Divine Justice Issues (XV)

"Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come"

That Adam and Christ are heads and representatives of human beings is a fundamental truth. Foundational to this truth fact is "union." All human beings have a union with Adam and Eve, especially Adam. Likewise all the elect (or all believers, or all saved people) have a union with Christ, "the second Adam" or "last Adam." (See Rom. 5: 14; I Cor. 15: 45) Paul says that Adam is a type of Christ and one of the chief ways both Adam and Christ are alike is in their status as "federal heads" of their respective peoples. Adam is the head and representative of every human being, of everyone who has descended from him. The second Adam is the head and representative of all those from among the human race who are united to him by faith. Physical birth unites humans with Adam. Spiritual birth, the second or new birth, unites humans with the second Adam.

It is a well known fact that "in Christ" or "with Christ" are ways in which union with Christ is described. It is described as a person being "in Christ" as well as Christ being in the believer. Getting into Christ, and his getting into the believer, occurs when a person believes in Christ and asks Christ to come into his life. That is when union begins. This is evident from the words of the apostle Paul when he says - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22 nkjv) "In Adam" and "in Christ" denote union. Water baptism pictures entering into Christ and the Lord's Supper pictures Christ entering into the believer.

There are kinds of union. Theologians speak of several kinds of ways all are in union with Adam. As we will see, there is a sense in which union with Adam begins with physical birth, and another sense in which union occurred at the time Adam was created. In other words, every human being was in some sense "in Adam" when Adam was created. Theologians call this "seminal union." By this they mean that every human comes from Adam's semen (and Eve's egg too of course), or "seed" (the Greek word for seed is sperma, i.e. sperm), which also means that all are but "Adam multiplied." All get their DNA from him and Eve. A text that speaks of seminal union is where Paul says that Levi, before he ever existed, was "in the loins of Abraham." (Heb. 7: 10) Not only that, but Paul says that Levi "paid tithes in Abraham." (vs. 6) That act of paying tithes by Abraham is said to have also been the act of Levi when he only had a seminal existence in Abraham. In like manner we say that every human being was "in Adam" seminally so that when Adam acted in eating of the forbidden tree and sinned, so too did every human being eat that tree and sinned. Let the Pelagians disprove that Levi acted in Abraham or that every man acted in Adam. 

There is also what is called "representative union" and a union that involves headship. The headship of Adam and his being constituted by God as the legal head of the human race is implied in the fact that Adam and Christ are alike, and surely this likeness cannot exclude the idea of being the head and representative of groups of people. We read in the scriptures where it is stated by Paul that "the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (I Cor. 11: 3 nkjv) The head represents the entity of the body of people to which it is connected. A man is the head of the woman and the family. He represents the family. Christ is "the head of every man." But so too is Adam. They both represent the human race. Christ represents the human race but especially those of the race who are elect, who are believers.

The Case of the Angels

The Lord could have made the human race after the example of the angels. Angels, as all acknowledge, were all created individually. No angel was born of other angels. The angels of heaven do not marry nor have sex, nor have children. (See Matt. 22: 30) Each angel therefore could not be held responsible for what another angel did. We also read of where some angels sinned and were, like the first fallen angel Lucifer (who became the serpent, Satan, or the Devil), cast out of heaven. (See Luke 10: 18; II Peter 2: 4; Jude 1: 6; Rev. 12: 3-4, 7-9) There was no original sin among the angels. God did not impute the sin of Lucifer to the other angels. They were not constituted by God as a self propagating race. Not all the angels sinned. Those who did not sin are the "holy angels" who Paul calls "the elect angels." (I Tim. 5: 21) This of course implies that there are non elect angels; These would be the angels that sinned. So, was there no salvation provided for the angels that sinned? And, if there was, what would that entail? How would the sin of angels be atoned for or propitiated? Notice these words of the apostle: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Heb. 2: 16 kjv)

Barnes in his commentary wrote:

"Margin, "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold...The general idea is that of seizing upon, or laying hold of anyone - no matter what the object is - whether to aid, or to drag to punishment, or simply to conduct. Here it means to lay hold with reference to "aid," or "help;" and the meaning is, that he did not seize the nature of angels, or take it to himself with reference to rendering "them" aid, but he assumed the nature of man - in order to aid "him." He undertook the work of human redemption, and consequently it was necessary for him to be man." 

Most bible teachers agree that the election of some angels was for the purpose of keeping them from sinning and from falling. This being so, the angels not chosen were not kept from apostasy. With man, however, God chose to let him fall into sin and then to redeem those who he likewise chose to salvation. The case of the election of angels was to keep them secure, or immutable, in their holiness and fealty to God. The case of the election of men, however, was to allow them to sin and then to provide forgiveness through Christ and by his becoming a sacrifice and substitute and bearing the penalty for those condemned. 

God could have made every man personally and individually as he did the angels and so there would have been no original sin or imputation of one man's sin to another man. But, he did not. 

Under "Adam and Federal Headship," A. W. PINK wrote the following things which I fully endorse (See here - emphasis mine):

“It is of vital importance for a right understanding of much in God’s Word to observe the relation which Adam sustained to his posterity. Adam was not only the common parent of mankind, but he was also their federal head and representative. The whole human race was placed on probation or trial in Eden. Adam acted not for himself alone, but he transacted for all who were to spring from him. Unless this basic fact be definitely apprehended, much that ought to be relatively clear to us will be shrouded in impenetrable mystery. Yea, we go further, and affirm that, until the federal headship of Adam and God’s covenant with him in that office be actually perceived, we are without the key to God’s dealings with the human race, we are unable to discern man’s relation to the divine law, and we appreciate not the fundamental principles upon which the atonement of Christ proceeded."

Since Adam is a type of Christ, understanding how his original sin affected the human race is most important. It helps us to understand the person of Christ and how our sins were imputed to him, how he paid the penalty for our sins by being the sinner's substitute.

Pink says further:

“Federal headship” is a term which has almost entirely disappeared from current religious literature—so much the worse for our moderns. It is true that the expression itself does not verbally occur in Scripture; yet like the words Trinity and the divine incarnation, it is a necessity in theological parlance and doctrinal exposition. The principle or fact which is embodied in the term “federal headship” is that of representation. There been but two federal heads: Adam and Christ, with each of whom God entered into a covenant. Each of them acted on behalf of others, each legally represented as definite people, so much so that all whom they represented were regarded by God as being in them. Adam represented the whole human race; Christ represented all those whom the Father had, in His eternal counsels, given to Him."

This seems clear to me to be the teaching of Romans chapter five and First Corinthians chapter fifteen. It is because Adam is a figure of Christ and because Christ is called the second or "last Adam," that they are alike in regard to imputation. They are alike and yet different. Their likeness is chiefly because they are both heads and representatives of mankind. Their differences are seen in the fact that Adam disobeyed God but Christ obeyed God (and never disobeyed); And, is seen in the fact that Adam's disobedience made all he represented sinners (or unrighteous) while Christ's obedience made all he represented to be sinless (or righteous); And, Adam's sin brought condemnation and death to all that he represented, but Christ's obedience and holiness brought justification and life to all that he represented. 

Pink says further:

“When Adam stood in Eden as a responsible being before God, he stood there as a federal head, as the legal representative of all his posterity. Hence, when Adam sinned, all for whom he was standing are accounted as having sinned; when he fell, all whom he represented fell; when he died, they died. So too was it with Christ. When He came to this earth, He, too, stood in a federal relationship to His own people; and when He became obedient unto death, all for whom He was acting were accounted righteous; when He rose again from the dead, all whom He represented rose with Him; when He ascended on high, they were regarded as ascending with Him. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22)."

This is why Paul said that believers had been "made alive together with Christ...and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2: 5-6 nkjv) This is why he also said that every saved person, every believer or every elect man, died when Christ died. Wrote Paul: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died." (II Cor. 5: 14 nkjv) It cannot be said that a person died when Christ died, or was resurrected when Christ was resurrected, or ascended to heaven when Christ ascended except on the principle that there was a representative union between Christ and the elect. Just as the elect died when Christ died (died to sin, self, the law, the world, etc.), so too did all men die when Adam died (to God and righteousness) in the day he disobeyed God. 

Pink says further:

“The relationship of our race to Adam or Christ divides men into two classes, each receiving nature and destiny from its respective head. All the individuals who comprise these two classes are so identified with their heads that it has justly been said, “There have been but two men in the world, and two facts in history.” These two men are Adam and Christ; the two facts are the disobedience of the former, by which many were made sinners, and the obedience of the latter, by which many were made righteous. By the former came ruin, by the latter came redemption; and neither ruin nor redemption can be Scripturally apprehended except as they are seen to be accomplished by those representatives, and except we understand the relationships expressed by being “in Adam” and “in Christ.”"

This is what Paul was teaching in Romans chapter five.

Pink says further:

“Let it be expressly and emphatically affirmed that what we are here treating of is purely a matter of divine revelation. Nowhere but in Holy Scripture do we know anything about Adam, or of our relation to him. If it be asked how the federal constitution of the race can be reconciled with the dictates of human reason, the first answer must be, it is not for us to reconcile them. The initial inquiry is not whether federal headship be reasonable or just, but, is it a fact revealed in the Word of God? If it is, then reason must bow to it and faith humbly receive it. To the child of God the question of its justice is easily settled: we know it to be just, because it is a part of the ways of the infinitely holy and righteous God."

In chapter three of this series I gave this syllogism:

1. All that God wills and does is just. 

2. God willed and did A. 

3. A is just

So, just because we cannot fully demonstrate how all that God does is just and right does not mean that we abandon our belief that God is just and righteous. If the major and minor premise of the above syllogism are true, then the conclusion must be true. 

Pink says further:

“Now the fact that Adam was the federal head of the human race, that he did act and transact in a representative capacity, and that the judicial consequences of his actings were imputed to all those for whom he stood, is clearly revealed in God’s Word. In Romans 5 we read: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all sinned” (v. 12); “through the offence of one many be dead” (v. 15); “the judgment was by one to condemnation” (v. 16); “by one man’s offence death reigned” (v. 17); “by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (v. 18); “by one man’s offence many were made [legally constituted] sinners” (v. 19). The meaning of these declarations is far too plain for any unprejudiced mind to misunderstand. It Pleased God to deal with the human race as represented in and by Adam."

The Pelagian cannot say these things. To him the one act of disobedience that separates one from God is the personal first act of sin that a child does and is what constitutes him a sinner and under condemnation. However, Paul sees that one act as having been done by Adam and it is this sin that makes all a sinner under condemnation. 

Pink says further:

“Let us borrow a simple illustration. God did not deal with mankind as with a field of corn, where each stalk stands upon its own individual root; but He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk. If you strike with an axe at the root of a tree, the whole tree falls—not only the trunk, but also the branches: all wither and die. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him. At one fatal stroke Adam was severed from communion with his maker, and as the result “death passed upon all men.”

This fits in with what I said above about the case of the angels. Each angel was its own stalk standing on its own individual root. 

Pink says further:

“Here, then, we learn what is the formal ground of man’s judicial condemnation before God. The popular idea of what renders man a sinner in the sight of heaven is altogether inadequate and false. The prevailing conception is that a sinner is one who commits and prac­tices sin. It is true that this is the character of a sinner, but it certainly is not that which primarily constitutes him a sinner. The truth is that every member of our race enters this world a guilty sinner before he ever commits a single transgression. It is not only that he possesses a sinful nature, but he is directly “under condemnation.” We are legally constituted sinners neither by what we are nor by what we are doing, but by the disobedience of our federal head, Adam. Adam acted not for himself alone, but for all who were to spring from him."

Again, if this is not just, then neither is it just to condemn Christ to death for the sins of men, to make him a substitute and a sacrifice.

Pink says further:

“But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?"

This is a point I have already emphasized. Every American is born today with a responsibility to pay the national debt. 

Pink says further:

“Finally, let it be pointed out that the sinner’s salvation is made to depend upon the same principle. Beware, my reader, of quarreling with the justice of this law of representation. This principle wrecked us, and this principle alone can rescue us. The disobedience of the first Adam was the judicial ground of our condemnation; the obedience of the last Adam is the legal ground on which God alone can justify the sinner. The substitution of Christ in the place of His people, the imputation of their sins to Him and of His righteousness to them, is the cardinal fact of the gospel. But the principle of being saved by what another has done is only possible on the ground that we are lost through what another did. The two stand or fall together. If there had been no covenant of works there could have been no death in Adam, there could have been no life in Christ."

This is so well stated. If it is just to justify for the sake of Christ, then it is just to condemn for the sake of Adam.

Pink says further:

"The corruption which we inherit from our parents is a great evil, for it is the source of all our personal sins. For God to allow this transmission of depravity is to inflict a punishment. But how could God punish all, unless all were guilty? The fact that all do share in this common punishment proves that all sinned and fell in Adam. Our depravity and misery are not, as such, the appointment of the Creator, but are instead the retribution of the judge."

There are some brothers who believe in mediate imputation of Adam's sin, believing that immediate imputation is not just nor the teaching of the bible. They say that Adam corrupted his moral nature when he sinned and this has caused all his descendants to be born with a corrupt depraved nature, a nature that will be the reason why all at some point in childhood commit their first act of sin, which first act of sin is what brings condemnation. They see this inheritance of a corrupt nature as a consequence of Adam's sin but see this depraved nature as not being a penalty for Adam's sin. But, this scenario does not eliminate their view from the charge of infidels that this is likewise unjust. So, if they believe in mediate imputation because it makes God to appear more just, let them know that their view does not do what it is intended to do, for God will still appear to be unjust to the infidel. But, about that we will have more to say in the next chapter. But, I certainly do believe that Pink was right when he said that God's allowing the transmission of depravity is an infliction of a punishment. The same with physical death. Though Pelagians affirm that physical death is not a penalty for sin, yet the bible teaches otherwise. Both physical death and a depraved nature inherited from Adam are penalties for being judged as sinners.

Divine Justice Issues (XIV)

The above text is appropriate as we discuss the subject of God's justice in the imputation of Adam's sin to those he represents as a head and the justice of imputing the sins of others to Christ, or of imputing his righteousness to those who believe. What is knocked down (or "cast down" kjv) are "reasonings," i.e. false reasoning ("imaginations" kjv) or false "arguments." And, there is a lot of false reasoning by Pelagians and others of their ilk about the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five on the subject of original sin, and about imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Romans five is what we will continue to examine in this chapter.

