Does Ancestral Sin Undermine the Gospel?

 

Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll answer questions related to an objection and/or question related to ancestral sin, a doctrine we affirm, regarding whether it undermines the gospel. In addition, we will give reasons why we believe ancestral sin actually magnifies and helps clarify the gospel. To get a good understanding of ancestral sin, read this article first where we make a biblical case for the doctrine. 

COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT ANCESTRAL SIN

Question #1: Does ancestral sin mean we can't or don’t receive the righteousness of Christ?

Answer #1: No, we most certainly can and do receive the righteousness of Christ. Ancestral sin simply asserts that God ultimately judges, places wrath on, and holds sinners responsible for their own sins. We maintain that possessing Adam's guilt is not necessary to become a sinner. The other detriments of the fall are sufficient to bring this about. However, Christ's righteousness is necessary to be justified and made righteous because we are not inherently righteous nor can we become such by our own works. 

Question #2: Does ancestral sin deny Jesus' representative role? 

Answer #2: No, Jesus most certainly has a representative role. What needs to be understood is that we don't reject representation outright. The issue isn't about one side affirming representation and the other side rejecting it. No, It's a particular mode and type of representation that we deny. What we are contending against is a unilateral and unconditional representation that necessarily pushes effects and consequences in a 1:1 ratio directly and immediately onto those who are represented. 

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

So yes, Jesus represents and makes intercession for people. Those people are the ones who come unto God by him. 

Question #3: Does ancestral sin mean that humans are inherently righteous, perfect, and/or holy?

Answer #3: We don’t believe that humans are inherently perfect, holy, or righteous. 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 humans are divine beings. We aren't perfect in righteousness. We just simply believe that humans at conception haven't done good or evil yet as Paul says in Romans. 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. Humans are entirely dependent on the holy and perfect God to redeem them from the consequences they experience from the fall. 

Question #4: Does ancestral sin mean humans could live a full life without sinning? 

Answer #4: While it is true that Adam & Eve could have refrained from sinning and thus lived full lives without sin, this is not possible for humans after the fall. Not only do post-fall humans have to face external temptations, but we also have sinful inclinations and temptations originating in the flesh that lead us to sin. So people can't become a hermit, separate themselves from the world, and never sin due to having no external temptation. Sin can come from within us and without us. We believe it's an inevitable and unavoidable truth that all humans sin themselves. 

This question also seems to have an underlying assumption that for whatever reason all mankind needs to be guilty of Adam's sin for humans to not be able to live a full life without sinning. This would imply that humans actually could live a full sinless life personally and therefore we all need to be guilty of Adam's sin to need Jesus. This is too high a view of humans. Humans don't need to possess the guilt of others to remove the possibility of living an entire life without sin because this is already not possible. We don't agree with this assumption or implication at all. 

Question #5: Does ancestral sin mean that Jesus didn't die for those who died in infancy and that infants don't need Jesus?

Answer #5: There's an underlying assumption in this question that all Jesus came to do is remove the penalty of sin from humans. This assumption is false and a deficient understanding of Jesus' redemptive work. Yes, he came to save us from the penalty of sin; but that's not all. To summarize, Jesus came, lived, died, and was resurrected to save humanity from the penalty, consequences, and presence of sin. He came to restore humanity. Therefore, it's flawed to assume that just because newly conceived infants are not yet guilty of sin, they're free from the consequences and presence of sin and don't require redemption and restoration through Jesus Christ. 

Question #6: Does ancestral sin mean that infants are morally neutral? 

Answer #6: If this question equates moral neutrality with the lack of actually doing right or wrong, and asking if infants haven't done right or wrong, we would answer in the affirmative. This is how Paul speaks of unborn children in Romans 9:11. On the other hand, if this question asks if infants are without any internal moral inclinations one way or another, and are wholly dependent on outside forces, we would answer in the negative. As a result of the fall, all humans have the inclination and proclivity toward vice and sin which inevitably brings about personal transgressions. 

Question #7: Does ancestral sin mean Jesus didn't die for all sins?

Answer #7: Of course, Jesus died for all sins. Whatever "all sins" are, Jesus died for them. We just dispute that one of those sins is perpetually inherited/imputed to the account of all humans from conception. 

Question #8: Does ancestral sin mean deceased infants don't need God's grace? 

Answer #8: The underlying assumption with this question is that the only way in which God's grace works is in forgiving sin. God's grace is much more expansive than just forgiving sin. God's grace is summatively His favor, goodwill, and lovingkindness. In the case of deceased infants, God knows if these children continued living, they would have certainly sinned and rebelled against Him. Despite this, God extends grace to them. Infants are not inherently righteous or immortal. Despite this, God extends grace to them, makes them righteous, and includes them in His redemptive plan to glorify those he has saved from the consequences of the fall. Infants have not displayed any allegiance to God. Despite this, God extends grace to them and brings the infants into his kingdom. To summarize, one does not need to be personally guilty of any sins to still rely on and need God's favor, goodwill, and lovingkindness. Infants are completely dependent on God to redeem them from the consequences of the fall and include them in His redemptive plan.

