Born

Already

Ruined

Ron Smith, Th.D.

Born Already Ruined

Ron Smith

Copyright 2003 Ron Smith

501 Blacktail Road

Lakeside, Montana

59922

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except brief extracts for the purpose of review, without the permission of the publisher and copyright owner.

ISBN: 0-9641913-9-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2003096140

Printed in the United States of America

To the Memory of John Wesley

1703-1791

Honorable and Godly Founder of the Methodist Church

An Arminian

What is an Arminian?

John Wesley wrote the short tract titled ‘What is an Arminian? Answered by a Lover of Free Grace.’

Wesley wrote, "No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done in these both parties agree" (Works, Vol. 10).

John Wesley preached and wrote much about original sin. One treatise alone consisted of over 125,000 words. (That, by today's standards, is a book.)

Wesley writes in his treatise on

"The Doctrine of Original Sin":

"Here, then, from a plain text, taken in its obvious sense, we have a clear evidence both of what Divines term, original sin imputed, and of original sin inherent. The former is the sin of Adam, so far reckoned ours as to constitute us in some degree guilty; the latter, a want of original righteousness, and a corruption of nature; whence it is, that from our infancy we are averse to what is good and propense to what is evil."

"He [Paul] expressly says, 'We were children of wrath even as others, by nature, or from our birth.' He does not say, 'We became so by education, or by imitation, or by custom in sinning; but, to show when it is that we commence sinners, by what means we become "children of wrath.”  We were born fallen creatures; we came into the world sinners, and as such, liable to wrath, in consequence of the fall of our first father.'"

"But this is unfair!" you may say. "Why should we suffer today, because the first man sinned way back in the furthest reaches of time?"

"We forget that Adam was the head of the human race, even as in this country our President is the head of our government. When the President acts, it is really the American people acting through him. When the President makes a decision, that decision stands as the decision of the entire people.

Adam stands as the federal head of the human race. When he failed, when he succumbed to temptation and fell, the generations yet unborn fell with him, for the Bible states very clearly that the results of Adam's sin shall be visited upon every one of his descendants."

Billy Graham

Peace with God

For all of those who have experienced unexplainable tragedy and resulting pain

All of creation is in bondage because of Adam's sin. That garden sin brought a curse. We labor under it. We suffer because of it.

Sin, original sin, brings pain, tragedy and bad things happening for apparently no reason.

Christ's return will set the whole creation free from that bondage to decay, tragedy and mishap. Until then, we are called to carry on and praise Him.

May God himself be honored somehow in the midst of the pain.

Jesus Himself is your comfort. He is the leader in tragedy and mishap. He died a tragic, vicious and undeserved death. He was the Righteous for the unrighteous.

May this book give you some relief and a possible answer. God did not hurt you, sin did-possibly Adam's sin.     God gives life-sin kills.

In the Nail Scarred Grip of the Innocent Slain One,

Ron Smith

Lakeside, Montana

August, 2003

Table of Contents

The Jewish Understanding of Original Sin:  A Historical Look

A Definition of Original Sin in Christian Theology

The Patristic Age

The Creeds

The Reformation

Post Reformation Until the Present

The Rationalistic Humanist Understanding of the Fall

In Context with all of Scripture

The Book of Romans

Recapitulating the Book of Romans

1 Corinthians 15

Romans 5:12-21

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix 1: What About Infants?

Appendix 2: John Wesley's Sermon Original Sin

Appendix 3: Thoughts in Historical Context

A Foreword From The Author

I have heard several erroneous misunderstandings of original sin in the past twenty plus years of ministry.  The primary misunderstanding is that believing in original sin constitutes one as a Calvinist.  This is incorrect.

John Wesley writes, "In his natural state, every man born into the world is a rank idolater" (Sermon on Original Sin, John Wesley).

To write that people are fallen and tend toward evil is often viewed as "Academic" Neanderthal-ism. In other words, we are living in an earlier century and not really in touch with 21st century reality.

