In this chapter we will further address some of the common objections against the doctrine of original sin. First, in regard to the objections stated in the above image, I would say that the doctrine of original sin is not an invention of Augustine, but as we have seen, was first taught by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter five. Secondly, we have already shown how God created the human race under a different constitution than he did the angels. If God is not just in imputing the sin of Adam to his posterity, then it is also not just for God to impute our sins to Christ the innocent.
As far as why Christ was not born of original sin has been mentioned by me so far in that I have stated that Christ was an exception. So, how do I know that?
First, Adam could not be the head of Christ because he is the head of Adam. We have previously cited the words of Paul who said that Jesus was "the head of every man." (I Cor. 11: 3)
Second, he is the counterpart of the first Adam, and both were sinless at their creation.
Third, the scriptures assert that Christ was without sin, and this is not said of any other person, making him unique and an exception. (II Cor. 5: 21; I Peter 2: 22; Heb. 4: 15; 7: 26; etc.) Universal statements, such as we have in Romans chapter five, may be true although with an exception. One example of this is seen in these words of the apostle Paul: "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." (I Cor. 15: 27 kjv) All things, except God himself, are "put under" Christ. So we likewise say that "all men sinned in Adam, or are born in sin, except for Christ." Another example of this is to be seen in the words of Solomon who said "For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin." (Eccl. 7: 20 nkjv) Christ is the exception to this universal proposition. He is a just man on earth who only did good and did not sin.
Fourth, Christ was born of a virgin. But why? Surely it was to keep him from being born in sin. What other reason could there be? I believe this is intimated in these words: "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1: 35 nkjv) He would not be the holy one from his birth if he were not born miraculously by the virgin Mary. This is why Christ in the protoevangelium is called uniquely "the seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15) All other human beings are represented as being the seed of the man. Christ in his human nature was not the seed of man as the bible uses the term. That does not mean, however, that he was not a man with a fully human nature. It simply is alluding to the fact that Christ's body, soul, and spirit were free from sin. Yes, he was born "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8: 3), but this does not mean he had sinful flesh, but simply means that you could not tell by looking at his body and flesh that he was without sin, but that he looked like every other man, all of whom were of sinful flesh.
Those of the Roman Catholic church, believing in the imputation of original sin, don't think that the virgin birth of Christ is sufficient in itself to have kept Christ from being born in sin or guilty of original sin. They think that it was also necessary for his mother Mary be herself without sin. This led them to formulate what is called "the immaculate conception." Many people who hear that term for the first time assume that it is talking about the immaculate conception of Christ. But Roman Catholics believe it rather refers to the birth of Mary who was given special grace to keep her from being born sinful. But, that begs the question for there is no scripture that asserts such a thing. Rather, the only exception, as we have seen, to being born without original sin, is Christ. These Catholics say that if Mary had not been born immaculate, and had been subject to the physical and spiritual corruption of sin, then Jesus would have inherited that corruption also. But, that is another case of begging the question. One of the biggest problems with this view is that it also logically necessitates not only that Mary be immaculately conceived, but also her mother, and then her mother, all the way back to Eve.
Another difficulty for the Roman Catholics is that they are forced to answer the criticism of the infidel who would ask "why does he not give everyone descended from Adam that same kind of special grace that was supposedly given to Mary and therefore keep all men from being born with a depraved nature?" Such a view would make God appear to the worldly mind to be more fair and just.
Now that we have addressed the criticisms in the above image, let us consider some other objections. I will begin with citing from an Internet article titled "The Original Sin Paradox" (See here) by philosopher R.N. Carmona. Wrote Carmona (emphasis mine):
"It has become routine for atheists and people who are skeptical of Christianity to question God’s view on justice. On the one hand, he thinks that penal substitution is acceptable, hence sending Jesus Christ, a scapegoat, to pay the ransom for the sins of mankind. On the other, he thinks that rampant guilt by association is morally acceptable and to see this, one does not have to venture very far into the Bible. One need only read the first three chapters of Genesis to come across the Fall, the origin of sin. What few people question is the other side of the coin. While it is apt to question God’s twisted view of justice, it is arguably more appropriate, first and foremost, to question God’s distorted view of accountability."
To this we respond to this skeptic by asking him how he would have created man if he were God. Would he have made him capable of sinning? Would he have been just in punishing sin? Or, would he simply excuse it? Would he have made each man accountable for his own sins? How would he then make salvation and forgiveness possible? Would he allow a substitute? If he thinks that original sin and God's defining and determining each one's accountability or responsibility is a "twisted view of justice," then what would be his idea as to what justice would be like if he were God? It is one thing to criticize a system of justice and then offer no better system.
