The above book by bible teacher John Murray is an excellent book for understanding the difference between mediate versus immediate imputation of Adam's sin and guilt. I read it many years ago, my father having the book in his library. I don't have it and it is not available on the Internet. I would no doubt cite from it if it were. But, Murray did not say anything new on the subject. The citations I will use for this part of our subject will be by others. Murray defended the traditional view of immediate imputation as I also do.
In theological discussions about the transmission of Adam's sin, "mediate imputation" posits that Adam's sin is imputed to humanity through the inherited corrupt nature, while "immediate imputation" suggests that Adam's sin is directly imputed to humanity. In the former view the sin of Adam is not imputed directly to his posterity; Instead, Adam's sinful nature is inherited, and Adam's sin is imputed as a consequence of the inheritance of Adam's corrupt nature. The key idea is that humans inherit a corrupt nature, and because of this, they are found guilty of Adam's sin. Some think the depraved nature makes one instantly a sinner at birth, while others think not, believing that it is when a child acts out his corrupt nature and commits his first sin.
We cited from B.B. Warfield previously and we will now return to him. Under "LA PLACE AND LATER THEOLOGIANS AND SCHOOLS" Warfield wrote the following (See here - emphasis mine) about the one who is credited with either formulating the doctrine of mediate imputation or giving it prominence:
"About the same time a brilliant French professor, Josué de la Place (see "Placeus, Josua"), of the Reformed school at Saumur, reduced all that could be called the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity simply to this — that because of the sin inherent in us from our origin we are deserving of being treated in the same way as if we had committed that offense. This confinement of the effect of Adam's sin upon his posterity to the transmission to them of a sinful disposition — inherent sin — was certainly new in the history of Reformed thought...Thus "immediate" and "mediate" imputation (for by the latter name La Place came subsequently to call his view) were pitted against each other as mutually exclusive doctrines: as if the question at issue were whether man stood condemned in the sight of God solely on account of his "adherent" sin, or solely on account of his "inherent" sin."
The issue is whether Paul particularly, and the biblical writers generally, affirmed that a person's sinful nature was the result of God's judicial verdict, the effect of God's imputation of Adam's sin to all, or whether the sinful nature becomes the avenue through which condemnation comes. It is the old cart before the horse line of reasoning, or which came first, the chicken or the egg. Are people guilty because they are born with a sinful nature or are they born with a sinful nature because they are judged as guilty?
The great bible scholar and commentator, professor Charles Hodge, wrote (emphasis mine - See here)
"About the middle of the seventeenth century Amyraut, Cappel, and La Place (or Placæus), three distinguished professors in the French theological school at Saumur, introduced several modifications of the Augustinian or Reformed doctrine on the decrees, election, the atonement, and the imputation of Adam’s sin. La Place taught that we derive a corrupt nature from Adam, and that that corrupt nature, and not Adam’s sin, is the ground of the condemnation which has come upon all mankind. When it was objected to this statement of the case that it left out of view the guilt of Adam’s first sin, he answered that he did not deny the imputation of that sin, but simply made it dependent on our participation of his corrupted nature. We are inherently depraved, and therefore we are involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin. There is no direct or immediate imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, but only an indirect or mediate imputation of it, founded on the fact that we share his moral character." (From his Systematic Theology Vol. II)
Keep in mind that we are addressing whether God is just in imputing the sin of Adam to his descendants. Many accept mediate imputation, I believe, because they think it puts what God has done in the imputation of original sin into a better light, and makes him appear less unfair. They think that because a depraved nature does not itself entail being guilty of Adam's sin, merely being an unfortunate consequence of it, that God cannot therefore be said to be holding descendants guilty for their father's (Adam) sin. In this case God is simply allowing the adverse consequences of Adam's sin to be experienced by his descendants without being born with his guilt. Guilt comes later when the child born with a depraved nature actually sins. But, I think that is simply a wish or good try, and anyone who plays the devil's advocate will point this out. The atheist or bible critic would laugh and say that the distinction is really no distinction at all. Why? Because God could have designed the situation in such a way that the children of Adam do not receive his corrupt nature. They might ask - "what difference does it make in the end seeing all become sinners at some point after they are born with that depraved nature?" Or "what difference does it make whether God makes all men sinners by mediate or immediate imputation?" Why didn't God just make humans like he did the angels where no angel receives his nature from another angel? God curses Adam's nature and constitution, and it becomes depraved, and his descendants inherit this nature, and this nature will bring forth sin and guilt.
Another point to consider is how a person gets his soul or spirit. We all know that as far as the body or flesh is concerned, it is obtained by reproduction. But, what of the soul or spirit? Was each soul created in Adam at the start, or is it reproduced as is the body? Or, as some believe, does God create the soul or spirit in the womb at the time of conception? If he creates the soul and spirit at that time, does he make it depraved?
Traducianism and creationism are two theological perspectives on the origin of the human soul, with traducianism holding that the soul is passed down from parents, while creationism posits that God creates a new soul for each person at conception. I hold to the creationism point of view though my father held to the traducian scheme. Either way we have people being born with a depraved body and spirit. So, was it not God's curse on Adam that changed his nature? Further, if God creates the soul and spirit when the body is generated in the womb, does he immediately curse it when it is created or make it sinful? Or, does it become depraved like the body when it is joined to the body?
In either case it is still the result of God holding Adam's descendants guilty for the sin of Adam. And, the justice of it is seen in the fact that it establishes the foundation for God to hold Christ guilty for the sins of man and for Christ's righteousness and obedience to be credited to the believer in Jesus.
Hodge continued:
"Hereditary corruption, or spiritual death is the penalty, or, as expressed by the Lutheran confessions, by Calvin, and by the Protestants generally, it was an evil inflicted by “the just judgment of God, on account of Adam’s sin (propter peccatum Adami).”
But, this is what is denied by the advocates of mediate imputation. Inherited depravity is not itself a penal infliction and a person is not judged to be a sinner because he has a sinful nature.
Wrote Hodge further:
"From the last named author it was adopted by President Edwards, in one chapter of his work on “Original Sin.” It appears there, however, merely as an excrescence. It was not adopted into his system so as to qualify his theological views on other doctrines. Although President Edwards does clearly commit himself to the doctrine of Placæus, as he says, “that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent,” nevertheless he expressly teaches the doctrine of immediate imputation formally and at length in other portions of that work. (1.) He argues through a whole section to prove the federal headship of Adam. (2.) He holds that the threatening of death made to Adam included the loss of original righteousness and spiritual death. (3.) That that threatening included his posterity, and that the evils which they suffer in consequence of his sin are truly penal. If this be so, if the loss of original righteousness and inherent depravity are penal, they suppose antecedent guilt. That is, a guilt antecedent, and not consequent to the existence and view of the depravity. (4.) In his exposition of Rom. v. 12-21, he expressly teaches the common doctrine, and says, “As this place in general is very full and plain, so the doctrine of the corruption of nature, as derived from Adam, and also the imputation of his first sin, are both clearly taught in it. The imputation of Adam’s one transgression, is indeed most directly and frequently asserted. We are here assured that by one man’s sin death passed on all; all being adjudged to this punishment as having sinned (so it is implied) in that one man’s sin. And it is repeated, over and over, that all are condemned, many are dead, many made sinners, etc., by one man’s offence, by the disobedience of one, and by one offence.” As guilt precedes punishment, if, as Edwards says, depravity or spiritual death is a punishment, then the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s first sin precedes depravity, and is not consequent upon it. This is the current representation throughout the work on Original Sin. It is only when in answer to the objection that it is unjust that we should be punished for the sin of Adam, that he enters on an abstruse metaphysical discussion on the nature of oneness or identity, and tries to prove that Adam and his posterity are one, and not distinct agents."
Though Edwards may have contradicted himself, yet he is very clear that the depraved nature is itself the effect of being esteemed by God to have sinned in Adam.
Hodge says "The leading objections against the doctrine of mediate imputation are, —
"1. That it denies what the Scriptures assert. The Scriptures assert that the sentence of condemnation has passed upon all men for the sin of one man. This the doctrine of mediate imputation denies, and affirms that the ground of that condemnation is inherent depravity. We are accounted partakers of Adam’s sin only because we derive a corrupt nature from him. According to the Scriptures, however, the reason why we are depraved is, that we are regarded as partakers of his sin, or because the guilt of that sin is imputed to us. The guilt in the order of nature and fact precedes the spiritual death which is its penal consequent."
Again, physical death is a penalty for being judged a sinner and being under condemnation. Anyone who is dying, or dies, is therefore one who has been made a sinner by Adam's transgression. I believe that those who argue as do the Pelagians are simply refusing to see what is obviously the teaching of Paul in Romans chapter five. It is simply an attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance that Pelagians and others have against the idea that all men are condemned for Adam's sin to say that Adam's descendants merely suffer evil consequences of his sin without being responsible for his sin. That apologetic really does not help remove this dissonance nor will it appease the criticisms of the critics.
Hodge continued:
"2. This doctrine denies the penal character of the hereditary corruption in which all men are born. According to the Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal, mortality, the loss of original righteousness, and hereditary corruption are inflicted upon mankind in execution of the threatening made against Adam, and are included in the comprehensive word, death, by which the threatened penalty was expressed. This is as emphatically taught by President Edwards as by any other of the Reformed theologians. He devotes a section of his work to prove that the death mentioned in Genesis, and of which the Apostle speaks in Rom. v. 12, included spiritual death, and that the posterity of Adam were included in that penalty. He says: “The calamities which come upon them in consequence of his sin, are brought on them as punishments.” He moreover says, it destroys the whole scope of the Apostle’s argument “to suppose that the death of which he here speaks as coming on mankind by Adams sin, comes not as a punishment.” And again: “I do not suppose the natural depravity of the posterity of Adam is owing to the course of nature only; it is also owing to the just judgment of God.” But punishment supposes guilt; if the loss of righteousness and the consequent corruption of nature are punishments, they suppose the antecedent imputation of guilt; and therefore imputation is immediate and not mediate; it is antecedent and not consequent to or upon inherent depravity. The view which the Reformed theologians uniformly present on this subject is, that God constituted Adam the head and representative of his race. The penalty attached to the covenant made with him, and which included his posterity, was the loss of the divine favour and fellowship. The consequences of the forfeiture of the divine favour in the case of Adam were, (1.) The loss of original righteousness; (2.) The consequent corruption of his whole nature; and, (3.) Exposure to eternal death. These consequences come on his posterity in the same order: first, the loss or rather destitution of original righteousness; and secondly, corruption of nature; and thirdly, exposure to eternal death; so that no child of Adam is exposed to eternal death irrespective of his own personal sinfulness and ill-desert."
That is well stated and is a good defense of the immediate imputation view. Consider also that if we only get a sinful nature because of Adam's sin, but not his guilt, then we must say that we only get a righteous nature because of Christ's, the second Adam's, sin but not his justification. In such a case the parallel between Adam and Christ is destroyed and the modus operandi not alike.
Hodge continued:
"3. It is a further objection to the doctrine of mediate imputation that it increases instead of relieving the difficulty of the case. It denies that a covenant was made with Adam. It denies that mankind ever had a probation. It assumes that in virtue of a natural law of propagation when Adam lost the image of God and became sinful, his children inherit his character, and on the ground of that character are subject to the wrath and curse of God. All the evils therefore which the Scriptural and Church doctrine represent as coming upon the posterity of Adam as the judicial punishment of his first sin, the doctrine of mediate imputation represents as sovereign inflictions, or mere natural consequences. What the Scriptures declare to be a righteous judgment, Placæus makes to be an arbitrary dispensation."
This is what I have previously stated. Mediate imputation does not remove the dissonance, does not satisfy the critics who say that the whole scheme of original sin is unjust, that it does not relieve the difficulty of the case, but rather increases it, as Hodge stated.
