WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GARDEN?
Gen 2:15-17 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:1-13 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Next to the gospel of Matthew, these first few chapters of Genesis are likely among the most-read verses in the Bible of all time. Everyone knows the creation account and what happened in the Garden of Eden. Where disagreements begin heating up is over what this event in the garden means for humanity. What exactly are the consequences?
THE SIN OF ADAM AND ITS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HUMANITY
1. Human mortality
2. Humanity having an inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt
3. A fallen world with pain, suffering, and corruption
4. All humans from conception being held personally guilty in God's sight for Adam's sin
These four points summarize the most prominent biblical themes of the fall and its consequences. If one desired, more consequences that wouldn't be particularly contentious could be added to this. For the purposes of this article and issues surrounding the fall, these four points encapsulate things quite well. Generally speaking, all Christians affirm points 1-3. These aren't points of contention between the viewpoints. Consequences 1-3 outline our perspective. The area of contention is potential consequence 4. This potential consequence is the one we disagree with. Consequence 4 is an additional consequence on top of 1-3 that is affirmed by certain denominations and theological traditions. We won't be spending too much time defending points 1-3 as they are generally affirmed by all Christians. Instead, will be focused on articulating why we don't affirm point 4. It must be additionally said that various groups that affirm consequence 4 might articulate in different ways how being guilty of Adam's sin practically plays out. Addressing these various articulations will not be a focus of this article as they all presuppose and build off of the affirmation that consequence 4 is true.
.png)
“Stated summarily, the Western (or Augustinian) doctrines of the fall and original sin affirm (1) that Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s primordial commandment against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16 – 17; 3:6) caused a fundamental deformation in humanity’s relationship to God, each other, and the rest of creation; and (2) that this “fall”includes among its consequences that all human beings thereafter are born into a state of estrangement from God –an “original” sin that condemns all individuals prior to and apart from their committing any “actual ”sins in time and space.” - McFarland, In Adam’s Fall, p. 29-30
McFarland succinctly summarizes the original sin perspective and its primary distinction in which all humans are born condemned before sinning themselves due to possessing Adam's "original sin" and are thus guilty in God's sight from conception. It's this distinction that we are primarily contending against. We affirm that there is corruption as a result of Adam's sin. We just deny that the transmission of guilt that condemns all humans from conception is a part of that corruption.
Simply put, ancestral sin denies that infants are guilty of Adam's sin and under condemnation from God at conception. Yet it affirms that humans are mortal and have sinful proclivities/inclinations. However, actual guilt is acquired by personal sins. Therefore, infants are innocent and not guilty. It must be noted that there are various sub-perspectives within the ancestral sin camp. The most straightforward perspective would be that the transmission of Adam's guilt isn't something that exists or is real. However, some would say that Adam's guilt is imputed, but this imputation is delayed until someone personally sins at a later time after conception. Others might say that Adam's guilt has been unconditionally and unilaterally forgiven through the cross; therefore, nobody receives it at conception. There are possibly other perspectives, but those mentioned here should be properly classified under ancestral sin because they deny the key consequence of an inherited guilt from conception which makes humans guilty from the womb as McFarland notes.
On the other hand, original sin affirms that infants are guilty of Adam's sin, which means they are under condemnation and wrath from conception. Infants aren't innocent. In light of this, personal sins do not technically change our legal status in God's sight. The legal status is already that of guilt and condemnation. As a result, original sin has historically affirmed that the default fate of deceased infants is damnation. However, modern affirmers of original sin have various perspectives on this. Some of which are more consistent and coherent than others.
WHY IS OUR DOCTRINE CALLED ANCESTRAL SIN?
“Predating Augustine by centuries, the ancient Tradition of the Church does not call our forefather Adam’s sin “original” in any manner. Rather, it calls it the “ancestral sin,” literally the “forefatherly sin,” from propatorikon amartema, which is also the Greek title of this book. The word amartema that the Fathers used for Adam’s sin denotes an individual transgression, a concrete act of iniquity.” - Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, p. 7
“While the notion of “original sin” seems to carry with it a sense of personal guilt and also the loss by humans of their original humanity so that humans really cannot choose the good, the sense of “ancestral sin” tends to focus on the fact that all humans share a common nature which has been tainted by sin. We have not lost our original goodness – namely, the image of God in us – but sin has impacted our ability to see and choose the good.” - Fraternized, What then is (Ancestral) Sin?
“Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins.” - Saint John Church, Ancestral Sin: The Fall And Its Consequences
WHAT OTHER DOCTRINES AND ISSUES ARE CONNECTED TO THIS TOPIC?
1. Our beliefs concerning baptism. If it's true that newborn children are held guilty before God for Adam's sin and are therefore in danger of damnation if they were to die; and if it's true that water baptism washes away sins, then it follows that newborn children should be baptized. This was the historically held perspective from original sin. But if newborn children aren't held guilty before God for Adam's sin, regardless of if water baptism washes away sins or not, the justification for baptizing the child becomes weaker although not completely nullified. There are other reasons that some denominations give for infant baptism. Although in my opinion it would weaken the perspective as a whole.