Wrote Carmona in regard to atheist John Loftus:
"John Loftus identified the first half of The Original Sin Paradox. He, in other words, questions whether most of us, assuming the same exact conditions, would sin as Adam did. He states:
There are Christians who object that it doesn’t matter if thinking people can’t understand the truth because of all of us deserve to be condemned for the sin of our first human parents in a Garden of Eden anyway. But isn’t it obvious that only if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions can such a test be considered a fair one rather than a sham? But if some us would not have sinned in the Garden of Eden under the same “ideal” conditions, then there are people who are being punished for something they never would’ve done in the first place." (Loftus, John W. The End of Christianity. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011. 85. Print)
As the federal head of the human race, Adam stands before God as our representative and so acts on our behalf. His misdeed was our misdeed because he acted as our proxy before God. Lest anyone complain that Adam was a bad representative, he may argue that God knew, had he been in Adam’s place, that he would have done the same thing. So Adam does not fail to represent us accurately before God and so serves as an apt representative on our behalf. This is of course a weak argument and involves a degree of speculation.
The question concerns what each human being would have done if he were born in the same innocent state as Adam and Eve. Or, what if God had made each person individually as he did the angels? In the case of the angels some did sin and some did not. So, we may presume that had humans been constituted as the angels that some would have sinned like Adam and some not. We simply do not know the answer to this question and could only speculate. So, does the justice of God depend upon the question as to whether every man would have done the same as Adam? I don't believe so. So, in debate with the atheist or other skeptic we must take another approach if we are to convince him that God was just in making the human race's destiny to depend upon Adam. We might rather respond to these type of critics with these words.
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness (or injustice) with God? Certainly not!" "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Rom. 9: 14, 20 nkjv)
God is just and what he does is just and right whether we can comprehend how it is so in every case. We must not insult God by calling into question the goodness, justice, or wisdom of his every work. We are reminded of the words of Solomon who said: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5 nkjv) As we have before stated, God says: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD." (Isa. 55: 8 nkjv)
We have also shown how if it is just for Christ to have the sins of others to be imputed to him (he becoming accountable for them), then it was just to set up Adam as the head of the human race and to make the entire race to be responsible for his act.
Wrote Carmona:
"There are two layers to Loftus’ contention, one of which is not elaborated on. The first is that if some people would not have sinned given the same conditions, why punish them? The second, which is crucial to creating the paradox, is that if each and every one of us would have sinned given these initial conditions, then is it not the case that we were already flawed to begin with? Therefore, we are left with a paradox: Did man Fall because of Adam’s original sin or was Adam already “Fallen” (i.e. flawed) and powerless to not commit the original sin? Either you have a situation in where God rigged the game, pitting a newly created man against a master Machiavellian or he rigged the game by making a person that is inherently flawed, hence justifying the idea that any one of us would have made the same mistake and therefore, deserve to be punished. So was humankind flawed from the beginning, thus the original sin or did the original sin make us flawed?"
Many of the confessions of faith within the Christian community affirm that Adam, when originally created by God, was given a choice, or "free will," and that he was made mutable or "liable to fall." Loftus calls this a "flaw" and is the reason why Adam sinned, and this makes God responsible for Adam's flaw. The logic of Loftus cannot be refuted. However, instead of the pejorative word "flawed," I would rather say that God made Adam less than perfect, and the same is true with the angels. Most of the confessions also state that Adam had the ability to have obeyed. That being so, we can say that he was not flawed.
The kind or degree of perfection that the elect angels and glorified human beings will have following their resurrection and entrance into eternal life will far exceed that in which Adam or angels were originally created. There is now no possibility of the elect angels sinning nor will any human saint have such a possibility when they have been glorified. The imperfections in the original creation of man will no longer be part of the new creation of man. He will no longer be mutable but immutable. His will will no longer be free to sin but only free to holiness. (See Rom. 6: 20-23)
Yes, man was originally made in the image and likeness of God. (Gen. 1: 27; 5: 1-2) When he sinned, he no longer had that image. When a person is regenerated in his spirit the process of making him once again into the image and likeness of God is begun. The original divine image was not so much in man's body but in his soul, mind, and spirit and involved being righteous and holy. (Rom. 8: 29, 1 Cor. 15: 49; Col. 3: 10). Paul exhorts believers to "put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4: 24 nkjv) That kind of perfection exceeds that which Adam and Eve, or the angels possessed, and which did not originally characterized them. They certainly were not immutable in holiness but had "liability" to fall from their state of perfection. There is no such liability now among the elect angels nor any saint in heaven.