Question #9: Does ancestral sin mean infants don't need to be saved since they aren't guilty of Adam's sin? 

Answer #9: This question is getting at the same concern as other questions. We'll answer this variation with an example: To say if infants aren’t guilty of Adam’s sin they don’t need to be saved would be like saying if children are in a car wreck where the car flips and catches on fire they don’t need to be saved since they weren’t guilty of wrecking the car. Personal guilt of an action is not an indicator of whether or not someone is in a situation where they need to be delivered and rescued. Regardless of their personal accountability for sin, all humans need to be rescued and saved from the disaster that Adam introduced into the world. 

Question #10: Does ancestral sin mean an infant could atone for our sins since they're innocent?

Answer #10: The significance of Jesus' redemptive work was not that he was innocent in the manger. If mere innocence is sufficient to atone for the sins of the world, then there would be no reason why Jesus couldn't have just died in the manger and atoned for all of our sins there. 

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Heb 4:14-15 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 

Unlike infants, Jesus lived a full life without sin, he fulfilled all righteousness, and was tempted in all points like us. Infants being guiltless of sins does not make them a valid or sufficient substitute for Jesus. 

Question #11: Does the idea of all deceased infants being saved mean that there are multiple ways of salvation? One being Jesus Christ and the other being whatever happened to the infant to cause their death? Wouldn't this mean it's a blessing for infants to die if they are all saved? 

Answer #11: We will use an illustration to help answer this question. Imagine there is a merciful and compassionate king who has a large castle with vast resources. He announces a provision over all his subjects that any infant child who becomes an orphan will be taken into his own castle to be raised under his own care bestowing all benefits of the castle upon the child. In this scenario, are parents of a young child dying by whatever means a blessing and meritorious for the child being raised in the castle? Or, is the blessing the provision made by the king to prevent an infant orphan from being destitute and without care? The only way to be raised in the king's castle is ultimately his permission and compassion to let in whoever he desires. The perishing of parents should not be seen as meritorious or a blessing. It's the gracious provision of the king which is the blessing to care for an infant who otherwise has no relation to him and has done nothing good or meritorious to earn entrance into the castle.

The same sentiment is true with infant salvation. The only way to enter God's kingdom is by his own grace, mercy, and provisions. We believe God has graciously chosen to provide for and extend salvation to deceased infants, thereby including them in his kingdom. Miscarriages, abortions, childhood illnesses, or any other bad circumstance that has become a reality because of the fall are not "ways of salvation". God by his grace, like the merciful king, does not desire to reject and damn deceased infants. Rather, he desires to provide for them, irrespective of what their circumstances are and lack of any good they have done. 

HOW ANCESTRAL SIN HELPS MAGNIFY AND CLARIFY THE GOSPEL 

Rom 3:19-23 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. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:10-13 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The New Testament repeatedly juxtaposes a path of salvation through works of the law and a path of salvation through faith in Christ. Paul says in Romans 3 that it's through the law that all the world may become guilty before God. The whole world isn't inherently guilty. Rather, the law brings about guilt because, through the law and the deeds thereof, we all fall short and sin ourselves. The New Testament repeatedly props up the path of salvation through works of the law as a legitimate hypothetical possibility. However, the New Testament also repeatedly knocks this path down because we all sin. 

We argue that ancestral sin makes the best sense of this common motif. Why? Because if it were true that all mankind is guilty of Adam's sin from conception as original sin argues, it would seem that the path of salvation through works of the law is ultimately a farce, ruse, and facade. This is because you'd already be considered guilty, under God's wrath, and spiritually condemned before sinning yourself. Yet, Paul is clear that the law brings guilt and that to be justified by the law in God's sight includes continuing and doing all things that are written. Nobody can do this and therefore we incur guilt. 

It seems fitting then to understand that humans aren't guilty, condemned, and under God's wrath from conception. Therefore, attaining salvation through the works of the law is a legitimate hypothetical possibility. Yet, all end up becoming guilty, condemned, and under God's wrath due to transgressing that law. This is why we conclude that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. This is why we believe that ancestral sin helps magnify and clarify the gospel. It puts a magnifying glass on our own failures and sins because it's our sins and transgressions that have caused us to incur guilt, God's wrath, and condemnation. Our only hope then is to trust in the one who legitimately was tempted like us in every respect and didn't sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15). 

Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.