Hello and welcome. As it relates to inherited Adamic guilt, the question of mortality pertains to the issue of original sin versus ancestral sin, the consequences of the fall, and the spiritual condition of infants from conception. Contrary to original sin, we affirm ancestral sin. To get a full grasp of this doctrine, please read our article making the affirmative case for ancestral sin.
FRAMING THE ISSUE
P1. Mortality was a punitive and retributive act of justice from God as a result of Adam's sin.
P2. Infants are mortal and die even though they haven't sinned yet themselves.
C1. Therefore, all humans are punished for Adam's sin.
C2. If all humans are punished for Adam's sin regardless of what they've done, it's reasonable to conclude that all humans are guilty of Adam's sin from conception.
To summarize this argument, spiritual condemnation for all humans as a direct consequence of Adam's sin is arrived at in a backdoor way through the premise that mortality itself is a punitive act of God. Seeing as all humans from conception are direct subjects of this punitive physical punishment, it seems reasonable to conclude that there would be nothing wrong with also affirming all humans from conception are direct subjects of punitive spiritual punishment (inherited/imputed Adamic guilt).
Our primary dispute with this argument is premise one. While mortality is a consequence of the fall, we don't believe mortality, the inevitability of physical death, was inherently a punitive punishment from God. Let's briefly look at one example of this articulation in the late modern period.
"(UNIVERSAL MORTALITY PROVES ORIGINAL SIN; PARTICULARLY THE DEATH OF INFANTS, WITH ITS VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES) THE universal reign of death, over persons of all ages indiscriminately, with the awful circumstances and attendants of death, proves that men come sinful into the world." - Johnathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, Part 1, Chapter II
Johnathan Edwards, an 18th-century Congregationalist theologian made this argument in his work defending original sin. The portion in all capital letters and parentheses is the title of the chapter. Edwards summarizes the argument by making the connection between physical mortality and being sinful from conception.
GOING BACK TO THE GARDEN
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.
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 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;
Because humans are mortal sinners rather than immortal sinners, God used death to defeat death and recreate his fallen image-bearers through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see this promise in Genesis 3:15. God's ultimate goal and plan was to reverse the consequences and guilt of sin through the Son and then give immortality to His children so they would be without sin and immortal. We see this as mercy and a tool part of God's redemptive plan. Rather than mortality being a curse, we see sinful immortality as a curse. Imagine never being able to separate yourself from a sinful existence. And it's this curse that God wanted to prevent by committing Adam and Eve to mortality as a consequence of their sin.
God using mortality in response to Adam’s sin as a tool to redeem humanity would be like a doctor using anesthesia to prevent a patient from experiencing pain during a major surgery and aid in the healing and rehabilitation of the patient.
MORTALITY, DEATH, AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GUILT AND CONSEQUENCES
We all know that death can be the result of guilt. However, we also know this is distinct from mere mortality. For example:
If someone lives in a country where certain crimes are punishable by death, and someone commits that crime, the governing authorities don't conclude that since the criminal is already mortal and will inevitably die that the criminal is already under the punishment. Mere mortality doesn't satisfy the just punishment. Therefore, the governing authorites carry out the punishment and the criminal is put to death.
But we also know that dying in and of itself is not necessarily connected with guilt. For example:
A drunk driver runs into a car with young children in it and kills them. Needless to say, the children weren't guilty in this scenario. They weren't even driving the car that got hit. But does their death equate to guilt? No. The drunk driver retains the guilt of what happened. However, the children died as a consequence of the action of the drunk driver.
In some situations, death can be the result of guilt. In other situations, it can be the result of consequences from the actions of others. We cover this more in-depth in our article on ancestral sin. Throughout the Bible, people die for different reasons. Physical mortality isn't monolithic and inherently punitive. The fact that God cuts life off short for some due to wickedness or extends life for others due to their obedience among other things is evidence in our view that God doesn't see mortality as inherently punitive. Otherwise, why affect and change the duration of people's lives when the very fact that the lives of humans are already limited is punitive in and of itself? Recall our point earlier about the death penalty. It's not our position that physical death is never an indicator of guilt, just that in and of itself, enough information is not available to discern one way or another. It cannot be simply assumed that mortality or physical death indicates guilt.
CHRISTOLOGICAL CONCERNS
Here arises another problem with the argument that mortality proves and/or equals guilt. This idea actually undermines the incarnation and sinlessness of Jesus Christ. How? Let's frame the problem with deductive reasoning.
P1. True humanity and true human flesh includes the attribute of mortality. (cf. Romans 7:24, Hebrews 9:27)
P2. Jesus was made like us in all things and took on human flesh. (cf. John 1:14, Hebrews 2:17)
P3. Jesus was without sin and guilt. (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15)
C1. Therefore, Jesus' true humanity was both mortal and without sin and guilt.
C2. Therefore, the attribute of mortality doesn't inherently carry sin and guilt with it.
We argue that connecting guilt to mere mortality implicates Jesus as guilty for the entirety of the incarnation. Yet, no Christian would affirm the conclusion that Jesus was a guilty sinner. If Jesus' humanity was mortal but without guilt, what compelling reason is there to assert that our humanity is mortal yet guilty because of mortality?
WHAT ABOUT BELIEVERS?
When we look at the spiritual condition of saved Christians, we believe it also offers disconfirmation for the idea that mortality proves and/or equals guilt. Let's frame our point with deductive reasoning.
P1. Saved Christians are not under condemnation from God. They are not seen as guilty in God's sight. (cf. Romans 4:1-8, Romans 8:1, Acts 10:43)
P2. Saved Christians are mortal and will physically die. (cf. Hebrews 9:27, Romans 6:12, Romans 7:24)
C1. Therefore, mortality does not inherently carry and convey guilt or condemnation. Because Christians are not condemned or guilty in God's sight, yet they are still physically mortal until the resurrection.
BODILY DEATH THEN JUDGMENT
In Hebrews, we see a verse that seems to distinguish the appointment of bodily death and God's judgment.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
We also see this language of judgment in Hebrews in a few chapters earlier.
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
The eternal judgment is where the eternal fate of humans is solidified and finalized. The distinction in Hebrews 9 between appointment to death and judgment afterward indicates the fact that we all physically die is not intrinsically connected to God judging people as condemned or otherwise. That’s separate and conditioned on personal sins according to various scriptures.
WHY COULDN'T BABIES BE BORN IN THE GARDEN?
This is a question that sometimes arises in this discussion. It could be put another way like this:
P1. As apart of Adam's punishment for his guilt he was removed from the garden.
P2. Before this, Adam was in the garden and innocent.
C1. If infants were not guilty of Adam's sin, there's no reason why they shouldn't be born in the garden.
P3. Infants are born outside the garden.
C2. Since infants are born outside the garden, they aren't innocent and are punished with Adam for his guilt.
In response to our arguments about mortality not inherently carrying and conveying guilt or condemnation, the conversation frequently shifts to arguing for inherited Adamic guilt through where humans are born. The above syllogism encapsulates this argument. Essentially, inside the garden equals innocence, and outside the garden equals guilt. Our response is that Premise 1 is incorrect. We again have to ask ourselves why Adam was removed from the garden in the first place; was it because of God enacting retributive justice?
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.
There is no indication in the fall narrative that man being removed from the garden was an act of retributive justice on God's part. The narrative tells us that man was sent forth from the garden to prevent man from eating from the tree of life and becoming both sinful and immortal. This is further proven by God's action of guarding the tree. This fact tells us why infants who aren't guilty of Adam's sin should not be born in the garden. It's not a matter of innocence or guilt. Rather, it's the inevitability of personal sins combined with the potential of eating from the tree of life. This would put those humans and their descendants in a state of sinful immortality which is what God was preventing through his expulsion of Adam from the garden. We see then that Conclusion 1 is incorrect as well. As a result, this argument for inherited Adamic guilt through location out of the garden fails.
MORTALITY AS MERCY IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
"And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mysticallywritten in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. And as to God’s calling, and saying, Where art thou, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession." - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVI
“but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.” - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVII
"Apparently meaning, that God turns death, which man brought on himself by disobedience, into a blessing." - Philip Schaff, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume II, Footnote 604
When it comes to mortality, Theophilus' focus is on God's great kindness. God did not want humans to remain in sin forever. God's goal through this was to restore humans. Theophilus uses the imagery of vessels to make his point that through God's kindness, humans don't have to remain in a flawed state. Humans can become new and entire again. This is made possible by the banishment of humans from Paradise which prevented physical immortality in a flawed state. Concerning Chapter XXVII, Schaff comments on how Theophilus means that God turned death into a blessing as a result of Adam's disobedience.
"Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God." -
Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII, Section 6
For Irenaeus, God removed Adam from Paradise, not for retribution or punitive reasons. Rather, God did this out of pity and to prevent Adam from being a sinner forever. God's aim was to cause a ceasing of sin. Irenaeus conveys that we can't truly "live to God" while we are sinning on earth. One might conclude that it would therefore be impossible to ever really "live to God" if we were immortally in sin. And therefore, mortality is compassion from God rather than wrath in order to introduce humans into a state where they can truly "live to God".
“For God is life, and the privation of life is death. Therefore Adam prepared death for himself through his withdrawal from God, in accord with what is written, “Behold, those who remove themselves from you are destroyed” [Ps 72.27]. Thus God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves by a wicked intention. To be sure, for the reason stated above, he did not prevent our dissolution, so that our weakness might not remain as immortal. It is like someone not allowing a leaky clay pot to be placed in fire [and hardened] until the weakness present in it has been completely mended through refashioning.” - On the Human Condition, p. 75
Basil explicitly stated our point. God did not prevent our dissolution so our weakness would not be immortalized. He then uses the example of clay pots and only hardening a pot once it has been refashioned without weakness.