God had the right to make his creatures, whether angels or men, with such limitations (what Loftus and Camona call a "flaw" which is the root meaning of the Greek word "hamartia" that is often translated as "sin"). Creating them with such limitations was not without good reason. The elect angels who were witnesses to the rebellion of Lucifer and the fallen angels, and elect sinners from among the human race who have experienced and witnessed the results of man's fall into sin and death, now know good and evil on a level that they could not have known otherwise. The good that comes to them by God's creating them, even after foreknowing that they would fall, was to raise them higher by their experience with sin and death. We could expand on this idea, but will forestall, having already shown a probable justification for God to have created angels and men as they were originally made. It was not a case where God "rigged the game" against his creatures, although he knew what would be the outcome of creating angels and men with such limitations. He had a greater good in mind in suffering it so to be.
Wrote Carmona:
"This paradox is a devastating blow to Christianity, a religion that has already been blistered by numerous contentions and outright defeaters."
Yes, we know of the numerous objections that infidels raise against the holiness, righteousness, and justice of God. We do disagree however with the conclusion of many who think that such paradoxes are a "devastating blow" to Christianity or to the bible. We might ask such infidels - "how would you have made man different?" Would you have made him without any limitations? Would you have given him free will? How would you have taught men about what is sin and death? Or about what is holy versus what is unholy? Seeing this whole story about the creation and fall of men and angels is a real story, how would you have written the novel?
Wrote Carmona:
"The penchant for some Christians to object to the doctrine of original sin simply does not work because the early Church Fathers readily accepted it and there has been no convincing doctrine offered to supplant it. "
What doctrine do the Pelagians offer to supplant the truth? How is it better? How does that story end? We could ask the same thing of the bible's critics. How would you have written the story of the creation and fall of angels and men? Would it be better in the end than the story the bible gives us? Tell us of your historiography. Would you agree with Leibniz that this is the best world that you could create? Or say that a world without the possibility of sin and death are not possible?
Wrote Carmona further:
"There is also the fact that the earliest Christian on record, the Apostle Paul, outlined the doctrine in very clear terms: Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. In any event, the paradox makes it abundantly clear that God intended the Fall and therefore, all of the suffering he claims follows from it. Any way one slices it, Adam was predestined to fail because he, or anyone else in his position, was flawed to begin with or he was so utterly powerless to resist Satan’s temptation that anyone else would have disobeyed God and eaten from the tree. In either case, this does not bode well for a God that is perfectly good. His view of moral accountability is so twisted that he must assume any one of us would have failed where Adam did, even in a pre-Fall state. Or, it is simply the case that we were intrinsically flawed from the start and are therefore being held accountable for a test we never took. This is not to give any credence to what is clearly unadulterated hokum, but this is the bunk that convinces close to 50 percent of the world population, i.e., every adherent of the three major monotheisms. Hopefully this paradox will make it possible for the scales to fall from more eyes."
We agree that God created man foreknowing that he would fall. Yet, he created him anyway. Would you have done the same, Mr. Infidel? Yes, God did intend the fall, for he created angels and men knowing that they would fall into sin. In chapter five of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we have these words:
"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs, in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."
Of course, we discussed God's purpose in the existence of evil in the earlier chapters. The fall of angels and men did not catch God by surprise. He foreknows all things. Wrote the prophet:
"Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure.’" (Isa. 46: 10 nkjv)
It is one thing to declare the beginning from the end (which is what we see historically looking back into the past), and quite another thing to declare the end from the beginning. Only the author of the novel of man's existence could do that.
The above skeptics believe that for God to create a world where evil was possible, yea, even certain, makes God to be not good. But, we have shown how this reasoning is not sound.
Some of what Carmona says may be true with respect to Eve, though not to Adam. For the inspired apostle says "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." (I Tim. 2: 14 nkjv) Adam did not sin because he thought as did Eve. Unlike her he knew that the Serpent told a lie. So, if not deceived, why did he follow the lead of his wife and eat the forbidden fruit? Most bible scholars affirm that he did it so that he might share all with his wife, and to be with her, no matter what. I think that is likely correct. Perhaps we will not know for sure until we are with the Lord. We do know that he was not deceived like Eve.
We agree that Adam was not made immutably perfect. Without the attribute of immutability we may indeed say that Adam was "flawed" if by that term we mean that he was mutable and liable to fall, and if we view the attribute of "free will" as a defect. We may say the same thing in regard to angels, however. The elect angels, as we have seen, were those angels whom God kept from sinning, or we might say, whom he made immutable in holiness as God is himself. We may also say that God could have prevented Adam and Eve's sin as he did the elect angels. We can affirm also that the elect angels cannot credit or praise themselves from having been kept from the apostasy of other angels.
No comments:
Post a Comment