Doctrine of Man (Part 26)

I argued on the basis of our study of Romans 5 that Paul teaches neither the imputation of Adam’s sin to all men nor that all men inherit a corrupted human nature from Adam. Therefore, I think that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is not incumbent upon the biblically faithful Christian.

But suppose we do want to go Augustine’s route in thinking that all men somehow sin in Adam. How might we understand such a doctrine in the face of the Enlightenment critique, which, as you’ll remember, held that no person can be justly punished for another person’s sin? Well, traditionally Reformation theologians have understood Adam to be the federal head of the human race. He represents us before God just as here in the United States our federal representative represents us in the United States Congress. Our representative votes for us. We don’t live in a pure democracy in which all of us go and vote. Rather, we have a representative system whereby our representative votes in our place. Or to borrow a different analogy from the financial world, think of a stockholders’ meeting. Jan and I sometimes receive in the mail a proxy form which we are asked to sign in order to authorize someone else to serve as our proxy at the shareholders’ meeting. Since we ourselves do not attend the stockholders’ meeting, our proxy does, and he votes in our place. It is our vote, however, that he is casting, not his own, because he is our proxy. Similarly, if we think of Adam as our proxy before God, or as the federal head of the human race, then it seems to me that we can make sense of the idea that all persons are culpable for what Adam does. He acts on our behalf, and we are held responsible for it. Therefore, all persons are born sinners and condemned before God.

The natural response to this, I think, is to say, “Well, who asked Adam to be my representative? I didn’t authorize him to be my proxy! Why give him the right to stand before God and act in my place to make a decision for which I am then held blameworthy?” It seems to me that what the defender of Augustine’s doctrine could say is that Adam, as our divinely appointed representative, sinned before God and that had we been in Adam’s place instead we would have done exactly the same thing. So the Augustinian may affirm the truth of a counterfactual of freedom about each one of us; namely, if I had been in Adam’s place, I would have done the same thing and sinned. Therefore, we cannot complain that we have been misrepresented by Adam before God. Adam has faithfully represented us before God; he has done exactly what we would have done in that situation.

This would not, however, explain the universality and totality of sin. We should need to supplement the imputation of Adam’s sin with something like a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam as well. But it is hard to see how a moral corruption of human nature can be physically transmitted. I have suggested that the universality and pervasiveness of human sin can be plausibly explained, not on the basis of a corrupted nature, but on the dual basis that we are each born with an animal nature that of biological necessity is oriented toward survival and therefore inclines us to self-interest and that the human community in which we are born and raised is profoundly evil. Such a view is an essentially Pelagian view of the transmission of sin, and such a Pelagian view strikes me as both biblical and much more plausible than the traditional view of hereditary sin. Pelagianism does not deny that humanity is universally mired in sin, but it denies that this condition is a hereditary condition transmitted from Adam via our progenitors. The theological error of both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism lay not so much in their denial of hereditary sin as in their failure to appreciate fully the debilitating effects of sin. Both views failed to emphasize the necessity of God’s taking the initiative in reaching fallen and helpless humanity via his prevenient grace.

 Still, such a Pelagian doctrine of the transmission of sin has consequences that we may find unsettling. It would seem possible, even if vanishingly improbable, that some person might always choose for God and so never sin, therefore having no need of forgiveness and redemption. It therefore behooves us to ask whether there is some plausible adjustment to the Pelagian view that might be made that would avert these implications. It seems to me that we can go some way toward such a view. The biologically based view of sin bears a close resemblance, not only to the Pelagian view of sin, but also to aspects of the traditional Roman Catholic view of original sin. According to that view, Adam and Eve in their state of innocence enjoyed a gift of God’s grace (donum superadditum) over and above what they had simply by human nature that enabled them to live sinless lives. In defying God, they forfeited this gift of God’s grace and so found themselves incapable of mastery of their natural desires. In their post-fall condition their nature was thus deprived but not depraved, as the Protestant Reformers would have it. This now deprived nature inevitably issues in sin on the part of those who grow to normal moral awareness. This state of deprivation in infants is not culpable or evil, or so we have argued, and so there is no reason, absent imputation of Adam’s sin, to think that infant baptism is necessary in order for babies who die to avoid condemnation or even attain beatitude. Man’s deprived condition is not sinful as such but is nonetheless the tinder of sin (fomes peccati). The ordinary human nature that we inherit from our parents thus does not involve any hereditary sin; but we have lost the added gift of grace that Adam and Eve once had.

