ.   We do bad, we think wrong thoughts, we struggle with God’s actions and motives towards us, we confess that to God but yet a sense of shame lingers so that we often find ourselves in a vicious cycle of sin and confession.  We know positionally that we are forgiven but at the same time we want to hide from others, what so easily keeps us from experiencing true freedom.  Why is that?

I am convinced both from the witness of Scripture and from life’s observations, that confession within the Christian community becomes essential for true freedom and true healing to occur.  I believe that’s why the rush of relief descends upon Michael’s baring posts.   People recognize that they are not alone.  But isn’t that why James tells us in James 5:16, to confess our faults one to another so that we will be healed?  It is not might or maybe, but will be healed, restored, set back right.  The emphatic instruction is within the context of prayer, so its not just enough for us to pray but to call upon others to bear our burdens. Consider what Paul says in Galatians 6:2, to bear one another burdens and in Philippians 2:4, to look out for the interests.  Is this not because we are members, one with another that project our commitment to head, which is Christ?  We need each other.

But that entails a willingness for exposure, a willingness to express what so easily will keep us cowering in a corner fearful of judging eyes and condemning words.  I am further convinced that our enemy uses this fear to keep us silent, when we know we are not measuring up.  I find this especially true,  in light of others who may hold to beliefs that only positive expressions of Christianity should be conveyed, while reserving unfavorable thoughts towards God, ourselves or others for the discreet counsel of a few and the solitude of prayer life.  I think this position completely misses the significance of the Christian community, as the body of Christ and the need to defer, help, encourage and counsel one another.

The NT writers do not make this distinction, not even for leadership that we have to put on a front of strength to effectively lead people.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that leaders suddenly become dispensers of all their ills to whomever will listen.  There is wisdom after all.  But I don’t think it should be used as mask to portray a facade that does not exist because there is the allusion that leadership means only showing strengths and not weaknesses.  This is one attribute of Chuck Swindoll I admire so much.  He is willing to be authentic with his audience as is Michael with his posts.  And this further supports the notion that we are all clay pots anyway, dependent upon God’s power and not our own to carry out His agenda and reflect His glory(2 Corinthians 4:7). How can we disparage others from struggles.

Because where we live is not always a bed of roses.  There are highs and lows, peaks and valleys and everything in between.   We need to be allowed to express our struggles, attitudes, short-comings and failures without fear of reprisal and without repercussions of alienation.  We are already fighting alienation that I believe non-authenticity further influences.   Yes, I think when we are disingenuous with one another and only express the positive, we do not allow others room to confess their faults, which reinforces the condemnation already present.  I believe it further pushes that brother or sister into a closet of despair since they are unable to match the same level of enthusiasm and might believe that they are the spiritual losers.   So they keep silent while their spiritual walk erodes.  And I personally think that is a great tragedy and a sin against the body of Christ.

So my exhortation with this post is to keep it real because that is what authenticity is, an expression of ‘this is where I am right now’.   Are you angry, lonely, doubting, hurting, scared, indifferent, worried, or tempted?  Find yourself in a community of believers that will be willing to listen, embrace, counsel, encourage and even admonish (we do need that too!).  Confess your faults one to another.  Are you willing to allow that hurting saint to express his or her fears, concerns, issues, worries, frustrations, sadness or anger, even with God? Confess your faults one to another.  I am not suggesting that we dissolve into pity-party feasts but I am encouraging everyone to just be honest about what is going on in your life and to allow others to do the same.   Tell somebody! The internet is a great place to start but more importantly, whose shoulder do you have to cry on?  Confess your faults one to another so that you may be healed.

Now, please excuse me.  I have some people I need to talk to.Similar Posts:

• After 13 Years, I Am Becoming a Worse Husband
• People are the Problem
• “Memorize these Two Verses and Call Me in the Morning” or Dealing with Doubt – Part 2
• On Corporate Prayer, Hope and Expectation
• A Matter of Perspective

Title of Martin Luther’s Post: “Sin Boldly”

Maybe that would be the title of his blog. Maybe that would be a post. One thing is for certain—Luther was a blogger before blogging was cool.

As you know, in blogging, one must continually be informative and/or provocative, otherwise don’t expect to have many hits. Luther would have chosen the latter nine times out of ten.

The principle in being provocative is to say something that seems outrageous (or at least out of the box of your readers). After this, you have to replant the issue. It is a scary thing to do. You are always second guessing yourself. “Should I have said that?” “Will people understand?” “Will people read beyond the first paragraph?” Your hope is that people will stick around long enough to give your provocation a chance to settle itself into some informative way.

