"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment