Doctrine of Man (Part 21): Attempts to Systematize Data

Attempts to Systematize Data

In exploring the impact of Adam’s sin, we need to ask (i) whether Adam’s descendants each bear the guilt of Adam’s sin, a doctrine sometimes called original guilt, and (ii) whether they have a nature which is in some way disadvantaged as a result of Adam’s sin.

1. Traditional

Augustine promulgated both of these doctrines. Speaking of “the passing on of mortality and the constant repetition of sensual pleasure,” Augustine says, “The former derives from the punishment for the original sin, the latter from the punishment for repeated sin; with the former we are born into this life, while the latter we augment over the course of our lives. These two things, which we may call nature and habit, create a very strong and unconquerable covetousness once they have been joined together” (To Simplician I.1.10; cf. I.2.19).

3. Evaluation

Although under Augustine’s influence the doctrine of original guilt came to be promulgated as  official Roman Catholic doctrine at the Councils of Carthage (411–418) and Orange (529) and was embraced by the principal Protestant Reformers as well, we have seen from our study of the relevant biblical passages that the scriptural grounds for affirming the doctrine of original sin are slim to non-existent. The doctrine of original guilt is not taught in the story of the fall in Genesis 3 nor clearly in Romans 5. The story of the fall does describe the first or primal sin committed by human beings, along with its disastrous consequences for all mankind. But one looks in vain for any indication by the author that all humans are held to be guilty of Adam’s sin.

Moreover, there is no suggestion in the story that Adam and Eve’s sin resulted in a corruption of human nature that is transmitted to their descendants. The curses pronounced by God have nothing to do with moral corruption that is passed on from parent to child. Furthermore, the doctrine of a corruption of human nature is, perhaps surprisingly, nowhere to be found in Romans 5.12–21. Neither is it to be found in passages like Ephesians 2.3, lest human nature be regarded as essentially sinful and conversion as an essential change in humanity. The Bible therefore does not teach the doctrine of original sin, either in the form of our bearing the original guilt of Adam’s sin or of the corruption of human nature as a consequence of Adam’s sin. Neither does the Scripture attribute the universality and pervasiveness of sin to the transmission of Adam’s sin to us. The doctrine of original sin is therefore not incumbent upon us.

Now it is plausible that in their pre-fall state of innocence, Adam and Eve could not have avoided sin without some sort of special divine assistance. We may therefore hypothesize that in that state they enjoyed what has traditionally been called a superadded gift (donum superadditum) of grace, such as the indwelling Holy Spirit, above and beyond what they had by human nature alone. In choosing to sin, they defied God, casting aside this gracious help, and so plunged themselves into evil. Now sinful, they experienced alienation from God and spiritual death.

Without the assistance of God’s special grace they could no longer control the animal nature that was of biological necessity theirs, leading to self-centeredness and a panoply of sins of soul and body, sins which eventually became rampant in human society and helped to distort the lives of their progeny. Although human nature is not corrupted by Adam’s sin, it is unleashed from the restraint and guidance of God’s special grace. There is no hereditary sin, but every merely human person is born deprived of the divine help that was Adam and Eve’s. God has chosen to enclose all men in a mass of sin with a view to re-establishing his original plan for humanity derailed by Adam and Eve’s perfidy. Human nature is thus deprived, but not depraved.

On this view, infants do not become sinful until they are able to make free decisions of their own that are against God’s will. Scripture simply does not speak to the issue of infants who die at an extremely early age. It would be misleading to say that they are “unregenerate” because that connotes that they are spiritually dead due to sin, whereas they are not yet sinful. Eventually they begin to do things contrary to God’s will and so become sinners. They are not culpable of evil until they transgress a divine command and so are condemned and guilty.

It is disquieting to think that those who die in infancy, being sinless, could be saved apart from Christ’s atoning death. But could there be some other reason why they are not fit for heaven, other than their being sinful? Here’s a thought: according to the classic doctrine of the atonement, not only are our sins imputed to Christ, but Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (II Cor 5.21). Even if infants’ sins are not imputed to Christ, since they have no sins, nonetheless it could still be the case that in order to go to heaven, Christ’s perfect righteousness must be imputed to them. Thus, they cannot be saved apart from Christ’s atoning work on our behalf.