2. Our beliefs concerning Reformed theology. Particularly, if the soteriological system of TULIP is true. Oftentimes, the doctrine of total depravity/total inability for all of humanity is attached onto and extrapoloted from the concept of mankind being guilty of Adam's sin. Therefore, if receiving Adam's guilt is not one of the consequences of Adam's sin, it seems to follow that the whole framework becomes less plausible because much of the system is built upon the anthropolgical view that total depravity/total inability is true. Although, one could certaintly deny inherited guilt yet affirm total inability.
3. Our view concerning the fate of infants and young children who die. If it's true that all of humanity is guilty of Adam's sin before God from conception, then it would seem to logically follow that infants and young children who die prior to being saved from the guilt of that sin (whether through faith, baptism, or whatever your particular view entails) would be in danger of going to hell. This was in fact the historically held perspective from the original sin view of the fall. Infants who died before baptism were considered to be damned. One can find this articulated in the writings of Augustine, Fulgentius, Gregory the Great, and others. You can read more about this in our article here. But if humans from conception aren't held guilty before God from Adam's sin, it doesn't follow logically that infants and newborns who die are damned. This aspect of the issue we are discussing has major pastoral implications. According to Unicef, over 2 million children die every year within their first month of life. What should Christians and pastors tell the parents of these children? Where is the hope and comfort? It would seem there is little if any hope or comfort if these millions of little children and babies who die in the womb are in danger of damnation. This point has undoubtedly wreaked havoc on the spiritual lives of millions of parents.
4. Our beliefs concerning one of the Marian dogmas. In Roman Catholicism, one of the dogmas surrounding Mary is the immaculate conception. It asserts that Mary from conception was exempt from being touched by original sin by God's grace and didn't inherit the fault and guilt of Adam's sin. See more information about this here. This dogma in part protects the incarnation of Jesus and prevents Jesus Christ from being guilty of Adam's sin from conception as well. However, in doing so the dogma also elevates Mary above and beyond what Scripture tells us. The dogma is built on the presupposition that original sin (particularly inherited guilt) is true. If inherited guilt isn't true the dogma loses some of its selling points. It loses quite a bit of its power and theological force. Additionally, another dogma called the assumption of Mary is connected to the immaculate conception. This means that half of Rome's Marian dogmas are connected to this issue of original sin.
5. Our understanding of marriage and procreation. The idea that all humans from conception are spiritually condemned and a guilty sinner in God's sight plays into and supports religious asceticism & celibacy because procreation could be then viewed by some as something that creates evil and therefore it would be best to avoid.
6. Our perspective on the pro-life versus pro-choice debate. It would vindicate the pro-life position if it were true that from conception all humans aren't guilty in God's sight.
As you can see, this issue touches on a lot of different doctrines and acts as the foundation for many theological views and systems. We have labored to frame this issue and the doctrines in play to the best of our ability. In our next article in this series, we will begin diving into what the scriptures have to say on this issue.
WHAT DO GUILT AND GUILTY MEAN?
Webster 1828: "1. Criminality; that state of a moral agent which results from his actual commission of a crime or offense, knowing it to be a crime, or violation of law. To constitute guilt there must be a moral agent enjoying freedom of will, and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and a wilful or intentional violation of a known law, or rule of duty. The guilt of a person exists, as soon as the crime is committed; but to evince it to others, it must be proved by confession, or conviction in due course of law. guilt renders a person a debtor to the law, as it binds him to pay a penalty in money or suffering. guilt therefore implies both criminality and liableness to punishment. guilt may proceed either from a positive act or breach of law, or from voluntary neglect of known duty."Cambridge: "the fact of having done something wrong or committed a crime:"
Collins: "1. Guilt is an unhappy feeling that you have because you have done something wrong or think that you have done something wrong."
"2. the fact or state of having done something wrong or committed a crime:"
Longman: "1. a strong feeling of shame and sadness because you know that you have done something wrong""2. the fact that you have broken an official law or moral rule"
Oxford: "1. the unhappy feelings caused by knowing or thinking that you have done something wrong"
"2. the fact that somebody has done something illegal"
Definitions for guilty:
Merriam Webster: "1. justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime"
Dictionary.com: "1. having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable:"
Cornell: "Guilty generally means committing a crime or being responsible for it. In a criminal case, guilty means the admission by a defendant that they have committed the crime they were charged with, or the finding by a judge or a jury that the defendant has committed the crime."
The Free Dictionary: "1.a. Responsible for a reprehensible act; culpable."
Britannica: "1. responsible for committing a crime or doing something bad or wrong"
Oxford Learner's: "2. having done something illegal; being responsible for something bad that has happened"
Dictionaries define guilt as the fact of having done something wrong and/or how you feel because of having done something wrong. They define guilty as being chargeable, responsible, and culpable for a crime or wrongdoing.
Our view concerning sin and guilt is as follows: Sin is when someone fails, misses the mark, engages in iniquity, and trespasses; it's when we fail to love and honor God and other humans as we should. This is summarized in the Ten Commandments. As Webster's definition notes, to violate a law or commit a crime and therefore have guilt requires free will, awareness of right and wrong, and the legitimate trespassing of a law or command. We argue that humans who have been recently conceived don't meet these criteria to qualify for having guilt much less have the guilt of someone else. All of these dictionary definitions entail that the person who breaks the rule/law is the one who has guilt for said transgression upon them. People aren't guilty of the transgressions someone else committed. The dictionaries also give a definition of guilt regarding the feelings and emotions you experience because you have broken a law or rule. I don't know about you, but I don't feel personal guilt over sins others commit. This is especially true regarding the wrongs other people committed thousands of years ago. Yet, if all of humanity does have the guilt of Adam's trespass in the garden upon them, should we not all feel the guilt described above? The definitions of guilt above don't make room for secondhand guilt. The one who commits the crime possesses guilt. The one who doesn't...doesn't. This aligns with our view regarding the fall that we call ancestral sin. The guilt of the sin that occurred in the garden is only upon those who transgressed. Those who lived thousands of years and countless generations after this simply don't have guilt for said transgression. Additionally, being guilty of sin from conception would mean we're all chargeable, responsible, and culpable from the womb rather than at a later time. This is the point of contention regarding the potential consequence four of the fall we outlined earlier.
GENESIS 3-4 AS OUR THEOLOGICAL BASELINE
Gen 3:16-24 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
To summarize the passage, we see two main consequences here. The first is human mortality. The second is a fallen world with pain, suffering, and corruption. We don't see any indication that the guilt of Adam & Eve's trespass is perpetually passed on to all humans from conception. What we see are basic outlines that all perspectives affirm. Let's read further.
Gen 4:1-2 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
In the next chapter, we see Adam and Eve's offspring. There is no indication or lament that they inherited the guilt of their parents' sin.
Gen 4:5-10 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Regarding sin, God tells Cain that it lieth at the door. Cain had an ever-present inclination and proclivity toward sin. Sin was at the door of his life and seeking a way to enter in and rule over Cain. This touches on more of the potential consequences we listed in the beginning; humanity having an inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Heb 2:14-15 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
"THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL"
AS THE ROOT OF OUR INCLINATION TO SIN
Due to common confusion, we find it necessary to elaborate further on the consequence of humanity's inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt. This point is not a contention we have with the original sin perspective. However, advocates of the original sin perspective frequently misunderstand this point. This misunderstanding usually plays out in two potential ways. The first is failing to separate or distinguish the inclination to sin personally from being guilty of Adam's sin as two distinct things. Some falsely see merely having an inclination or proclivity to sin as a consequence of the fall as equating to being guilty of Adam's own sin. The second is in arguing that we have an inclination to sin personally because we are already guilty of Adam's sin. Put another way, possessing Adam's guilt is the vehicle that transmits the inclination to sin.
In this section, we will demonstrate more precisely from the fall narrative in Genesis of what the "vehicle" is that transmits or brings about the inclination to sin and how this doesn't convey or necessitate the possession of Adam's guilt. We will lay this out in several points.
1. The original sin of Adam was in disobeying God's command.
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
3. God possesses this knowledge and is without sin and guilt. Therefore, mere possession of this knowledge does not make one guilty.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 4:5-10 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
5. It follows that knowledge of good and evil is passed on in some way because immortality from the Tree of life is commonly thought to be transmittable or inheritable as well.
Gen 3:22-24 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
WHAT DO THE LAW & THE PROPHETS SAY CONCERNING GUILT?
We see the same principles in Scripture. The person who commits the sin is the person who has the guilt upon them for said sin. There isn't inter-generational guilt. Everyone is put to death for their own sins. Amaziah follows this and only kills those who murdered his father. He doesn't kill their children. He understood that the guilt of personal sins is not passed down. This is reinforced in Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity. Despite being in captivity due to the actions of their ancestors and thus suffering the consequences thereof, each person bears their own iniquity and not the iniquity of another. God says he judges everyone according to their own ways. If you eat sour grapes, your teeth are set on edge, not the teeth of other people. This illustration shows that guilt is only upon the person who sins.Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.2Ch 25:1-4 Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart. Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father. But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.
2Ki 14:1-6 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah. He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places. And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Eze 18:2-4 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:29-30 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
This passage helps segue us into our next point. In the context of the children of Israel entering the promised land, God treats the younger and older generations differently. God doesn't hold the younger Israelites guilty of provoking God and not hearkening to his voice. God doesn't allow the older Israelites into the promised land. He says they will die in the wilderness. However, the little children of those who had trespassed would be allowed into the land. This displays a distinction between guilt and consequences for us. The future children of the older generation who would wander the wilderness weren't guilty of the sins of their parents. However, they would suffer the consequences of the choices and sins their parents made. Namely, to be born in the wilderness and to wander therein for forty years.Num 14:26-33 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me. Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF RIGHT AND WRONG IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Psa 18:23-24 I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.
There is a real personal responsibility for each person's doing before God. God interacts uniquely with each person according to their own ways. If you are obedient to God, He deals with you in a certain way. If you are disobedient to God, He deals with you in a different way. The ways and fruit of other people aren't included in these verses concerning how God deals with each person individually.Psa 28:4 Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.