If we say that the death that results from Adam's sin excludes physical death, and only speaks of spiritual death, as the Pelagians affirm, then we must deny that "all men" (all human beings) means all men, for those dying in infancy are human beings, and who Pelagians say are not spiritually dead when born. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that death is passed upon all men because every man sins like Adam, then we must affirm either 1) that "all humans" does not really mean "all humans" or 2) that even infants sin by imitating Adam's sin (an absurdity). This is a case where "the legs of the lame are not equal" (Prov. 26: 7). Which one of the horns of this dilemma do Pelagians want to hold on to or let go of?

Death is a Penalty for Being Judged a Sinner

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2: 17 nkjv)

Louis Berkhof writes the following in his Systematic Theology (as cited here - emphasis mine):

"The penalty with which God threatened man in paradise was the penalty of death. The death here intended is not the death of the body, but the death of man as a whole, death in the Scriptural sense of the word. The Bible does not know the distinction, so common among us, between a physical, a spiritual, and an eternal death; it has a synthetic view of death and regards it as separation from God. The penalty was also actually executed on the day that man sinned, though the full execution of it was temporarily stayed by the grace of God. In a rather un-Scriptural way some carry their distinction into the Bible, and maintain that physical death should not be regarded as the penalty of sin, but rather as the natural result of the physical constitution of man. But the Bible knows of no such exception. It acquaints us with the threatened penalty, which is death in the comprehensive sense of the word, and it informs us that death entered the world through sin (Rom. 5:12), and that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). The penalty of sin certainly includes physical death, but it includes much more than that."

If it be a proven fact that physical death is a penal consequence of being judged a sinner, then all who die physically are viewed by God as guilty of sin, of Adam's sin. It seems absurd to think that the threatened death for sin by God in the garden excluded physical death. 

If physical death is not part of man's condemnation on account of sin, then immortality and eternal life for the body, through Jesus Christ, is not a result of justification. In such a case the salvation that is in Christ excludes salvation from physical death. But, the bible is replete with affirmations that salvation includes deliverance from death to body, soul, and spirit. Notice these verses from a chapter that deals with physical death and resurrection to immortality.

"53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 15: 53-57 nkjv)

These words of the apostle Paul tell us that the death of the body is a result of sin. This is in keeping with what he affirmed in the Roman epistle in chapter five and in chapter six where he says "for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." There is simply no reason to limit the death of these texts and to exclude physical death. Also, in Romans 8: 10 he says that "the body is dead because of sin," and the body is distinct from "the spirit is life because of righteousness." There are so many bible texts that say that physical death is because of sin and that it is a penalty resulting from having been condemned. But, there is no need to flood the reader with additional texts which plainly affirm the same fact.

It may be argued that since believers, who have been delivered from sin and death, and from the penalty of sin, nevertheless die physically, this therefore proves that death is not always penal. To which I reply by saying that death for the believer is no longer a penalty but a blessing. So we read -

"Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His saints." (Psa. 116: 15 nkjv)

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." (Rev. 14: 13 kjv)

Death for the believer is no longer a curse nor a penalty. However, as the text above from Corinthians says, physical death is the "last enemy" that shall be destroyed. Death has been defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ but death's destruction awaits the time of Christ's second coming. So, it is not denied that physical death even for the believer was at one time a penal result of sin and inherited corruption, but since being justified it is now only a blessing. Wrote Paul: "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 nkjv) However, believers, like the "whole creation" will one day be "delivered from the bondage of corruption." (Rom. 8: 21)

The death resulting from sin is an all inclusive death, not limited. It is physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death (what is called "the second death" or being "twice dead"; Rev. 20: 14; Jude 1: 12) 

Death will be swallowed up in victory when Christ returns and resurrects the dead and when he in the ages to come eliminates death in the new heavens and earth. For the present time, death's "reign" over God's people is ongoing, even though its end has been made certain by the resurrection of Christ. Salvation in the bible has phases to it. We have been saved, are being saved, and will yet be saved. So, is physical death still a penalty for the justified? No, it is not. It is only suffered for the time being and is no longer an evil but a good. A criminal may be in jail when a judge acquits him but it may take some time before he is released. The fact that many of the saints will not die shows that physical death is no longer a penalty. Those who are "alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" will be "caught up" to meet Christ when he comes and will not die. (I Thess. 4: 13-17). Further, Paul says "we shall not all sleep...but we shall all be changed." (I Cor. 15: 51-52)

Imputation is an Act of God

Descendants of Adam, excepting Christ, are born under condemnation and have the guilt of Adam's original sin imputed, accounted, or reckoned to them by God. They are born with a depraved nature, a sinful nature, and this is the proof or effect of having been so condemned. As previously stated, whether inheriting a depraved nature comes first and condemnation comes later when a child comes of age and commits his first sin, or vise versa, is a matter of dispute among bible believers. That debate comes under the heading of either "mediate imputation" (or indirect imputation) or "immediate imputation" (direct imputation) and will be a question we will address in another upcoming chapter. In either case, the imputation is an act of God, what he chooses to do. The next question is - "when does God impute Adam's sin to an individual?" Was it when Adam sinned or when each person is born? Or, perhaps at both times? 

When God declared Adam to be guilty and sentenced him to death, he at the same time declared all his descendants to be guilty and sentenced to death, physical, spiritual, and eternal. This is because there was a sense in which every human being was represented in Adam, and because he was appointed to be the head and representative of the human race. 

As to "how" imputation takes place, we say that all were condemned when Adam was condemned. This also leads to the proposition that all are born into the world condemned and guilty. Testified the apostle Paul:

"1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." (Eph. 2: 1-3 nkjv) 

When Paul says that believers in Christ were "by nature children of wrath, just as others" he is teaching that everyone is born into the world with the sin of Adam put to his account and under condemnation. The sinful or depraved nature, as we will elaborate on later, is not a mere unfortunate consequence, but is a penal infliction. This is clear from the fact that they are at birth the objects of God's wrath.

My debate opponents on original sin argued that "by nature" did not mean "by birth" nor included the idea of what is by birth, and cited Greek scholar Joseph Thayer, who in his lexicon suggests that "phusei" can also mean "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature." In response I cited the words of the same apostle who said "We who are Jews by nature." (Gal. 2: 15) In that text it means those who were Jews from birth. Though I did not have Thayer's lexicon with me at the time of the debate, I later found out that Thayer did not exclude the idea that phusei (nature) may denote what is true of someone from birth and did not exclude it from being a possible use of the word. Thayer said:

"(Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this ‘habitual course of evil’ has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped."

In this Thayer does not discount that the word may denote what is true of a person naturally or by birth, or else he would have stated that Meyer and others were wrong and given us the reasons why. What Thayer and others want to do is to say that people are born innocent of all sin and are in nature pure and uncorrupted, and after they have lived in sin for awhile, sinning then becomes natural, or we might say, a person's "second nature," which describes a habit or skill so deeply ingrained through practice that it feels automatic and natural, almost as if it were part of one's inherent nature. But, that is not what Paul means. He rather intends what is one's primary nature, although it would not exclude what people do out of habit.