Such a doctrine of original sin strikes me as very plausible, not only scientifically but theologically. It seems altogether appropriate to say that Adam and Eve would have needed God’s superadded grace to live wholly sinless lives. This seems especially so if we think of that supernatural gift as the indwelling Holy Spirit. If the sinless Christ required the Holy Spirit to carry out his calling, how much more our human parents!

A drive towards self-preservation is not a defect but a vital feature of the good nature of a biological organism like man. But once robbed of God’s gracious assistance, man can no longer fully control such an instinctual drive, issuing in attitudes and actions of self-centeredness and sin. Man’s created nature is good, as are the natures of every other animal, but he needs God’s grace to govern sinlessly that nature.

How should we then regard children? I think Jesus’ attitude toward little children shows that God’s graciousness is extended to children. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I think that Jesus’ attitude toward children gives good grounds for thinking that either children are not imputed original sin or else that God’s grace is extended to children, particularly to those who die in infancy. It seems to me therefore that the practice of infant baptism is not only unnecessary but is a terrible mistake, especially when it is conjoined with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is to say, the doctrine that in water baptism one is also baptized in the Holy Spirit and regenerated. The practice of infant baptism tends to lead to a church filled with unregenerate people who are trusting in their baptism as infants as the basis upon which they are Christians but who haven’t actually made a personal decision to receive Christ and so be regenerated. If infant baptism is regarded as merely a symbolic act but isn’t actually simultaneous with Spirit baptism, then that problem would be somewhat alleviated because one wouldn’t regard a person as regenerate simply as a result of being baptized as an infant. But when you conjoin infant baptism with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in order to wash away original sin, then you court the real danger of having unregenerate adults.

So I don’t think that infant baptism removes the stain of original sin. There is nothing in Scripture that would suggest that baptism is a means of grace by which original sin is expunged. Rather, we can simply trust God to be gracious to those who die in infancy.

Furthermore, it seems to me that we should not think of original sin as sexual in nature or as passed on through sexual intercourse, as Augustine believed. That would turn sin into a sexually transmitted disease. But surely sin is not a physical ailment. Rather, what proponents of the doctrine of original sin should hold is that in virtue of Adam’s sin the soul is somehow incapacitated in its moral abilities to resist sin and to do good. So man in the state of nature – that is, in his unregenerate state – doesn’t seek God.

Pelagius erred in thinking that in his unregenerate state man will seek for God, ask for his grace, and so forth. Rather the testimony of Scripture is that the natural man does not seek the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him. He does not understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Therefore, no one would come freely to God unless God took the initiative. God must seek out the erring sinner. It is not that we come to God of our own free will and ask for his grace; rather, God’s grace is expressed in his taking the initiative and in drawing us to him. Now, the question of whether we have the freedom to resist that drawing or whether God’s grace is irresistible is a further question, and we’ll take up that question when we get to the doctrine of salvation. But for now I think that we ought to affirm that we do not take the initiative in salvation; we are sinful, fallen, alienated from God, estranged from him, and therefore we would not come to him apart from the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and God’s taking the initiative.

Finally, I think we should affirm that sin does permeate social institutions. The liberal theologians were right in seeing sin as something that gets institutionalized in commerce, in entertainment, in government, in politics. This is very true. Here in the United States, for example, our entertainment industry is thoroughly corrupted by graphic violence, sexuality, and profanity. We have also seen systemic evil in government over the past few years in the efforts of the so-called “deep state” to carry out, in effect, a presidential coup, the spurious accusations which lay at the root of the Muller investigation. We live in a society that is inherently corrupted by sin. But this is because individuals sin. Society is corrupted because it is made up of corrupted and fallen individuals who then try to live together as best they can in some sort of harmony. So Christians must never be distracted from our primary task of sharing the Gospel with other individuals, even as we also pursue efforts at societal reform.

Next time we’ll turn to the subject of the freedom of the will. Until then, have a great week.