Psa 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
Isa 3:10-11 Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
Jer 32:19 Great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings:
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GUILT AND CONSEQUENCES
WHOSE SINS ARE PEOPLE JUDGED AND HELD GUILTY FOR AT THE FINAL JUDGEMENT? WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR EACH PERSON'S REWARD?
Joh 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Rom 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 14:11-12 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
In God's word, there is no indication that we will be judged and held accountable before God in the end for any sins other than what we commit in our own bodies. In the end, humans receive the things they have done. Judgment is rendered according to each person's deeds. Humans give an account of themselves and their own words. People are judged according to their own works. We see repeated mention of personal responsibility before God in the eschaton for what each person personally does in their own body with their own God-given faculties. There isn't a theme of God rendering individual judgment and guilt to individuals for things those individuals didn't do. A concept of inherited guilt from Adam's sin thousands of years ago is not present in the minds of Jesus or the disciples regarding God's judgment in the end. This fact is a highly telling sign that the doctrine of inherited guilt is simply untrue. The flip side to this is also true, everyone's reward is based on what they personally do.
1Co 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
In fact, Paul says clearly that it's our personal sins that prevent us from entering the kingdom of God. Nobody is kept out of the kingdom due to the sins of another. We are responsible and give an account of ourselves. We ultimately bear our own burden. If we go to hell, it's not because of what Adam or anyone else did. Rather, it's because of our own sins and lack of belief in Christ to save us from our sins.
HOW DOES SIN COME ABOUT?
Rom 7:7-13 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
These two passages give us insight into how sin and our spiritual condemnation/death come about. In James, sin comes about through lust and we are enticed. Due to our inclination, propensity, and bent toward sinfulness as a consequence of the fall, we will inevitably yield ourselves to sin and, by extension, death. In Romans, we know sin through the law and God's commands. Paul conveys that humans are not dead in a spiritual or moral sense before having this knowledge. Before this point, there is no condemnation of the soul. However, once the commandment comes and we know right from wrong, we are deceived by sin and slain by it due to giving into our sinful inclinations.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Sin being dead without the law conveys that Adam’s sin is not perpetually inherited by all humans from conception thus making us all guilty. If it were inherited, you would not need the law to make sin alive because it would already be alive, actively transmitted/imputing, and condemning all mankind through this inherited guilt.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Notice in Genesis that we see a similar sequence to what Paul says. Knowledge of good and evil is attained first and death follows. We obviously know Adam and Eve didn't physically die when they disobeyed God. We argue that this is the same type of death that Paul talks about in Romans 7. This is a spiritual condemnation and death that happens once a human's faculties have developed, understand the knowledge of good and evil that Adam passed on, and are then deceived by sin. Observe that in these passages the process of personal sin coming about isn't hereditary. Rather it's by every person's own knowledge of right and wrong and being deceived, enticed, and tempted by sin. Paul conveys that we all become dead. It's not our natural state. Instead, it becomes our state when we are exposed to the knowledge of sin and inevitably fall into it due to our sinful inclination.
DOES EVERYONE HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL FROM CONCEPTION?
P1. Before one has a cognitive awareness of the knowledge of sin, one hasn't personally sinned yet and isn't spiritually dead/condemned.
P2. Scripture speaks of young children who haven't developed this awareness yet.
C. Therefore, it follows that not everyone is spiritually dead/condemned from conception and thus not guilty of sin until this knowledge has been fully realized and yielded to.
Deu 1:39-40 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
Gen 25:21-23 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:11-12 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Isa 7:15-16 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
In Deuteronomy 1 we see Israel's refusal to enter the good land. We see two things here. First, we see that the little ones, the little children, had no knowledge between good and evil. Second, we see God deal differently with the little children compared to how He deals with the older generation. God gives the land to the little ones who had no knowledge of good and evil and didn't participate in the refusal. But God doesn't give the land to the older generation. In this passage, God doesn't assign the guilt of the older generation to the younger here. He treats them separately and deals with them separately. In Genesis, we see the story of Jacob and Esau's birth. This story is cited in Romans. In Romans 9, we are told that the children in the womb hadn't done any good or evil. In the womb, the children weren't guilty of any sin. We would argue that since the babies hadn't done good or evil, it would seem in alignment with what Paul previously said in Romans 7 to conclude that they also didn't have the cognitive awareness of knowledge of good or evil yet. This happens for all humans but is realized when our faculties have developed. Therefore it would seem that these babies aren't "dead" yet in the sense that Paul was referring to in Romans 7. Lastly, we see it displayed in Isaiah that there is a point in time when children learn and know good from evil. This isn't knowledge that everyone has cognitive awareness of from conception. This knowledge is realized at a later time. Before this, nobody is condemned and dead before God.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
There is another aspect of this concept where we see not doing good is counted as a sin when the one not doing good knows to do good and refrains from doing so. Therefore, if it's true that infants newly conceived don't have this knowledge yet, failing to do good cannot be charged to them as a sin. It's when someone has the knowledge to do good, could do good, and doesn't do it that it is a sin.
HAVE WE ALL SINNED IN ADAM?
1. Our flesh ultimately comes from Adam
2. Our flesh has sinful inclinations
3. All humans inevitably give in to those sinful inclinations and sin in our flesh which came from Adam
However, there is a view among some advocates of inherited guilt who believe all of humanity were seminally present in Adam's loins when he sinned. It is reasoned from this that we sinned in Adam and participated in the transgression. As a result, we share in the guilt. This view is one of the multiple ways one could conclude that all of humanity is personally guilty of Adam's sin. But this isn't very convincing. For one, this view leans on Traducianism being true. It would need to be demonstrated that the origin of human souls comes from the parents rather than God. Secondly, it would need to be demonstrated that we as individuals were actually present in Adam in Genesis when he sinned.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Paul is clear in Romans that it would be false to say that all humans sinned in the manner that Adam sinned. This indicates that the above reasoning for inherited guilt is faulty. It's not correct to say that all humans sinned in Adam in the sense that we all participated and were present in his transgression.
FURTHER INSIGHT INTO THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF INFANTS
Jer 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.
Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The Bible tells us that people do evil and have evil hearts from their youth. We're told that people sin against the Lord from their youth. What's the relevance of this? Well, youth does not mean a baby in the womb or a newborn. In Hebrew, there are words to describe a newborn or infant. Those words aren't used in these passages. We're told that David was in his youth when he fought Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. The word youth means adolescent. This indicates that infants aren't sinning against God yet and don't have evil hearts. We also see an indication that nobody is of the devil from conception. Rather, you have to first be committing sin to be of the devil. For newly conceived infants to be of the devil, it would need to be demonstrated that they're already sinning. Considering what we've gone over and will continue to cover, that would be a tough case to make.
DOES SCRIPTURE SPEAK OF WHERE INFANTS GO UPON DEATH?
2Sa 12:15-23 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
This passage details the death of King David's infant child. Once the child passed away, he ceased fasting and weeping. Instead, he rose, ate, and worshipped the Lord. David then says that he will go to where his child is. David's actions show us that there is hope for little children who pass away. I don't think anyone would assert that David is envisioning Hellfire as where he will go to be with his deceased child. This seems to clearly be somewhere good. It's a positive place.
Mat 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Jer 31:15-17 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
In Matthew 2, Herod seeks to kill all the children in Bethlehem aged two and under. The gospel then connects this with Jeremiah 31. In Jeremiah 31, we see lamenting and weeping over children who had perished. The Lord says to refrain from weeping and crying over the loss. Why? Because there's hope for the children in the end. Seeing that Matthew drew a connection between this passage and the death of children aged two and under, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this hope applies to the children who were slain by Herod. This gives us a general age range for innocence before God. There is hope in the end for children aged two and under. God doesn't view them as guilty, doomed, and damned in his sight.
Job 3:11-19 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves; Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.
Here we see Job lamenting his birth after he loses his property, children, and health. Job then goes on to articulate where infants go if they die in the womb. It's distinctively positive. There's no wicked, no troubles, there's rest, there's freedom, and more. Again, we see a positive framing of where deceased infants go. These passages coincide well with our understanding of Ancestral Sin and the consequences of Adam's sin in the garden. From conception, little children aren't guilty of sin before God. Therefore, if they die they aren't in danger of hell and damnation.
WHERE DO OUR SINFUL INCLINATIONS COME FROM?
Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN?
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mar 10:13-15 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Luk 18:16-17 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Jesus speaks of little children positively here in a soteriological setting. They are a model of what a sinner must become and be like to enter into heaven. Why would Jesus do this if it were true that all humans are guilty before the Lord from conception? If this were the case, the lesson, and application for us make little sense. The following is a point-by-point breakdown of what we believe Jesus is teaching here:
1. You people are sinners.
2. Your sins prevent you from entering heaven.
3. You must therefore be innocent of sin to enter heaven.
4. Little children are innocent and without guilt.
5. Therefore, to enter heaven you must return to the state of innocence from which you once were and become like little children again.
6. This return to innocence is done by receiving the Messiah as a child in total dependence upon him in faith to provide for your spiritual needs and your salvation.
This beautifully illustrates the Christocentric nature of the gospel and how guilty sinners are made innocent in God's sight through the Son in simple childlike faith. It cannot be understated how important it is that Jesus used little children as a standard and example of innocence and guiltlessness. This cannot be done if all humans are held guilty in God's sight for Adam's sin. Notice also that Jesus conveys that little children are in God's kingdom when he says "of such is the kingdom of God." This also vindicates our view and adds to the case we built earlier regarding where infants go upon death. Jesus clearly tells us in these passages that little children are in the kingdom of God. They aren't in hell and they aren't in some middle-ground "limbo." Infants aren't guilty of sin yet. Infants remain innocent. If they die, it's God's provision, mercy, and grace that brings their souls into His kingdom.
WHO SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE LIKE REGARDING MALICE?
1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says something that is missed by most people. He deploys a simile that shows the condition of adults and children. I think everyone can agree that little children don't have a well-developed understanding. Therefore, they aren't a standard or example of how we should strive to be regarding understanding. We should strive to be men in understanding. Regarding malice, Paul says we should be children. Children are an example of how we should be regarding malice. We know that malice means to have an enmity in the heart and/or a desire to harm others. Paul urges Christians to not have malice and to stay away from it in 1Co 5:8, Eph 4:31, Col 3:8, and Titus 3:3. Peter also urges his audience to put malice aside in 1Pe 2:1. This informs us that in Paul's mind, little children don't have malice. They don't have a heart full of enmity and they don't have the desire to harm others. Having a heart full of enmity and a desire to harm others is something that develops as humans mature, attain knowledge of good and evil, and give in to our sinful inclinations. All of this vindicates our view that infants aren't guilty of sin and their soul goes to be with the Lord if they were to die.
WHO AND WHAT DOES GOD SET HIS WRATH ON?
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6-8 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Rev 14:9-10 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Psa 78:30-32 They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths, The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Psa 106:37-40 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.
Scripture repeatedly paints a picture for us that God's wrath is against our sinful actions, not our sinful inclinations. We affirm that all humans from conception inherit an inclination and bent toward sin and unrighteousness. However, humans don't yield themselves to sin until they have developed in body, mind, and knowledge of good and evil. At that point, the soul of humans become dead and condemned as Paul says in Romans 7. Therefore, infants aren't under God's wrath. It must be pointed out that when scripture says "children of disobedience", this is not referring to the disobedience and sin of infants. Rather, children in this sense are best defined by definition four that Merriam-Webster puts forth. It's someone who is strongly influenced by another, a place, or a state of affairs. The context of Col 3:6-8 helps us identify this as the best understanding. The audience had "walked" and "lived" as children of disobedience but it has since been "put off." The audience was strongly under the influence of disobedience.
IS SPIRITUAL DEADNESS CAUSED BY OUR OWN SINS OR ADAM'S?
Rom 3:19-20 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 7:5-6 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Eph 2:1-2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 4:17-18 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
We've touched on Romans 7:7-13 previously. Here we are pairing it and prior verses with other verses to flesh out a particular theme. This theme is particularly prominent in the Pauline corpus. There seems to be a non-physical death that is experienced by humans. In these contexts, Paul doesn't reference this being due to inherited guilt of Adam's sin. Rather, it seems that personal sins are in view. Notice how this deadness is connected to "your" (personal possession) and "sins" (plural) rather than the singular original sin of Adam who is someone other than you.
Additionally, in light of Romans 3:19-20, if the whole world is guilty before God by virtue of being imputed with Adam’s guilt, why would Paul say that through the law the whole world may become guilty before God? It would seem that the whole world isn’t inherently guilty before God due to Adam's sin; but through the law and the deeds thereof, we fall short ourselves and all sin ourselves. As a result, the whole world becomes justly guilty before God. This statement from Paul is contrary to the notion that all mankind became guilty when Adam sinned. This fact also points to the idea that spiritual deadness is caused by our own sins.
We've established the following from scripture: Humans aren't guilty of Adam's sin from conception. Humans aren't judged for the sins of other people at the final judgment. It's our personal sins that prevent us from going to heaven. Newly conceived infants and little children haven't sinned yet. They aren't of the devil and aren't spiritually dead/condemned yet. Spiritual deadness is connected to personal sins. The souls of little infants who die go to be with the Lord. God's wrath isn't upon the little infants. This introduces an objection/question.
IF ALL OF THIS IS TRUE THEN ARE YOU SAYING BABIES DON'T NEED GOD FOR SALVATION? ARE YOU SAYING INFANTS ARE PERFECT AND HOLY?
These are two questions we often get in response to our view. Remember, our position affirms three primary consequences for all of humanity as a result of the fall as we outlined earlier. We are mortal. We have an inclination and predisposition to personal sin which inevitably leads to personal guilt. We are born into a fallen world with pain, suffering, and corruption. All of this is reversed and restored in Christ. However, not all of this is restored during this life we live. Some of it is fully restored when we enter heaven after death while other consequences aren't restored until the end of the eschaton.
Even little children suffer from these consequences albeit not necessarily to the same extent and duration as others who live full lives in this fallen world. Infants do need Jesus. Infants going to heaven upon death is wholly an act of God's grace and provision. After all, the kingdom is His. He has the power to deny or admit anyone's entrance into His kingdom. God is brilliant and wise. He is fully aware that if the infant would have continued living, they would have inevitably rebelled and sinned against Him. Despite this and the infant having done nothing good, upon their death it is our view that God graciously grants them entrance into His kingdom, fellowship with Him, immortality, and participation in the eternal state with a glorified body that is free from corruption and sinful inclinations. Obviously, nobody can give themselves immortality and a glorified body. All people including infants depend on God to perform that work and give that gift. God's choice to save and include deceased infants in His redemptive plan is a feature of His grace rather than a bug. In our view, all of this magnifies God's mercy and grace.