I could see the first paragraph of one of Luther’s blogs:

“Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt for the Devil, so as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings…” (Martin Luther, Werke, XX, p.58)

Or how about this for a blog title: “Sin boldly”

Would you stick around to hear the rest? Of course you would. This is why Luther was such a charismatic and effective leader.

Love him or hate him, you cannot put Luther in any box.

Luther was certianly aware of sin and grace. Sin more so in his early years, sin and grace later. The above comments made by Luther are meant to provocatively communicate something much deeper. “Sin boldly . . .” as the statement goes, but it continues, “. . . but believe more boldly.” Luther did not care for self-righteousness much. He was continually attempting to make those who were satisfied in their own works to recognize their own utter depravity. It was not so much that he wanted people to sin with a since of comfort, but to recognize their sin, not being coy with its presence in their own life. In order to communicate this, he would often encourage people in this with over-the-top statements such as the ones given here. When we sin and play personal cover-up, grace becomes invisible. Yes, it is there, but without shaking its hand each day, we cannot see grace. We have to live with such a recognition of our brokenness that we are continually kneeling the foot of the Cross.

How often do we play cover-up with our sin, acting as if it is not that bad? We become so used to it that it is not bold in our lives, or we just manipulate and deny its presence. To sin boldly is the only way for us to find grace.

What do you all think about WWLB? Do you think is over-the-top communication is effective or does it do more harm than good?Similar Posts:

• Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome
• Open Discussion: Former Sex Offender Now in the Pastorate…Does Grace Cover This?
• How Do I Fit Rewards into My Grace Centered Theology? A Theology of Rewards
• The Uninvited II: Crying and Sadness
• Grace At Kanakuk

Here is the situation: We are born with a propensity, bent, inclination to sin. Therefore, we cannot help but 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 . . . Check please. I did not vote for this. I did not ask to be this way. I did not even have a chance. This seems unjust.

(We are just assuming that the argument I made in the last three blogs on this subject compel us to believe that we are held guilty for the sin of Adam: see part 1, part 2, part 3.)

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. It is absolutely shocking!

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.

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. Just hang with me. 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; 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 mankind 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. 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. 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 “mankind.” 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 caused 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. The “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 is as if Adam was in the Garden and held up the piece of fruit to a crowd which consisted of all mankind and shouted, “Should I eat it?” and the entire crowed shouted back, “Go for it!” In this, “all sinned.” God, then, in his grace, declared all guilty. 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 with Adam and God had every right to turn His back on humanity and leave us in our state of 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.

Two side notes that I will not expand upon at this time:

1. This has major implications on the New Perspective on Paul which denies imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

2. This necessitates a traducian view of the creation of the soul.

3. This strongly supports a Calvinistic view of predestination.Similar Posts:

• Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
• Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 2)
• Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 3)
• Are we condemned for the sin of another? (Part 1)
• Will One White Lie Send You to Hell for All Eternity?

As some have wisely said, if Romans 5:12-21 were never penned, this would not be an issue. Here is the passage for reference.

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 ¶ But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 ¶ So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The way in which one interprets this passage will determine which of the options presented thus far is adopted. The context of the passage has Paul explaining the believer’s position in Christ by comparing it to our former position in Adam. The subject of the section is not the transgression, but the free gift (v. 15). Paul uses the analogy of Adam’s sin and compares it to the free gift of Christ’s righteousness.

The meaning of the phrase, “because all sinned” in verse 12 (NAS) is the initial and primary subject of debate. What is the meaning of “all sinned”? Most commentators would argue that it is very difficult to interpret the “all sinned” as an act of personal choice (contra Pelagius and Arminius). Why? Because of the force of the verb tense; it is likely a historic aorist (past tense referring back to the sin of Adam). If the Pelagian or Arminian interpretation were correct, the present tense would have been a much better choice for Paul in this context. Then it would naturally read, “Because all sin.” Then we could answer the question “Why are all people condemned?” with “Because all people sin.” But this does not seem to be the case here in Romans. The force of the verb has caused every translation that I know, except the NJB (a Catholic translation), to translate this passage “all sinned” with the implied referent to the being Adam’s sin. Therefore, we are connected with the past sin of Adam. If this is correct, what Paul is saying is that when Adam sinned, we all sinned. As Morris has it, “The aorist [tense] points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect [tense] if the Apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people.”

It should be noted that the historic aorist is used in Romans 2:23 in a similar but not identical way and is translated “all have sinned.” Notice there that the context only leaves room for the past tense referent to be the sin of the individual. This is brought up so that you can understand how the context of Romans 5:12 plays a determining role. 