The truth is, because of original sin, it is more correct to say that "we do what we do (morally) because of what we are, rather than being who we are because of what we do." (See Luke 6: 45; etc.) We sin because it is our nature to do so. That nature we have from birth. So David wrote: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." (Psa. 51: 5 nkjv) "The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." (Psa. 58: 3)

So, is one born basically good or bad? The bible says they are all born with a depraved nature and this is because God has imputed to all the one sin of the one man Adam, who by God's appointment stood for all the human race. 

So, is this just? Well, to some it will never appear to be just. That is because they are looking at things from the wrong perspective. To them it is because it is always wrong for God to impute someone's sins to someone else. But, if that is true, then it was wrong to impute sins to Christ, and if so, then all are still guilty and will remain so, being unable to right the wrong themselves. 

Divine Justice Issues (XIII)

"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5: 12-21 nkjv)

Charles Hodge in his commentary on Romans has these prefatory words for this section of Paul's epistle:

"From the Romans 5:12 to the end, he illustrates his great principle of the imputation of righteousness, or the regarding and treating the many as righteous, on account of the righteousness of one man, Christ Jesus, by a reference to the fall of all men in Adam."

In these words of the apostle there is a parallel between the imputation of Adam's disobedience and sin and the imputation of the righteousness and obedience of Christ, the second Adam. If it is unjust for God to impute the sin of Adam to his posterity, then it is likewise unjust to impute the sins of others to Christ, and to impute the righteousness of Christ to his people. Both the first Adam and the second Adam are heads and representatives. 

It is highly inconsistent to affirm that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, to those he represents, is just, on the one hand, and then to deny the imputation Adam's unrighteousness to all that he represents is likewise just, on the other hand. If one example is just, then so is the other. Many of those who deny the justice of imputing Adam's sin and guilt to his descendants do in fact deny the other case. 

If the Pelagians are right, then no man is condemned for Adam's sin and no one is justified by Christ's righteousness and obedience. But, this would be to deny what is clearly (or prima facie) the teaching of the apostle. In that case every man becomes his own savior, reductio ad absurdum.

The Pelagian view denies 1) that Adam stood as a head and representative of the human race, and 2) that Christ is the head and representative of his people, and 3) that God allows for a substitute to suffer the penalty of sin for others, and 4) that death is a penal infliction.

The text says that it is by one man and by his one act of disobedience that all he represented die and that it is likewise by one man and by his one act of obedience that all he represented are justified unto life.

Some argue that the apostle Paul only tells us that all die by Adam's sin but not "how" sin and death are "passed on." These will argue that it is passed on by Adam's descendants imitating his sin. Every man dies because every man breaks God's law, or does what Adam did, and therefore each is not condemned nor subject to death until each sins himself. But, this is clearly not what the passage teaches. It is read into the passage, probably because some think the plain meaning makes God unjust.

First of all, the apostle says that "death passed to all men," and says that this death is passed on to those "who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression." Thus, death passed on to those who did not imitate Adam's sin! The teaching of the apostle is that initial condemnation and death for "all men" is not a result of personal sin but rather a result of Adam's one sin being imputed to (or put to the account of) all the human race, Christ excepted. 

Wrote Hodge further:

"Paul has been engaged from the beginning of the Epistle in inculcating one main idea, viz., that the ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God is not in himself, but the merit of Christ. And in the preceding verses he had said, “we are justified by his blood,” Romans 5:9; by his death we are restored to the divine favor, Romans 5:10; and through him, i.e., by one man, we have received reconciliation, that is, are pardoned and justified, Romans 5:11. As this idea of men’s being regarded and treated, not according to their own merit, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men, and especially contrary to their self-righteous efforts to obtain the divine favor, the apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world."

Of course, some might argue that Paul is begging the question when it comes to the sin of Adam being the reason why all are born in a condemned and guilty state. Paul may indeed be assuming that the sin of Adam, or original sin, brought death and guilt to the entire human race. However, he did lay down this syllogism:

1. Death is a penalty for having sinned and been accounted a sinner.

2. Everyone dies.

3. All are guilty of sin and accounted a sinner.

It is absurd therefore for the Pelagians and others to affirm that many die who were not sinners, and not guilty before God. They say that Adam and Eve would have died had they never sinned, because death is a natural condition. Paul refutes that idea in this chapter. He plainly says "death through sin." He says that "death passed to all men." And why? "Because all have sinned he says." Thus we have two propositions given us by the apostle. First, where there is no sin there is no death. Second, all sinned because all have died. Some people do not sin in themselves however. Those who die in the womb or in infancy have not committed any sin themselves. This may well be those who Paul has in mind when he says that death reigned over those who had not sinned in the same way as did Adam. In spite of infants not having sinned or violated God's law as did Adam, yet God judges them to have sinned in Adam. God imputes the original sin of Adam to all his descendants. All sinned in Adam their head and representative. All were "in Adam" even before they were born. 

Paul and the other bible writers uphold these propositions and this syllogism: 

1. death is the result of being guilty of sin

2. infants and those who have not personally sinned die

3. infants etc. sinned in or by another person, i.e. Adam

When I had my debate on original sin back in 1993 with those of the Pelagian view, my opponents affirmed these things:

1. The "death" in this chapter is spiritual death and not physical death. 

2. No one dies as a direct result of another one man's sin.

3. Only those who have committed sin themselves are sinners who die.

4. How this sin and death is "passed to" all men is not directly stated by Paul

5. The way it is passed on to all is when innocent people follow Adam's example

6. It is not passed on by an act of God in imputing Adam's sin to others

7. It is not passed on when one is born (therefore all are born innocent)

These, however, are the very propositions that are overthrown by the apostle in this chapter (as well as by other writers in other places in the bible). 

If any affirm that it is unjust for God to punish another for another persons' sins (such as in Adam), then he must affirm that Christ was likewise punished for the sins of another unjustly. So, you see how these two things stand or fall together. Those who deny both propositions, such as the Pelagians and Socinians, et al., are at least consistent. Those who deny the former but accept the latter are inconsistent. 

Are people justified and forgiven simply by imitating Christ? If so, then they are not justified by Christ imputing their sins to them nor by his righteousness being imputed to them. 

If one contends as do the Pelagians that it is unjust to punish Adam's children for Adam's sin, then ironically they do not completely exempt themselves from any appearance of God acting unjustly. This is because they admit that Adam's sin brought sin into the world (meaning the environment) and it is because of this environment that all, or nearly all, commit sin themselves and bring the sentence of death upon them. Not only that, but the environment before Adam sinned may be said, in like manner, to be the cause of Adam's sin for Satan the serpent was there to tempt Eve and to persuade her husband to disobey God as she had. The Pelagian's argument about God's justice would still have him defending whether it was just or  unjust for God to have allowed the tempter to be present in Eden's Paradise and to tempt, lie, and to deceive his innocent creatures, and especially if he foreknew the consequences of allowing it. If they attribute the universality of sin and death to the environment, they must either admit that God created and ordained that environment or else could not prevent it from coming to be. 

Also, we could say that God could have created humans without such an environment, and since he did not, he must therefore be responsible for the environment that did in fact come to be. Arguing from the standpoint of a skeptic, or atheist, or one depending upon logic and reason alone, we could say that it is God's fault for him giving man any laws at all. Why didn't God just let his creatures do as they please? Surely Satan argues this way, as I have written about in other writings. After all, there would be no law breaking if God had put no laws and restrictions on his creatures. 