Hodge continued:
"4. It is a still more serious objection that this doctrine destroys the parallel between Adam and Christ on which the Apostle lays so much stress in his Epistle to the Romans. The great point which he there labours to teach and to illustrate, and which he represents as a cardinal element of the method of salvation, is that men are justified for a righteousness which is not personally their own. To illustrate and confirm this great fundamental doctrine, he refers to the fact that men have been condemned for a sin which is not personally their own. He over and over insists that it was for the sin of Adam, and not for our own sin or sinfulness, that the sentence of death (the forfeiture of the divine favour) passed upon all men. It is on this ground he urges men the more confidently to rely upon the promise of justification on the ground a righteousness which is not inherently ours. This parallel destroyed, the doctrine and argument of the Apostle are overturned, if it be denied that the sin of Adam, as antecedent to any sin or sinfulness of our own is the ground of our condemnation. If we are partakers of the penal consequences of Adam’s sin only because of the corrupt nature derived by a law of nature from him, then we are justified only on the ground of our own inherent holiness derived by a law of grace from Christ. We have thus the doctrine of subjective justification, which overthrows the great doctrine of the Reformation, and the great ground of the peace and confidence of the people of God, namely, that a righteousness not within us but wrought out for us, — the righteousness of another, even the eternal Son of God, and therefore an infinitely meritorious righteousness, — is the ground of our justification before God. Any doctrine which tends to invalidate or to weaken the Scriptural evidence of this fundamental article of our faith is fraught with evil greater than belongs to it in itself considered. This is the reason why the Reformed theologians so strenuously opposed the doctrine of La Place. They saw and said that on his principles the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness antecedent to our sanctification could not be defended."
Again, this apologetic is superior to how I could have expressed it. This is certainly a solid refutation of the mediate imputation view and a good defense of the immediate imputation view.
Hodge continued:
"5. Perhaps, however, the most serious objection against the doctrine of mediate imputation is drawn from the principle on which it rests, and the arguments of its advocates in its support. The great principle insisted upon in support of this doctrine is that one man cannot justly be punished for the sin of another. If this be so then it is unjust in God to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children. Then it was unjust in Christ to declare that the blood of the prophets slain from the beginning should come upon the men of his generation. Then it is unjust that the Jews of the present day, and ever since the crucifixion of our Lord, should be scattered and peeled, according to the predictions of the prophets, for the rejection of the Messiah. Then, also, were the deluge sent in wrath upon the world, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the extermination of the Canaanites, in which thousands of children perished innocent of the offences for which those judgments were inflicted, all acts of stupendous injustice. If this principle be sound, then the administration of the divine government over the world, God’s dealings with nations and with the Church, admit of no defence. He has from the beginning and through all time held children responsible for the conduct of parents, included them without their consent in the covenants made with their fathers, and visited upon them the consequences of the violations of such covenants of which they were not personally guilty, as well as bestowed upon them rich blessings secured by the fidelity of their progenitors without anything meritorious on their part. Moreover, if the principle in question be valid, then the whole Scriptural doctrine of sacrifice and expiation is a delusion. And then, also, we must adopt the Socinian theory which makes the death of Christ instead of a penal satisfaction for sin, a mere symbolical inculcation of a truth — a didactic and not an expiatory service."
Again, this is a superb defense of what Paul taught in Romans chapter five and a casting down of the false reasoning and fallacious arguments of the Pelagians.
Hodge continued:
"The theory of those who deny all imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, whether mediate or immediate, and who account for the corruption of the race consequent on his apostasy, on the general law of propagation, that like begets like, differs only in terms from the doctrine of La Place. All he meant by mediate imputation was that the descendants of Adam, derived from him a corrupt nature, have the same moral character, and therefore are adjudged worthy of the same condemnation. This the advocates of the theory just mentioned are willing to admit. Their doctrine therefore is liable to all the objections which bear against the doctrine of mediate imputation, and therefore does not call forth a separate consideration."
What is highlighted in red above is what I previously affirmed. The doctrine of mediate imputation does not remove the difficulty that many have in regard to the fairness of God in holding all responsible for the one sin of the one man.
No comments:
Post a Comment