To the contrary, a brief look back at the 20th century argues that there is something radically wrong with the whole of the world-which is presently out of repair. Some would say beyond repair. The Christian despairs over nothing including man's contemporary barbarisms. Paul Johnson writes in Modern Times, "From the tragedy of the First World War, 1914-18, the twentieth century had appeared to many a relentless succession of moral and physical disasters.  As early as 1945 H.G. Wells, once the prophet of ever-accelerating human progress, had given up in despair, publishing his gloomy testament, Mind at the End of its Tether."

The Christian faces this and all tragedies honestly. Sin ruins everything it touches, but there is hope in the midst of sin. Original sin brought death to the world; Christ brings hope.

This book is an attempt to state several things. First, I want to state the historical understanding of original sin and correct erroneous conceptions of what original sin is and is not. Second, I want to show sub-Christian understandings of the fall. Third, I want to show what the Scriptures teach. Finally, I wish to draw a few tentative conclusions.

Here is a brief word about dedicating this book to the memory of the Reverend John Wesley. I studied Mr. Wesley for many years in my undergraduate days and had the express privilege of studying under Dr. Robert Monk, one of the leading Wesley scholars of the 20th century. I also worked in our Religion Department for Dr. Monk for three years as a work- study student. Dr. Monk wrote his doctoral dissertation at Princeton University entitled John Wesley: His Puritan Heritage (A Study of the Christian Life). Unfortunately, I have never been able to properly thank Dr. Monk for his work. Hopefully in some small way, this dedication is some thank you.

Also, some folks have mistakenly and frequently labeled me as a Calvinist from within my own beloved missions organization. I wear that mistaken label with honor. John Calvin was a great saint of God. Unfortunately for me, John Calvin would never rank me among his disciples. My roots are Wesleyan although I did not stay there theologically. I went back to Wesley's roots, which were Moravian. I agree with the father of Moravian theology in many more respects than I do with John Wesley. Martin Luther decreed Moravian theology. I am probably closest to Martin Luther in my theological inclinations. In many respects Luther, like Calvin, would never claim me as his theological son. For this I can only write what I believe to be the truth of Scripture as I read it.

One final thought on some of the more technical statements in the book. I recommend the eight-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Johnson. Citations such as Bergson, Fichte and epistemology could side track the reader. For theological technicalities, I recommend the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Wheaton Theologist, Dean Elwell. References like "Post-Bultmannians" or to Bultmann himself might throw some. I wrestled with going in to longer side discussions of some of these people and movements mentioned and finally decided to point the reader to these two reference works. Apart from helping you read this book, these reference works should be a part of every inquiring student's library.

"We putrefied in Adam as our root."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Jewish Understanding of Original Sin:

A Historical Look

Original sin did not begin with Christian theology. It began with Jewish theology. Oxford scholar Barclay stated in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians (p. 150), "The Jews believed that all men literally sinned in Adam...." F.F. Bruce mentions some important references to original sin in his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans (p. 127). Among these references are important pieces of apocryphal literature.

One such Jewish piece of literature is Ecclesiasticus. Originally written in Hebrew in Jerusalem around 180 B.C., this work was directed to the Hebrew brethren who were being tempted to succumb to the temptations of Hellenism. In chapter 25, Eve is stated as having been the beginning of all sin and "thanks to her we all must die." A first century A.D. work, 2 Esdras, points to the concept of solidarity (corporate responsibility based on one person's actions) several times: "Rabbinic Judaism faced the question of how Adam's guilt and that of humanity were linked...it saw death as our doom for Adam's sin."  2 Esdras 3:21-27

For the first man Adam was burned with a wicked heart. He sinned and was overcome, and not only he but all his descendants. So the weakness became inveterate. Although your law was in your people's hearts, a rooted wickedness was there too; so that the good came to nothing, and what was bad persisted.

A book in line with Jewish traditional understanding is 2 Baruch.  Therefore the long time that he lived did not profit him, but brought death, and cut off the years of those to be born after him.

James Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics points to three other important Jewish sources which teach original sin. These include: The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (30 B.C. - 50 A.D.), The Teachings of Philo (40 A.D.), and Slavonic Enoch (rescension A 30 B.C. - 50 A.D.).