These same folks might even argue that God was the real tempter, and not the Serpent, for God created the Serpent and allowed him to do what he did, especially seeing that God could have kept him out of the garden. Was it right for God to put man on such a time of probation? A skeptic might reasonably argue that it was a case of "entrapment" or being "set up." Some might even argue that the situation in Eden, as God set it up, was a "sting operation." 

One aspect of this original environment is giving man a "free will," a gift that would bring about the ruin of the human race. So, why did God not rather choose not to give him the free will to sin? Could he not have given to man a real sense of freedom without the freedom to sin and rebel against God? Whatever the original environment was, was God not responsible for it?  Like Paul said on several occasions, "I speak like a man." In other words, I am speaking as would a common man, who is skeptical and cynical, in so reasoning and so enquiring.  

Another aspect of this type of enquiry would be to say that part of man's inner environment was also making him mutable and "liable to fall." Could he not have made him immutable as is he himself? Or as the bible seems to uphold in regard to resurrected and glorified saints who likewise will be immutable in holiness and in righteousness? Again, a cynic might argue that God made man with this fault or defect, and therefore, like as in product liability laws, God must be held responsible for creating humans (his product) with such a defect, especially when he had foreknowledge that the imperfection of his creature would bring about such extensive harm. So, both "free will" and mutability are part of man's original environment. We see that in both man's inner environment, and in his external environment (presence of the serpent, laws, etc.), God is responsible for it. 

Further, God acknowledges that he is in fact responsible and also says he is just in creating man with such infirmities (if we may so call them), or limitations, even knowing what would be the immediate result of creating man after this fashion. We may not be able to see how this was in every way just for God to so create the world, yet we must not judge God too quickly or by feeble sense. We dealt with a lot of this area of our subject in the preceding chapters. God had a good reason for creating a world where he knew that sin and death would result. He had a greater good in mind to come from the evil that he indirectly had a hand in its coming to be. But God being responsible does not excuse man's responsibility. 

Let us keep in mind the rhetorical words of the apostle Paul to those who doubted the justice of God in some of his works, such as in choosing some over others for salvation, who asked in rebuttal "is there unrighteousness with God?" What was Paul's answer? "God forbid." Following that vehement denial he begins to show how God was just in election and in all his works and ways. Paul does not deny that there is a perception in many that God has been unfair or unjust, for the objectors with whom Paul is answering have accused Paul of teaching that God is unjust and unrighteous, not directly, but indirectly, it being the logical consequent of his teaching about election, origins, original sin, etc. But, perception is often not how things really are. Sometimes things are not as they appear to be, especially at the first. That is a fundamental part of what it means to be deceived. Solomon spoke of those who follow a way that "seems" right, but is really wrong. (Prov. 14: 12) 

Men must keep in mind, as I have previously stressed, that God is unique. He is the Creator and not a creature. He has the right, therefore, to do things that are wrong for creatures to do or attempt to do. God has his sovereign rights and powers. Though it is true that God calls on his creatures to be just and righteous as he is, that does not mean that is true in every respect. It is right and just for God to demand loyalty, worship, and love from his creatures, but it is not right and just for his creatures to do the same. 

In the next chapter we will continue with our analysis of Romans chapter five and other texts dealing with original sin and answering the question as to whether God was just in imputation of sin.

Divine Justice Issues (XII)

Before we go further and expound the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five, the foremost passage on the subject of original sin and imputation, I want to extend my thoughts on the things dealt with in the preceding chapter. In that chapter we showed how God, and God alone, may hold children responsible or liable for the sins of their fathers, imputing the iniquities of the fathers upon the children. I also spoke of how these examples are miniature pictures of the greater imputation of Adam's sin to his offspring, to the whole human race. I also emphasized how a denial of the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants also entails a denial of the imputation of a person's sins to Christ and a denial of Christ' righteousness being imputed to the believer. In this chapter I want to look at some similar ways this is seen even among men, such as in what is called "vicarious liability" (or responsibility). Following this I want to show examples where a father's goodness or righteousness is the basis for his children receiving blessing.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability, or imputed liability, is indirect liability for the actions of a another person, such as a subordinate or child. An employer can be held liable for the unlawful action of an employee.

We also see it in a limited way in the case of our national debt. It is often stated in the news how our national debt is putting a burden or liability upon our children, upon the next generation(s). Minor children today are going to inherit this liability in spite of the fact that they had nothing to do with creating the debt. Also, in community property states spouses may share responsibility for certain marital debts that their spouses incurred without their consent. In the middle ages the debt of a father was binding on the whole family.

These are cases where there was liability for debt by those who did not personally have anything to do with incurring the indebtedness. There are other cases however where the debts of another are imputed to someone who is willing to have it so. We see this in the case of the apostle Paul who wrote the following to Philemon in regard to the slave Onesimus. 

"I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me...If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me. But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides." (Phil. 1: 10-11; 17-19 nkjv)

Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:

"Put that on mine account - Reckon, or impute that to me - εμοὶ ἐλλόγα emoi elloga. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in Romans 5:13, where it is rendered imputed."

In the preceding chapter we dealt with how God sometimes visited the iniquities of fathers upon their children and grandchildren. But, what about the opposite scenario? Did God also do good to descendants because of some goodness or righteousness of a father, grandfather, or other ancestor?

For The Sake Of The Fathers

"As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." (Rom. 11: 28 esv)

Some translations have "fathers" (kjv) or "patriarchs" for "forefathers." Paul's statement about the Jews as a people being beloved (a spiritual blessing) "for the sake of their forefathers" is seen in several instances in the old testament. It is seen in the case of Lot, Abraham's nephew. The text says:

"And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot had dwelt." (Gen. 19: 29 nkjv)

Here was a favor shown to Lot for Abraham's sake, or in remembrance of him. 

In the text at the top of this page we see where God promised to bless Isaac "for the sake of" his father Abraham. 

We also see how the Lord favored or showed kindness to David's offspring "for David's sake."  

"For I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David’s sake.” (Isa. 37: 35 nkjv; See also I Kings 11: 34-36)

So, just as children can be cursed for their fathers sake, so they may be blessed for their fathers sake.

Of course, this does not mean that people can be saved and justified because their fathers were saved, though some hold to this view. These children are said to be saved by virtue of a covenant made with God by one or more of the parents. According to this view God refers to them as “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14), not by virtue of anything they, themselves, have done, but simply by virtue of being the children of believers. In the same verse Paul says that unbelieving spouses are also “made holy” by their believing spouses. Some say that this holiness of children and spouses does not automatically mean that they are saved, but only that they are set apart for it and also therefore qualified to be baptized. Others do believe that by being made holy by a parent or spouse does save them. This is a mistake however. Even though God often blesses children and spouses for the sake of a father or other spouse, this blessing does not entail salvation itself. Notice these words of God to the prophet and priest Ezekiel.

"12 The word of the Lord came again to me, saying: 13 "Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent unfaithfulness, I will stretch out My hand against it; I will cut off its supply of bread, send famine on it, and cut off man and beast from it. 14 Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness," says the Lord God. 15 "If I cause wild beasts to pass through the land, and they empty it, and make it so desolate that no man may pass through because of the beasts, 16 even though these three men were in it, as I live," says the Lord God, "they would deliver neither sons nor daughters; only they would be delivered, and the land would be desolate. 17 "Or if I bring a sword on that land, and say, 'Sword, go through the land,' and I cut off man and beast from it, 18 even though these three men were in it, as I live," says the Lord God, "they would deliver neither sons nor daughters, but only they themselves would be delivered. 19 "Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out My fury on it in blood, and cut off from it man and beast, 20 even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live," says the Lord God, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness." (Ezek. 14: 12-20 nkjv)

Just because one has an earthly connection with saved men and women does not make them exempt from God's judgment upon their sins, nor does it ensure the salvation of anyone.

In the next chapter we will begin our examination of Paul's doctrine of original sin, beginning with Romans chapter five.

Divine Justice Issues (XI)

If one searches the writings of those who think that the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants is unjust, he will read such statements as these;

"And in the ultimate injustice, God punishes everyone for someone else's sin, and then saves them all by killing an innocent victim."  

However, this is begging the question. It is also, as we will see, against what the bible teaches. It teaches that God is just and yet he has constituted the human race in such a manner that Adam is appointed by God as the head and representative of the race and ordained that his disobedience or obedience be put to the account of his descendants. We also see numerous examples in the old testament where descendants were liable for the errors of their ancestors, though not to the degree of Adam's sin upon his descendants. Concerning that affirmation we will begin first with what the old testament demonstrates to us about this principle.

Old Testament Examples

God punishes children for things that their fathers or ancestors did. 

"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 20:5) 

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Deut. 5: 9) 

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 34: 7) 

"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name." (Jer. 32: 18) 

On the other hand, we have these scriptures that seem to directly contradict the above verses. The following texts seem to say that God doesn't punish people for the actions of others. 

"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." (Deuteronomy 24:16) 

"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." (II Kings 14: 6; II Chron. 25: 4) 

"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." (Jer. 31: 29-30)

"The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, "What do you mean when you 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," says the Lord God, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die." (Eze. 18: 1-4 nkjv) 

"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: 20)

A superficial reading of these passages would force us to say that there is a contradiction in the bible. One set of verses say that the children suffer adverse consequences for the iniquity of their fathers and the other set says that they do not. So, how do we reconcile these texts?

First, let me call attention to the words highlighted in red above and the words "no more" from the text in Jeremiah. Those words tell us that at one time it was accurately said that the children suffer for the iniquity of their fathers but that some time in the future it would not be said, or would no longer be true. I pointed this out to my debate opponents when we debated original sin and I don't recall that they ever responded to the argument. It seems clear to me that by "those days" reference is to the days when Israel is fully enjoying the blessings of the new covenant, which for individuals is going on now in the church age to some extent, and yet in a greater corporate way when the new heavens and earth are created, a time when there will be "no more curse." (Rev. 22: 3) The context of that chapter shows this to be the case. That age will see the promise completely fulfilled and no one will be suffering the adverse consequences of an ancestor's sins or be held responsible for them. 

Also, in some of the verses above it is the death penalty that is the focus. In all the passages above, with the exception of the Jeremiah passage and the passage from Ezekiel chapter eighteen, I have highlighted the words in red that demonstrate this fact. No child will be put to death for the sin of a father. But, that does not mean that they will no longer be subject to other curses or responsibility for a father's iniquity. An example is seen in God's cursing of the son of Ham for the sin of Ham.

"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Gen. 9: 21-25)

Notice the word "cursed." Notice that God did not curse Ham alone for his sin, but cursed his son Canaan. But, as we have seen, there is a day coming when there will be "no more curse," and when the children will no longer he held responsible for the sin of their ancestors. That day has not yet come, although many bible commentators think differently. That day will come when Christ returns and brings in a new age of new heavens and earth, as we have seen from Jeremiah chapter thirty one. Notice this text:

"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matt. 23: 35 nkjv)

Obviously, the promise that children will no longer suffer the consequences or liability for a father's iniquity had not yet been annulled or abrogated in the time of Christ for here he affirms that the nation Israel will suffer punishment for the sins of their fathers, going all the way back to the murder of Abel. Israel in the time of Christ would suffer vengeance for having killed Abel? Yes, and therefore we see how the promise of "no more" from Jeremiah chapter thirty one had not yet come in the time of Christ. 

So, the promise that the children will "no more" be adversely affected or responsible for the sins of their fathers is not yet fully realized. That is one point of rebuttal in attempting to reconcile the texts above. The next point is probably more forceful however.

In the first set of texts above we see that it is God, and God alone, who curses the children for the sins of their fathers. In the second set of texts, God is forbidding the nation of Israel, or its courts, to act as God in this cursing and charging of responsibility. Therefore, what is forbidden is not what God does, but what the people through their government may be permitted to do. Further, as stated, the chief thing forbidden is the death penalty. No child is to be put to death in Israel by the leadership of Israel for a sin of a father. The prohibitions of these texts do not apply to God. God retains his prerogative to say that children will bear the adverse consequences or liability for the sins of their fathers. Many commentators fail to see this. Even I failed to see it for many years until I saw the light.

Not only Christ, but the Jews still recognized the principle that God may, if he so chooses, cause children to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers, for we read where they exclaimed, in voting to have Christ crucified, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt. 27: 25 nkjv)

So, just because God tells Israel that they cannot put to death a person for the sins of their fathers, that does not mean that he cannot do so. In fact, we have examples of where he did in fact do this. Let us call attention to the case of David's sin of adultery and in the death of Bathsheba's husband. We also read this witness from Samuel the prophet:

"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die...And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick...on the seventh day, that the child died." (II Sam. 12: 14-18) 

Here the child died because of the sin of David. In spite of what this text says, many will have cognitive dissonance over the fact and some will try to explain away what the text obviously says. Some will say that children may suffer the consequences of a father's sinful behavior but not be held responsible for it, like when a father is an alcoholic and brings evils upon his family because of it, and yet the children are not responsible for it. It is true that children suffer evil consequences for the sins of their parents, but these verses go much farther than that. In the above text the child is killed by the Lord for the sin of David. Many people will never accept that God had a just right to do such a thing. Samuel also wrote this about the matter of David's sin:

"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." (II Sam. 12: 9-10) 

So, God also said he would see to it that the sword would never depart from his "house," meaning from his descendants. 

"If you fail to follow all of God's commandments, God will curse your children. If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day...Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." (Deut. 23: 2) 

Again, God has this prerogative and actually exercises it when it pleases him. We saw that this was true with regard to God cursing Canaan, the son, for the sin of his father Ham. Here are some other examples.

"Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Deut. 28: 15-18) 

That seems pretty clear. So, we cannot pit the verses that say Israel should not punish children for the sins of their fathers against others that say that God does that very thing. It is the job of the bible apologist to show how both sets of scriptures are true and not just to accept what one set says and disregard the others, as if one set cancels out the other set. 

"And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the Lord our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Jer. 16: 10-11) 

Now, many will think that God is being unjust to do these things. But, God is just and what he is doing is not unjust. But, we will elaborate on that later in this section. God says that he pronounced evil against the children for the sins of their fathers. 

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD." (Isa. 14:21-22) 

Notice that God does not call upon Israel to do the killing nor to judge who was to be killed for the sins of fathers, for this he forbids. Yet, he does not relinquish that right for himself.

Notice one other example from the old testament. 

"In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." (1 Sam. 3: 12-13)

This text reminds me of the words of Christ to many of the Jews in his day who rejected him.