Regarding infants being perfect and holy, we clearly don't affirm this either. Merriam-Webster defines holy as being "divine" and "being exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness." We obviously don't believe infants are divine beings. They aren't perfect in righteousness. What we said above covers this in part. We just simply believe that newly conceived babies haven't done good or evil yet. They've done nothing meritorious but they also haven't done anything yet to warrant guilt and condemnation of their souls. So they're without guilt, but being holy and perfect entails much more than just being without guilt. God is the only one who is divine and worthy of complete devotion. He is perfect in goodness and righteousness. Infants are entirely dependent on the holy and perfect God to redeem them from the consequences they experience from the fall.
EXAMINING THE THEOLOGY OF JOB'S FRIENDS
Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.
Job 15:14-16 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.
Job 25:4-6 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
In a later article, we will more thoroughly examine all the texts in Job. But for the sake of argument here, we're happy to concede these prooftexts to our interlocutors as evidence of inherited guilt and total depravity as a result of the fall. So does this mean now that ancestral sin is an error? Well, not so fast. We need to recognize that simply because something is in the Bible, that doesn't mean it's coming from the mouth of God, a prophet, a disciple, or is being advocated for and condoned. This is precisely the case when it comes to these verses in Job. Context is important. In 5:7, Eliphaz is the person speaking. He began speaking in 4:1. Job doesn't speak again until 6:1. In 15:14-16 and 15:35, Eliphaz is again the person speaking. He began speaking in 15:1. Job doesn't speak again until 16:1. In 25:4-6, Bildad is the person speaking. He began speaking in 25:1. Job doesn't speak again until 26:1. Ok, so Job's friends are the ones speaking in these verses, but why's that a problem?
GOD'S RESPONSE AND THOUGHTS ABOUT JOB'S FRIENDS
Job 42:7-8 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.
The problem with siding with Job's friends and claiming their words as theological truth is that God says concerning Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar that He has wrath against them because they have spoken in error and weren't in the right. God tells them to give a burnt offering for themselves. God was not accepting of what they had to say in their dialogue. This is problematic for our interlocutors as it conveys to us that Job's friends aren't a good source of theological truth. Yet, they claim the words of Job's friends to bolster inherited guilt and total depravity as a consequence of the fall. At this point, our interlocutors have seemingly two options:
1. Continue to assert that these prooftexts do actually promote inherited guilt and total depravity. The ramifications of this would be that it would seem that God actually disapproves of inherited guilt and total depravity because He rebukes and is opposed to the ones who promoted these doctrines in the text for speaking in error and not speaking correctly. It would seem that Job's friends aren't a trustworthy source for our theology.
2. Abandon these texts as proof of inherited guilt and total depravity. The ramifications of this would be that of course the doctrines of inherited guilt and total depravity lose a chunk of textual support.
Regardless of which option our interlocutor goes with, our position is vindicated. Albeit, there is more vindication if option one is pursued.
HOW MANY GENERATIONS DOES INIQUITY PASS DOWN?
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
It's clear to see why proponents of inherited guilt would draw upon these verses. There is mention of iniquity visiting future generations. In a later article, we will examine each of these verses in-depth. Remember that the inherited guilt position argues that one of the consequences of Adam's sin is that the guilt of his iniquity would be imputed/inherited by all future humans. However, if these verses discuss inherited guilt then we have a massive problem. The problem is that these verses put a limit on how far down the iniquity visits. All of the verses convey that it stops at the fourth generation. If this is the true nature of the matter and how iniquity operates, what we end up with is the iniquity of Adam only visiting his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. This would mean that no human for thousands of years now has been held guilty before God for Adam's iniquity. If there's a limit to how far the iniquity of fathers passes, it inherently contradicts the notion of Adam's guilt passing to all of his future children in the flesh. Therefore, it seems to us like these verses are actually disconfirmation of inherited guilt from Adam's sin.
SOUR GRAPES AND SOUR ISRAELITES
We're going to revisit some passages that we've looked at previously. However, this time we're looking at it from a different perspective. In Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31, we see an extra-biblical proverb used by Israelites that ties into inherited/imputed guilt. It's important to take notice of what the Israelites said and how it was received by God and the prophets.
Eze 18:1-4 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:19-20 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
Eze 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
In this chapter, who are the ones using this proverb about the children bearing the iniquity of the father? It's the Israelites. Who's the one saying to not use this proverb? It's God. Who are the ones quoted as asking why doesn't the son bear the iniquity of the father? It's the Israelites. Who's the one who rebukes them and says the son doesn't bear the iniquity of the father? It's God. Who are the ones quoted as criticizing God's ways twice? It's the Israelites. Who's the one who responds by saying it's actually the Israelites' ways that aren't balanced and equal? It's God. It appears that our interlocutors have their views being advocated for in this chapter. The only problem is that they're siding with the people who're directly rebuked and corrected by God for their view being incorrect.