Two important instances from the lifetime of David illustrate this Biblical principle of corporate solidarity. In 2 Samuel 21 a famine occurs "for three years, year after year." The cause of this famine over the whole land of Israel was the bloodguilt brought upon the land by King Saul. The sin of Saul brought the whole land into bondage many years after his death.

By his impulsive numbering of Israel and Judah, David brought death from the hand of the Lord to 70,000 people. The word of God illustrates this principle again and again. The "many" were harmed because of the sin of "one." I close this section with a rabbinic parable:

A Jewish community was adrift in a boat on a lake. One in a boat decided that he did not like to sit over wood (the material from which the boat was made). He promptly took out a sharp instrument and cut a large hole in the bottom of the boat-only under his own seat. 'I can cut a hole under my own seat' he said, as the whole community drowned.

"We are condemned before we have done good or evil; under the curse ere we know what it is."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

A Definition of Original Sin in Christian Theology

Original sin, as understood by orthodoxy, can be looked at from both positive and negative perspectives. The negative include five major points and the positive include four:

The Negative

1. Original sin does not teach that every sinner is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly be.

2. Original sin does not teach that the sinner has no innate knowledge of the will of God or a conscience, which is capable, in a limited way, of distinguishing right from wrong.

3. Original sin does not teach that sinful man does not often admire virtuous character and actions in others, or is incapable of true love toward others.

4. Original sin does not teach that every unregenerate man will, in virtue of his inherent sinfulness, indulge in every form of sin.

5. Original sin does not teach that man's corruption is due to the fact that he has a physical body.

The Positive

1. Original sin does teach that every part of man's condition has been corrupted. All faculties of both soul and body are included in this corruption.

2. Original sin does teach that there is only spiritual perversion in the ultimate relationship of men to God.

3. Original sin does teach that it is the innate proneness of the human will to do evil.

4. Original sin does teach that Adam's sin and guilt are in some way representative of the whole race.

(Much of this is taken from Berkhof's Systematic Theology textbook pp.244-254.)

Men are capable of doing good: civic good and externally religious good. Although God, himself, smiles on some of the actions of fallen men, the fatal defect in fallen man is that he cannot ultimately please God in his natural unregenerate state. Because of his lack of regeneration, the fallen sinner can do nothing that totally satisfies what God's eternally righteous law demands. Although this is his dilemma, the sinner cannot change himself. A sovereign work of grace is necessary to free him from his slavery to the devil and sin.

An outstanding twentieth century theologian named Berkhof has stated, "In a certain sense man has not and in another sense he has lost his liberty." Certain liberties were not lost; for instance, the ability to choose as he pleases in accord with the prevailing tendencies and dispositions of his soul. Man lost none of the faculties that constitute him as responsible. He is a responsible agent before God. He has reason, conscience, and freedom of choice, but his freedom to choose is limited because man is not sovereign. Man is finite; he is not totally free from the radical effects of the fall in his choices. Van Til has pointed out that a fallen ability to discern truth will inevitably result in wrong choices. Man's ability to perceive truth "fell." Man has gained an inherent bias to do evil. He is not able to seek spiritual excellence, nor the things that pertain to salvation. This is the understanding of John Wesley.

Wesley points out that, at the fall, man lost spiritual insight and gained spiritual evil. Wesley's understanding is also thoroughly Jewish. Consider Moses Tranensis: "In the sin which the first man sinned, the whole world through him sinned; for he was every man or all mankind."

"Every person then that is born according to the course of nature is born unclean; if the root be corrupt, so are the branches.  Neither is the matter mended, though the parents be holy...so the holiest parent begets unholy children..."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Patristic Age

Contrary to some popular opinion, St. Augustine did not invent the idea of original sin. Neither was he the germinal thinker concerning this concept in the early church. People who do not like the idea of corporate solidaric guilt are usually quick to voice an erroneous opinion that Augustine brought the idea of original sin to the church out of either Neo-Platonism or because of his earlier affiliation with Manichaeanism. Although there may be neo-platonic elements in some side issues in Augustine, no one is more decidedly against, nor more vociferously outspoken against Mane's teaching, than Augustine (See Confessions)! At Oxford, Bettenson pointed out that there are at least twenty-five references by various theologians in the early church to original sin. These are before Augustine! Augustine merely restated what everyone else of repute had said before him. Augustine's singular brilliance and powerful pen simply overshadowed everyone before him (and most after him as well).

Important pre-Augustinian patristic citations about original sin include:

Tertullian,

DeAnima 39-40 & 41

Against Marcion 2:15, 5:17

Testimony of the Spirit 3 De Pudicitia 6

Iraneus

Against Heresies

IV.XXXVIII.1-3

IV.XXXVII.4

V.XVI.3

V.III.1

V.XXVII.3

III.XVIII.1

III.XVII.2

III.XVIII.6, 7

V.XX.2

V.XXI.2

Apostolic Preaching XII

Cyprian

Epistle 44:5

Origen,

Commentary on the Song of Solomon 3, 4

Homily of Leviticus 12:4

Against Celsus 4:40, 3:69

Commentary on Romans 5:1-14

Commentary on Romans 5:9

Iraneus is considered to be the leading theologian of the second century. Born over two hundred years before Augustine, Iraneus' statements regarding Adamic guilt are significant and worthy of our careful consideration.

"In the first Adam, we offended God by not performing His command; in the second Adam we have been reconciled, becoming 'obedient unto death.'"

Against Heresies XVI.3

"As through a conquered man, our race went down to death, so through a conqueror we ascend to life."

Against Heresies III.1

"As through a tree we were made debtors to God, so through a tree we receive the cancellation of our debt."

Against Heresies V.XVII.3

"We lost in Adam the privilege of being in the image and likeness of God."

Against Heresies III.XVIII.1

"For as through the disobedience of one man, who was the first man, fashioned out of virgin soil, many were made sinners; so it was necessary that through the obedience of one man, who was the first to be born of a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Against Heresies III.XVIII. 6,7

"It was through a man that our race was overcome and went down to death, so through a victorious man we may rise up to life; as through a man death won the prize over us, so through a man we may win the prize of victory over death."

Against Heresies V.XX.2, XXI.2

Around 150 years before the birth of Augustine, Tertullian made many significant orthodox assertions to make on the same topic:

"All men were born with idolatry as a midwife..."

De Anima 39, 40

"So every soul takes its status in Adam until it receives a new status in Christ..."

De Anima 41

"The expression of children of wrath makes it clear that sins, lusts of the flesh, unbelief, anger, are imputed to the nature that is common to all men..."

Against Marcion 5:17

(See Henry Bettenson, The Early Fathers)

In addition to these, Hastings mentioned that Gregory of Naziansus, Justin Martyr, Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius of Egypt, Hilary of Poitiers, andAmbrose (as Calvin has similarly stated in the Institutes) were staunch defenders and adherents to the orthodox doctrine of original sin. Only Clement of Alexandria (a neo-Gnostic), Marcion (the gnostic of Gnostics), Pelagius (condemned by three church councils for heresy), Theodore of Mopsuestia (adoptionist heretic), and Chrysostum did not adhere to the orthodox historic doctrine. Avoiding the orthodox doctrine of original sin indeed puts one into a strange fellowship. Fellowship with Pelagius is far from orthodox fellowship around original sin. John Wesley saw this when writing in his Journal, March 16, 1764:

I have long desired that there might be an open and avowed union between all who preach those fundamental truths: original sin and justification by faith, producing inward and outward holiness.

"Every person then that is born according to the course of nature is born unclean; if the root be corrupt, so are the branches."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Creeds

The creeds also uphold the orthodox doctrine of original sin, placing the curse (anathema) on those who deny the doctrine. The more important creeds upholding original sin include:

Council of Carthage - 416

Council of Mileve - 416

Council of Rome - 416

Council of Carthage - 418

Council of Ephesus - 431

Council of Chalcedon - 451

(Opens "Following the holy fathers..." then points out original sin.)

Council of Orange - 529

Augsburg Confession - 1530

(Article II is an orthodox statement of the issue. Article XIX discusses the causes of sin.)