Verse 12 attempts to begin the comparison of Adam with Christ but Paul then feels inclined to break off on one of his all-too-common parenthetical statements in verses 13-14 to defend his statement “because all sinned.” This is important because Paul’s understanding of what “all sinned” means is wrapped up in his defense which follows. Verse 13 begins with the conjunction “for” (gar). This links it with the previous statement, “because all sinned.” It is as if someone got the impression that Paul was stating that all people sin and, therefore, all people die as a consequence of their own sin. At this point (v. 13), Paul says that before the Law, there was sin. But people did not die on account of these personal sins, because they were not imputed as sin (“but sin is not imputed when there is no law” v. 13). Then the objection may be “How do you explain that all people still died before the law?” Paul seems to be saying that the reason people died before they commit an act of sin is because they are suffering the consequences of a sin already committed. They died not for personal sin, but for imputed sin. This sin was the sin of Adam. All people die because of the one sin of Adam.

With death being introduced through the avenue of Adam’s sin, we need to understand what death means. This death is most certainly to be seen as both spiritual and physical considering Pauline theology (Eph. 2:2ff). Therefore, the condemnation to which all suffer as a result in our participation in Adam’s sin is both spiritual and physical with the spiritual being evidenced by the physical (v. 13).

Less you think I am saying too much with regards to the subject, let us press on and see how the context will provide further evidence that Paul is speaking about imputed sin or guilt. Paul returns to his comparison to expound further. This comparison is between two things:

1. The effects of Adam’s sin
2. The effects of Christ’s righteousness

Whatever one does with Christ’s righteousness, one must do to Adam’s sin. First let us draw out the comparison so that it might be better seen.

Through Adams Sin | Through Christ’s Righteousness
Judgment (16) Free gift (16)
Condemnation (16) Justification (16)
Death Reigned (17) Life Reigned (17)
One Transgression=Condemnation of all (18) One Act of Righteousness=Justification of all (18)
Adam’s disobedience=many were made sinners (19) Christ’s obedience=many were made righteous (19)

The comparison is unmistakable. Whatever we do to inherit the free gift is the same thing we did to inherit judgment (v. 16). This is the force of the “just as” (hosper) in v. 12. Whatever we do to receive justification is the same thing we did to receive condemnation (v. 16). The effects of the “one act of righteousness” are brought about by the same means as the “condemnation of all men” (v. 18). The way in which believers are made righteous is analogous to the way all mankind was made sinners (v. 19). In order to answer the question as to how it is that “all sinned” and all were condemned in Adam, we must answer the question as to how Christ’s righteousness is applied to us to the end that we are justified by that righteousness.

If we were to adopt the view as held by Pelagius, that Adam’s sin has no effect upon us whatsoever and that only his example has given us trouble, this means that Christ’s righteousness has no effect upon us either. He simply came to set the example. But this is not what the text teaches. It states that the many were made sinners and that the many were made righteous. The effect of these two men’s acts goes far beyond that of an example.

If we were to state, as the Arminians do, that we have Adam’s sin imputed to us only when we act in the same manner as Adam did, then we must state that we have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us only when we act as Christ acted. This cannot be true seeing as how we inherit Christ’s righteousness while we are sinners (Rom 5:8, 10).

If one were to opt for a purely Augustinian interpretation of the passage in that we all actually and realistically sinned in Adam, then we would also have to concede that we all actually and realistically were righteous in Christ. This, of course, will not do for the analogy would be rendered meaningless and would contradict Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28; Eph 2:8-9).

Paul is attempting to explain our relationship to Christ’s righteousness by comparing it to the imputation of Adam’s sin to us. This relationship, in my opinion, is best seen in the federal headship view of imputation. As Moo puts it, “Throughout this whole passage what Adam did and what Christ did are steadily held over against each other. Now salvation in Christ does not mean that we merit salvation by living good lives; rather, what Christ has done is significant. Just so, death in Adam does not mean that we are being punished for our own evil deeds; it is what Adam has done that is significant.”

Adam, as our chosen federal head, has represented us and passed on sin and all of its consequences. Christ, as the second Adam, represents those who believe and passes on righteousness along with all its benefits. Christ’s righteousness is given to us without any participation of our own, just as Adam’s sin is given to us without our consent.

On the next blog we will deal with some of the implications and I will attempt to explain how this really can and does make sense. Please recognize that I understand the difficulty with this interpretation, but it does seem to handle the text with the most integrity. Remember, the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.

Similar Posts:

• 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)
• Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
• Is the New Birth in the Old Testament? or Why Was Christ So Hard On Nicodemus in John 3:10?