"In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs." (Luke 11: 48 nkjv)

It may be therefore a case where the Lord in many cases visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children when the children approve of those iniquitous deeds. That would not be true in all cases, as we have seen, because in cases like David's sins, his child was killed by the Lord before the child was old enough to acquiesce  to the sins of David.

Some think that children only inadvertently suffer the consequences of the sins of their parents as we have previously stated. However, if one looks at the texts above, it is obvious that it is God in his providence who causes those consequences to occur. He "visits" the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. He curses those children.

In the next chapter we will look into what the bible says about original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Following that we will have some things to say about the debate over whether this imputation is mediate or immediate.

Divine Justice Issues (X)

In the previous chapters we first gave an introduction to the issue of divine justice and righteousness and then answered two of the dozen questions to be addressed relative to it. We have given our answer to these two questions:

1. The justice of God and the problem of evil was the topic of debate in the Book of Job. Do the innocent ever suffer evil at the hand of God? Why does God allow evil things to occur?

3. The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing foreknowledge and predestination (or determinism). If all my choices and deeds are the result of God's will, then how can I be fairly or justly condemned for doing what I could not help doing (what he made me to do)? Is it just for God not to stop a crime that he knows in advance will be committed?

With this chapter we will begin to give our reply to these three questions which I combine because they are related: 

2. The justice of God is a debated issue in discussing God's condemnation of all men for the one sin of Adam. Is it right for God to condemn others for the sin of Adam? Is it right for God to cause me to be born into this world with a sinful nature? Is it right for the Lord to allow others to suffer the evil consequences of another man's wrongs?

4. Is it just for God to punish one person for another person's crime, as in the atonement? Jesus was punished for the sins of others. How is that just and fair? Is it just for God to allow a substitute?

5. Is it just to declare one righteous by proxy? The righteousness of a believer is perfect, being not his own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ imputed to him (or put to his credit). Is that just and right?

As a preliminary observation, I will say that it is a different debate for those who are guided by scripture firstly and by reason secondarily than by those who are guided by reason alone. So, it is one thing to debate the issues surrounding original sin and imputation, around guilt and blame and responsibility, with believers and another thing to debate this subject with atheists, Muslims, etc. I will first deal primarily with what the bible has to say on the issue and then focus on the arguments against it by unbelievers and infidels which are solely upon the perceived injustice of original sin and imputation.

All three of these questions are all under the umbrella of "imputation." It will also involve other concepts such as scapegoat ideology, substitution, corporate guilt, sacrificial atonement, and "original sin." 

The concept of "original sin," which posits that humanity is condemned and guilty for the one sin of Adam, and therefore born with a sinful nature, is a core belief in some Christian denominations, but it's not universally accepted and is rejected by other religions like Judaism and Islam. It is also rejected by Pelagians, those who accept the teachings of 5th century monk Pelagius. It is rejected by several Christian groups. So we begin with a look at original sin and imputation.

B.B. Warfield, well known bible commentator, said this (See here - emphasis mine):

"From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term "imputation" is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in this sense. But the applications and relations of the doctrine expressed by it were thoroughly worked out only in the discussions which accompanied and succeeded the Reformation. In the developed theology thus brought into the possession of the Church, three several acts of imputation were established and expounded. These are the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity; the imputation of the sins of His people to the Redeemer; the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people. Though, of course, with more or less purity of conception and precision of application, these three great doctrines became the property of the whole Church, and found a place in the classical theology of the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed alike. In the proper understanding of the conception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called "imputation" is in itself precisely the same in each of the three great transactions into which it enters as a constituent part. The grounds on which it proceeds may differ; the things imputed may be different; and the consequent treatment of the person or persons to which the imputation is made may and will differ as the things imputed to them differ. But in each and every case alike imputation itself is simply the act of setting to one's account; and the act of setting to one's account is in itself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on the credit or debit side of the account, and whatever may be the ground in equity on which it is set to his account. That the sin of Adam was so set to the account of his descendants that they have actually shared in the penalty which was threatened to it; and that the sins of His people were so set to the account of our Lord that He bore them in His own body on the tree, and His merits are so set to their account that by His stripes they are healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites in affirming."

What we will be contemplating is whether it is right and just for God to punish the whole human race for the one sin of the first man, and whether it was right and just for Jesus to be punished for the sins of others, and whether it be just and right for a person to be rewarded for what someone else did. Years ago I had a debate with a couple debating champions with the "Church of Christ" sect on original sin. These apologists were Pelagian in their beliefs. They did not believe that anyone was being held responsible for the sin of Adam and that everyone is born into the world without any guilt or sinful depraved nature. There were several texts that the brothers brought forward to try to prove their position, some of which we will examine in this section of this work on divine justice. I too had my proof texts to prove the opposite, relying primarily upon Romans chapter five. However, we did not focus the discussion on whether it was right or just for God to impute guilt to the descendants of Adam for what Adam did, but rather stuck with what the scriptures said on the subject. If debating, however, with those who do not accept the scriptures, or at least the new testament, such as with adherents to Islam or Judaism, or with atheists, the debate focuses on whether it is just, according to reason or common understanding, for God to so impute, as previously stated.

Under "PELAGIAN OPPOSITION TO THE DOCTRINE" Warfield writes further:

"Opposition to these doctrines has, of course, not been lacking in the history of Christian thought. The first instance of important contradiction of the fundamental principle involved is presented by the Pelagian movement (see "Pelagius, Pelagian Controversies"), which arose at the beginning of the fifth century. The Pelagians denied the equity and, therefore, under the government of God, the possibility of the involvement of one free agent in the acts of another; they utterly denied, therefore, that men either suffer harm from Adam's sin or profit by Christ's merits. By their examples only, they said, can either Adam or Christ affect us; and by free imitation of them alone can we share in their merits or demerits." 

Notice how Pelagians rejected the doctrine of original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants on the basis that it was not equitable or just. Notice also how they not only rejected the idea that others could be held guilty for the crimes of another, but they also rejected the idea that Christ suffered for the sins of others. These two ideas go together, as they did in the apostle Paul's mind in Romans chapter five and in other texts. The Pelagians argued just as did my debate opponents and affirmed that it is only when one imitates either Adam or Christ, doing personally what they did, that he is either condemned or justified. 

Under "SOCINIAN, ARMINIAN, AND RATIONALISTIC OPPOSITION" Warfield wrote:

"Radical opponents arose in the Reformation age itself, the most important of whom were the Socinians (see "Socinus, Faustus, Socinians"). By them it was pronounced an inanity to speak of the transference of either merit or demerit from one person to another: we can be bad with another's badness, or good with another's goodness, they said, as little as we can be white with another's whiteness. The center of the Socinian assault was upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ: it is not possible, they affirmed, for one person to bear the punishment due to another. But their criticism cut equally deeply into the Protestant doctrines of original sin and justification by faith. The influence of their type of thought, very great from the first, increased as time went on and became a factor of importance both in the Arminian revolt at the beginning of the seventeenth century and in the rationalistic defection a hundred years later. Neither the Arminians (e.g. Limborch, Curcellæus) nor the Rationalists (e.g. Wegscheider) would hear of an imputation of Adam's sin, and both attacked with arguments very similar to those of the Socinians also the imputation of our sins to Christ or of His righteousness to us."