Short Confession - 1529

(ParticularlyArticle IV on "Holy Baptism")

Second Helvetic Confession - 1566

(Article VI)

Westminster Confession – 1646

(Article VI)

Edwardian Homilies - 1547

(Second part of the Salvation Sermon)

39Articles of Religion - 1563

(Article IX)

Dodrecht Confession - 1632

(Article II)

Helvetic Consensus Formula - 1675

(Articles X-XII)

Theses Theologicae of Robert Barcley - 1675

(Proposition IV)

New Hampshire Confession – 1833

(Article XII)

Baptist Confession of – 1925

(Article 3)

Articles of Religion – 1784

Council of Trent – 1648

(Decree concerning 5th session. Original sin)

Confession of Dositheus - 1672

(Decree 6)

Batah Creed - 1951

(Article 6)

Despite many of its doctrinal and political shortcomings, we can thank the Roman Catholic Church for continuing to see the importance and upholding it through the historic creeds.

"If the sin of Adam was not imputed to us, neither is the righteousness of Christ."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Reformation

The reformers emphasized original sin and justification. This was more than a simple reiteration of Augustine's writings. Augustine emphasized strongly the absolute fallenness of man in the totality of his being (See: Anti-Pelagian Treatises, City of God book 14, chapter 14, 15, 'Concerning the Deserved Punishment of Sins and Their Forgiveness' Commentary on Romans). He did not stress imputed objective righteousness (although this infusion of righteousness was also by grace). In many ways, the reformers are very faithful to Iraneus, the theologian of the early church. Note Iraneus' statement:

For as through the disobedience of one man, who was the first man fashioned out of virgin soil, many were made sinners; so it was necessary that through the obedience of one man, who was the first to be born of a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.

The two major reformers, Calvin and Luther, quote from Augustine liberally in their writings. Calvin, at times, quotes Ambrose enthusiastically in the Institutes concerning inherited sinfulness like he does Augustine. Luther utilizes Augustine more liberally.

Two important quotes from Calvin and two from Luther will suffice to show us the standard reformed attitude toward this matter. Calvin:

But self-knowledge consists in this, first. When reflecting on what God gave us at our creation, and still continues graciously to give, we perceive how great the excellency of our nature would have been had its integrity remained, and at the same time, remember that we have nothing of our own, but depend entirely upon God, from whom we hold at pleasure whatever he has seen it meet to bestow; secondly, when viewing our miserable condition since Adam's fall, all confidence and boasting are overthrown, we blush for shame, and feel truly humble. For as God at first formed us in his own image, that he might elevate our minds to the pursuit of virtue, and the contemplation of eternal life, so to prevent us from heartlessly burying these noble qualities which distinguish us from the lower animals, it is of importance to know that we are endued with reason and intelligence, in order that we might cultivate a holy and honorable life, and regard a blessed immortality as our destined aim. At the same time, it is without being immediately reminded of the sad spectacle of our ignominy and corruption ever since we fell from our original in the person of our first parent. In this way we feel dissatisfied with ourselves, and become truly humble, while we are inflamed with new desire to seek after God, in whom each may regain those good qualities of which all are found to be utterly destitute (Institutes Bk. II, Ch. X).

"By Adam's sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin.

Commentary on Romans p. 210

Rom 5:17

As John Murray has shown in The Imputation of Adam's Sin, God's condemnation of us as sinners in Adam is twofold. His condemnation is first upon us because we are guilty by representation of Adam as our federal head. Federal headship means that Adam represents, before God, all who follow him into the world. Adam made our decision for us as our federal head. Wesley wrote a chapter entitled, "The notion of Adam's being a federal head or representative of mankind considered." In that chapter, Wesley concludes, "Adam was the representative of mankind" (Works, Vol. 9). God's condemnation is also upon us because we also participate in sin. These two reasons were the argument of Calvin. Wesley, the puritanically oriented Arminian, would be the loudest to shout "Amen" to Calvin here. Wesley writes,

"People who preach that man does not possess original sin are silver- tongued antichrists."

A. Skevington Wood

The Burning Heart

The other reformation bright light, Martin Luther, writes,

It is just as though the Pelagians were trying to entrap us with the words 'original sin' or 'Adam's plague' because these words do not occur in Scripture, and yet the Scriptures do powerfully teach what these words mean saying that we are conceived in sin (Ps. 51), are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2), and must all be sinners because of one man's sin.

