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.
No comments:
Post a Comment