Proposed three types of sin:

Personal Sin: Sins committed by the individual. All people have personal sin (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10)

Inherited Sin: The physical and spiritual corruption which produces a bent and inclination toward sin and a natural enmity toward God (Eph. 2:3; John 8:44; Jer. 13:23; Ps. 51:5). This sin is mediated (inherited) directly from our parents.

Imputed Sin: God’s immediate declaration of guilt to every individual for the sin of Adam.  This sin is “imputed” (or credited) to all people as if they had committed the sin.

Here is where the traditions fall with regards to these three.

Reformed Evangelicals: We are totally corrupted physically and spiritually for Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin). Because of this, we all have personal sin. We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin). This guilt is only resolved through God’s sovereign redemptive action in our lives.

Arminians: We are corrupted (the degree of this corruption varies among Arminians) physically and spiritually for Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin). Because of this, we all have personal sin. We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin) after we sin in a like manner as Adam. This guilt is only resolved through God’s redemptive action in our lives as we respond to Him in faith.

Catholics: We are corrupted physically and spiritually for Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin). Because of this, we all have personal sin. We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin). This guilt is only resolved through baptism.

Orthodox: We are corrupted physically and spiritually for Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin). Because of this, we all have personal sin. We do not, however, have Adam’s guilt imputed to us.

Short History of Original Sin

The doctrine of Original Sin was not adequately dealt with among the early Church Fathers. This is not surprising as issues were only dealt with as problems arose. Once controversy challenged “orthodoxy,” orthodoxy had to define itself. Before the challenge and theological articulation, as with many issues, simple biblical language was used without interpretation (e.g. see Nicene Creed on the church and the Holy Spirit). 

Pelagianism

The first time substantial discussion arose was at the time of Augustine (354-430). Augustine held that man is unable to do any good because man is inherently depraved. Augustine believed that all men are born with a predisposition to sin. This is what led him to his strong promotion of the necessity of predestination. “Give what thou command,” said Augustine, “and command what thou wilt.” At this time, believing Augustine’s position to be unfair and extreme, a British monk named Pelagius (c. 354- after 418) denied that sin was passed on from Adam to the human race. As to his interpretation of Romans 5:12, Pelagius believed that, “As Adam sinned and therefore died so in a like manner all men die because they sin.” According to Pelagius, we inherit Adam’s sin neither by imputation of guilt nor by nature. The only effect that Adam had on the human race is the example he set. In the view of Pelagius, all men are born neutral in a like manner to Adam with no predisposition to evil. Pelagius was eventually condemned by two African councils in 416 and by the council of Ephesus in 431 which affirmed both inherited and imputed sin. In spite of his condemnation, the Pelagian doctrine of sin is still prominent in the Church today. It is the “default” position of sin for all people.

Arminians

Jacob Arminius believed that all men are considered guilty only when they partake in sin by their own free will in the same manner as Adam did. As Enns put it, “When people would voluntarily and purposefully choose to sin even though they had power to live righteously—then, and only then, would God impute sin to them and count them guilty.” Therefore, the sinful state is transmitted by natural generation, while the condemnation for the actual sin is only transmitted by partaking of sin in a like manner.

Augustinianism

Many theologians have proposed a theory called Augustinianism (also called “realism,” or “seminalism”). This theory has traditionally been linked with Augustine and has most recently been staunchly defended by Shedd. According to an Augustinian interpretation of Romans 5:12, “all sinned” in that all humanity was physically present in Adam when he sinned. “[Those who hold to the Augustinian view of Original Sin] insist that we can be held accountable only for what we have actually done. As Shedd puts it, “The first sin of Adam, being a common, not an individual sin, is deservedly and justly imputed to the posterity of Adam upon the same principle which all sin is deservingly and justly imputed: Namely, that it was committed by those to whom it is imputed.” This view is attractive in that it takes literally Paul’s statement that “all sinned.”

Federalism

The federal view of humanity’s relationship to Adam proposes that Adam was selected by God to be humanity’s federal representative. This view was first proposed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and is the standard belief of Reformed theology. As Achan’s family was held responsible for his sin (Joshua 7:16-26), so it is with Adam’s family. By this view, the “all sinned” of Romans 5:12 would not be taken literally. As Ryrie puts it, “No one but Adam actually committed that first sin, but since Adam represented all people, God viewed all as involved and thus condemned.” The reason that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity according to the federalist is because God imputes the guilt of Adam, whom He chose to represent mankind, to mankind.

Next we will look at Romans 5, then we will deal with the problems.Similar Posts:

• Are we Condemned for the Sin of Another? (Part 3)
• Are we condemned for the sin of another? (Part 1)
• Are We Condemned for the Sin of Another (Part 4: The Resolution)
• Thank You God for Imputing Adam’s Sin to Me
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)