So, is it true as the Pelagians, Socinians, and others say? Is it unjust for God, or anyone else, to be punished or rewarded for the bad or good that another does? 

Though we concede that it is true in regard to how humans are to treat others, yet it is not true with how God treats his rational creatures, be they angels or humans. But, more on that point later in this section. As we stated earlier in this work there are things that God can rightly and justly do that creatures cannot do, and if they did do them, then they would be wrong and unjust. 

The belief that one may suffer guilt and evil consequences for what does another person does not mean that there is an end to individual responsibility. There can be corporate responsibility at the same time as or in conjunction with personal responsibility. It is not an either/or matter, but a case where both are true. 

The fact is, people can be held responsible or accountable for the sins or wrongs of the corporate entity of which they are a part. They can be held accountable for, and suffer the consequences of, the acts of their lawful representatives, examples which we see in law under the heading of vicarious liability.  

Original sin does not refer to the first sin of Adam and Eve, but refers to the consequences for the human race of that first sin. What are those consequences? Some say there are adverse consequences but not guilt. Some argue that one of those consequences is that all are born with a morally corrupt nature, one which invariably causes actual acts of sin. Others, however, say that the sinful nature is itself the effect of having been judged as having sinned in their representative head (Adam) and therefore the sinful nature presupposes guilt. These would also argue that death, whether physical or spiritual, presupposes guilt and if true, then the universality of death proves that all are judged as guilty and are condemned in Adam.

This is the old intramural debate among bible believers concerning the question of whether the bible teaches what is called "mediate imputation" or "immediate imputation." Concerning that we have more to say as we proceed with our investigation.

Many teach what is called the "age of accountability." These affirm that everyone is born into this world with a corrupt nature but are not actually guilty of sin until they reach the age of accountability and commit their first sin. 

So, as we continue in this analysis of the questions, we will be asking first - "What do the scriptures say?" Secondly, we will ask - "what does reason and observation tell us?"

Divine Justice Issues (IX)

Does the end justify the means? Some say that the end never justifies the means. Others say that the end always justifies the means. Still others say that sometimes the end justifies the means. So, who is right? Further, is it right to say that God was just and right to create a world with evil because he had good ends for so doing? If so, is that not a case of the end justifying the means? 

Of course, the previous chapters showed that the bible writers, and Christ himself, affirmed that in God's case the end did justify the means. For instance, the crucifixion was a bad thing that brought about infinite good. That does not mean, however, that an end justifies any and all means. It only means that some cases oftentimes necessitate using means that are not good in themselves. So, my belief is that the end sometimes justifies the means and sometimes not. If there are no other means to bring about the greater good, then it is justified. Though in some cases the end justifies the means, that should not mean that any and every means is justified towards achieving an end. The means are justified only if there is no other or better way to achieve the end. Also, the means do not become good because they are used to bring about a good. It is in actuality a case where evil served a good purpose as we saw in the case of Joseph and Christ. Because God brought good from Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers does not therefore make what the brothers did to be right and not a sin. Because God brought good out of the evil of the crucifixion does not make the murderers good in their murder.

"The end justifies the means" is similar to another maxim that says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or of the one. That maxim means that when making a decision, the well-being of a large group of people should be prioritized over the needs of a smaller group or a single person, even if it means sacrificing the interests of the few or the one. This makes us think of what is called "lifeboat ethics." If you have a lifeboat that holds only ten people and where any more in the boat would sink it and kill everyone and where twelve people are in the water and will drown if they are not in the boat, then two people must be allowed to drown (a bad thing). This has literally happened many times, such as in the sinking of the Titanic, and in such cases the rule is to to let women and children go into the boat first. Still, lifeboat ethics requires that two people in the above example sacrifice themselves for the good of the ten. We see this in instances of "altruism." That is where someone puts the needs of others ahead of his own, such as when a person sacrifices himself to save others. Many soldiers have died in combat because they put themselves in danger to save fellow soldiers. Paul referred to this when he wrote: "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die." (Rom. 5: 7 nkjv)

We also see altruism and as an example where 1) the end justified the means, and 2) where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few or the one, in the words of Caiaphas the high priest who was holding court over the trial of Jesus for blasphemy and other presumed crimes. Caiaphas the high priest said by the Spirit - "nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” (John 11: 50 nkjv)

Notice the word "expedient." Another word would be "profitable" (from the Greek word sympherei). Other words used in the KJV for it are good, better, profit. Caiaphas did a mental "cost/benefit" analysis and concluded that the nation should murder Jesus for the good of the entire Jewish population, a case where the end justified the means. Caiaphas meant it one way, a wrong way, but not in the way in which it was actually a right thing.  

The idea that the end justifies the means is also an integral part of what is called consequentialism and utilitarianism. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by its consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it's the right thing to do. Utilitarianism is practically the same, affirming that an act is right only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Of course there are many caveats to keep in mind when discussing these issues philosophically. Whether it be consequentialism, utilitarianism, of a cost/benefits analysis, the force of the argument for justification rests on a judgment or appraisal of what is the good end in view and whether that good is really worth the cost. And, no finite creature has that ability and is why creatures must not lean upon their own understanding but seek answers from God and his oracles.

Therefore, the apologetic I have offered (as well as others) to show that God is just in spite of the fact that evil occurs in accordance with his will (either his permissive will or his will of decree) will not be accepted by those who think that the end never justifies the means. In Muslim theology God did not need to have his Son, Jesus Christ, to die as a sacrifice in order for men to be forgiven of sin. They say that God (Allah) simply forgives when he chooses to do so. Therefore they would say that there was no need for Christ to die and his death did not bring about any greater good, but actually had bad consequences. However, I think the examples that we have given in the preceding chapters show that the end good justified the evil means, even though those means were moral evils.

Paul's Input

"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just." (Rom. 3: 4-8 nkjv)

This text bears directly upon our discussion of whether a good end justifies the use of evil means. Those who Paul thought spoke "as a man," or in common language and belief, argued that since Paul taught that God brings good things from bad things, therefore doing those bad things is really doing good. If my sin proves that God was right and just in his condemnation, then my sin is the occasion for some good, and I ought not to be punished by God for sin. Take the case of God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. That destruction displayed God's justice, sovereignty, and omnipotence. That display is a good thing. Since it was a good thing (revealing something about God), the argument of men says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was therefore not sin but good and God had no just right to condemn Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. 

Every time a person sins he may say "God, you were right in designating me a sinner." God is "justified" in his judgment and condemnation of people for every time they sin they prove God right, and every time they suffer punishment or retribution for their sins, they also prove God right. But, even though evil is a means of demonstrating God's justice and rightness it is still nevertheless evil and God is just to punish for it. That is Paul's retort.

So, we need to keep in mind the truth that affirms that an evil remains an evil even though good may come from it. 

Also, while the apologetic or theodicy I have offered that says God is not to be denied or condemned  or judged as being unjust, for his allowing evil, is unacceptable to some, I nevertheless believe it to be the reason most often given in scripture. We can say "God is sovereign and can do whatever he pleases," yet this really does not say anything about whether God is seen as righteous and just by mere sovereignty alone. So, it is not a persuasive answer to simply plead for God's sovereign right to create or allow evil. Many want to know why God has done what seems to them to be unjust or unfair.