Jer 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
We see virtually the same thing said in Jeremiah that we saw in Ezekiel. The same proverb is condemned rather than approved. So why were Israelites saying this proverb? It's simply because some Israelites mistook corporate and conditional aspects of the old covenant as God holding people personally guilty for the sins of others. One chapter that best exemplifies this is Deuteronomy 28 where we see conditional blessing and cursing for Israel. We need to remember that both Ezekiel and Jeremiah were written in and around the exilic period. This was not a time when Israel was thriving. So while the Israelites did experience secondhand consequences for the sins of their ancestors, the point that God and the prophets make in these chapters is that the actual guilt of those sins is attributed to the one who sinned. The actual guilt of sin isn't passed down from parent to child. Therefore, these passages offer very strong disconfirmation of inherited/imputed guilt.
GUILT & THE MODE OF TRANSMISSION
1. All of humanity being guilty of Adam's transgression is one of the consequences of the fall.
2. Guilt can be transmitted like genetics and diseases from parents to children.
3. The immaterial soul of humans is transmitted and generated through natural procreation like the body. The origin of the human soul comes from the parents.
Conclusion: Therefore, the souls of all humans from conception are guilty before God because the soul and guilt are both transmitted to each person from their parents.
What is outlined in point three is called Traducianism. This doctrine is pivotal in making the case for Adam's guilt being passively inherited by all humans. Who affirms Traducianism? The only denomination that seems to have a majority position of accepting the doctrine is Lutheranism. Most traditions seem to side more with the idea of God being the creator of human souls. According to NewAdvent, in the Roman Catholic tradition, the doctrine of Traducianism is opposed to the general attitude of the Church at best and straight-up heretical at worst.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH TRADUCIANISM?
"the creationist perspective doesn’t make sense of the fallen nature of man, while traducianism does. Creationists must suppose that God creates each soul with a sinful nature. However, the best explanation of inherited original sin is that both fallen soul and body are generated by the human parents." - Tim Barnett, How Did You Get a Soul? Creationism versus Traducianism
"Creationism says that our souls are created directly by God in each case, while the body is generated ordinarily within nature. This raises the difficulty of how God can do this without also creating the sinful nature anew. Traducianism emphasizes the soul being connected to our parental line. Here the problem of God’s connection to the sinful nature is resolved. Sin is inherited by each member of Adam’s race. On the other hand, it leaves one either with the difficulty of the origin of the soul or else the sinful nature reduced to the material realm, even implying that sin has independent substance." - Reformed Classicalist, Creationism and Traducianism
"The foremost implication of traducianism is with regard to the doctrine of original sin. Rather than God imputing the depravity resulting from original sin into every human being individually, this disposition is passed on through lineage naturally. This has profound implications for genetics, as it implies that heredity is not only something material. It is the very essence of being human." - Faith and Heritage, Traducianism: The Doctrine of the Soul as Genetic
"After the rise of Pelagianism, some theologians hesitated between traducianism and creationism, believing the former to offer a better, if not the only, explanation of the transmission of original sin." - New Advent, Traducianism
Notice here that some arguments for Traducianism are grounded in the idea that it better explains and accounts for all humans being guilty of Adam's sin. Those who wish to affirm Traducianism on these grounds are doing so from the faulty premise that inherited guilt is one of the consequences of the fall. There are some who have a hard time reconciling the idea that God creates human souls with the idea of souls being guilty at their creation. Traducianism is used by some as a tool here to remove God from being culpable/responsible for creating something guilty and sinful by nature. However, we don't see this as a problem. We believe the origin of our sinful inclinations is our human flesh. God creates the souls of humans at conception. Our flesh, on the other hand, is from Adam. As a consequence of the fall, our flesh is condemned to decay and corruption. We're all physically mortal. Our soul, which originates from God when we are conceived, joins in this condemnation and corruption when we first fall into the sinful inclinations that originate in our flesh. It is at that point that each person's soul becomes guilty before God and is spiritually dead. Because of this, we don't see the appeal to Traducianism on these grounds to be very convincing.
The scriptural case for Traducianism is not particularly impressive. It's common for defenses of the doctrine to lean heavily into the faulty premise that inherited guilt is true as we've previously seen. The issue of Traducuianism vs Creationism deserves its own series. For the sake of brevity, we will provide a sample of scriptural data that conveys to us that God is the creator and source of our immaterial essence.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 57:15-16 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Num 27:16 Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
If it is true that the human soul originates from God rather than human parents, the idea of Adamic guilt being inherited seems nigh to untenable. The path one would need to take to continue affirming inherited guilt would be to say that even though the soul doesn't originate from human parents, the soul inherits the guilt by virtue of it inhabiting a body with sinful and corrupt inclinations. Does this argument hold up to scrutiny?
DOES POSSESSION OF SOMETHING THAT HAS THE CAPACITY AND/OR TENDENCY TO BRING ABOUT CORRUPTION MAKE THE ONE WHO HAS POSSESSION CORRUPT?
HOW THIS VINDICATES OUR POSITION
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
1. Help those who already didn't affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt to be able to better understand and articulate an alternative viewpoint.
2. Help those who do affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt to at least understand why someone would deny it and to help them better steelman those who disagree with them on this issue.
3. Help those who do affirm inherited/imputed Adamic guilt change their mind and instead affirm ancestral sin.
If you fall into one of those three categories, we consider this article a success!
No comments:
Post a Comment