“he forgot the commandment which had been given him, and yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin was banished at once from the tree of life, and from paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins, that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory. And this was the first thing which he learned — his own shame — and he hid himself from God. Yet here too he makes a gain, namely death and the cutting off of sin, in order that evil may not be immortal. Thus, his punishment is changed into a mercy, for it is in mercy, I am persuaded, that God inflicts punishment.” - Oration 45, Section VIII
Gregory views mortality as a means of cutting off sin as a gain. As a result of this, "evil may not be immortal." Gregory says that the punishment of Adam was changed into mercy.
“Nevertheless one who regards only the dissolution of the body is greatly disturbed, and makes it a hardship that this life of ours should be dissolved by death; it is, he says, the extremity of evil that our being should be quenched by this condition of mortality. Let him, then, observe through this gloomy prospect the excess of the Divine benevolence. He may by this, perhaps, be the more induced to admire the graciousness of God’s care for the affairs of man. To live is desirable to those who partake of life, on account of the enjoyment of things to their mind; since, if any one lives in bodily pain, not to be is deemed by such an one much more desirable than to exist in pain. Let us inquire, then, whether He Who gives us our outfit for living has any other object in view than how we may pass our life under the fairest circumstances. Now since by a motion of our self-will we contracted a fellowship with evil, and, owing to some sensual gratification, mixed up this evil with our nature like some deleterious ingredient spoiling the taste of honey, and so, falling away from that blessedness which is involved in the thought of passionlessness, we have been viciously transformed—for this reason, Man, like some earthen potsherd, is resolved again into the dust of the ground, in order to secure that he may part with the soil which he has now contracted, and that he may, through the resurrection, be reformed anew after the original pattern; at least if in this life that now is he has preserved what belongs to that image.” - The Great Catechism, Chapter VIII
Gregory says "extremity of evil" is the reason that we have the condition of mortality. In this, he says that God is gracious, benevolent, and cares for the affairs of man. We are to look beyond "this gloomy prospect" and see God's mercy and care in it. This is in order that through the resurrection we can be "reformed anew after the original pattern". In such a resurrection there will be no evil and therefore the totality of humanity will be restored.
.png)
“Because the devil was envious and the woman was gullible, humankind was immediately cast out of paradise. It was made to walk the very earth from which Adam had just been created, inheriting sweat, toil and hard labor. Along with Adam, the earth and all living things that followed were subjected to evil, being restrained like a horse that is bridled. For since Adam did not use good judgment during the age of paradise—an age which was free from sorrow and pain—he was joined to adversity. Through his suffering he might then get rid of the disease which had come upon him in the midst of paradise. By punishing us with death, the lawgiver cut off the spread of sin. And yet through that very punishment he also demonstrated his love for us. He bound sin and death together when he gave the law, placing the sinner under punishment of death. And yet he ordered things in such a way that the punishment might in itself serve the goal of salvation. For death brings about separation from this life and brings evil works to an end. It sets us free from labor, sweat and pain, and ends the suffering of the body. Thus the Judge mixes his love for us with punishment.” - On the Incarnation of the Lord, 6.1
Theodoret refers to mortality as a mixture of punishment and love from God. It could perhaps be likened to a parent punishing their child but having the best of intentions in mind and hoping to aid the child in their development and maturity. Theodoret lists multiple benefits of mortality. It cuts off the spread of sin, it serves the goal of salvation, it brings evil works to an end, it frees us from pain, and it ends the suffering of the body. Theodoret sees that God committing humanity to mortality opens the door to bodily redemption and glorified incorruptible immortality for humans.
CONCLUSION
We see that mortality and physical death do not inherently convey guilt toward the subject. Sometimes, people die because of other people's sins. They suffer consequences due to other people's actions. Other times, people do die as a punishment for their own sins. It's therefore improper to conclude that physical death inherently confers guilt.
When it comes to the Genesis account, the consequence of mortality as a result of Adam's sin seems to be rooted more in God's mercy and prevention of sinful immortality than retribution and penal punishment. We've given a sample of five historical attestations to this understanding to demonstrate it isn't novel.
Therefore, we don't think the argument for proving inherited Adamic guilt that puts all humans under spiritual condemnation from conception through physical mortality succeeds. The first premise of mortality being a punitive and retributive justice from God toward humans is a weak and faulty premise that doesn't take the redemptive reasoning for God's action into account.
However, even if premise one is correct, we don't believe the conclusions logically follow. This is because we affirm soul creationism. We believe the origin of our body and soul is different. Our bodies do descend from Adam. He's our father according to the flesh in that regard. But our souls are created by God. Therefore, we believe it's hasty to so easily conflate the origin and nature of our material and immaterial substance (body and soul) and subjugate them into the same state by nature.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article on mortality and its supposed connection to Adamic guilt.
No comments:
Post a Comment