Romans 5

Works, Vol. 5, 'On the Councils and the Churches'

Wherefore as by one man’s sin entered the world, and death by sin (Romans 5:12). Here the apostle shows that by one man righteousness has come into the world. But this he discusses after a digression, which he interposes. The words 'and death by sin' show clearly that he is speaking of original sin; for if death comes by sin, then also the little children have sinned who die. So this must not be understood in the sense of actual sin. That the apostle is here speaking not of actual sin but of original sin, is proved also by the following:

1. He says: 'By one man.' Of this statement St. Augustine writes against the Pelagians in his first chapter of his book, Concerning the Deserved Punishment of Sinners and Their Forgiveness: 'So then the Apostle making mention of that sin and of death, which passed from one to all by propagation, represents him as the originator from whom the propagation of the human race had its beginning.'

2. He says: "By one.' Actual sin comes into the world through many, because through each person his own peculiar sin is put into the world.

3. He says: 'Sin entered into the world.' Actual sin really does not enter into the world, but the actual sins of every person burden the head of the transgressor. The word 'world' here does not signify heaven and earth, but the human beings that live in the world, as the apostle says in Romans 3:6, 'for then how shall God judge the world?' In 5:19 he explained the term by the words: 'By one man's disobedience many were made sinners.'

4. He says, 'and death by sin.' Certainly death of men does not come merely from their personal sins, since also such die as have not committed actual sins. Therefore the apostle here does not mean any special actual sin.

5. He says, 'And so death passed upon all men.' With regard to a person's own actual sin, this is true. If death follows it, it comes alone to him who commits the sin as the law says in Dt. 24:16; 'Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.'

6. The apostle speaks of 'sin,' speaking of the one (original sin) in singular. If he wanted this to be understood of actual sins, he would have had to speak in the plural as in 5:16, 'Of many offenses."

7. He says, 'For that all have sinned.' One's own actual sin is not that of another so that by it all men have sinned, but every person commits his own (actual) sins.

8. He says, 'For until the law sin was in the world.' That is to say, the punishment of (actual) sin was recognized, but not original sin. Actual sin existed also before Moses and was charged to the sinner, for it was punished. But original sin was unknown until Moses (by his law) made it known.

9. He says, '(They) had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' All who commit transgressions like that of Adam, sin by actual transgression and not by a similar, imitated sin as Pelagius explained this.

10. He says that through (original) sin Adam became the figure of Him that was to come, but that does not take place through every individual actual sin, for otherwise every sinner would be the figure of Him that was to come. But now only Adam is the figure of Christ, because this one sin of his has come upon all. 'We do not commit it, but we suffer it. We are sinners because we are sons of a sinner. A sinner can beget only a sinner, who is like him'" (See Luther, Romans).

"A denial of original sin not only renders baptism needless with regard to infants, but represents a great part of mankind as having no need of Christ, or the grace of the new covenant. I now speak of infants in particular, who, if 'not guilty before God,' no more need the merits and grace of the Second Adam than the brutes themselves."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Post Reformation

Until the Present

Luther and Calvin taught that we are sinners both by nature and by participation. Billy Graham stands on the solid line of church history when he reminds his readers and hearers of the same thing that Luther and Calvin said on the subject of the fall.

I am well aware of other evangelical saints between the reformation and the present. The puritans in Boston, the Baptists in Rhode Island, the Dutch Calvinists, the Southern Presbyterians and Southern Baptists all represent this tradition to the present. I could cite Charles Spurgeon, Cotton Mather, George Whitefield, and the Princeton Theologians. I decided to quote Billy Graham because everyone knows him in the evangelical tradition.

Billy Graham writes:

'But this is unfair!' You may say. 'Why should we suffer today because the first man sinned away back in the furthest reaches of time. ...Why should we go on being punished every day of our lives?'  We forget that Adam was the head of the human race, even as in this country when our President acts, it is really the American people acting through him. When the President makes a decision, that decision stands as the decision of the entire people.....Adam's sin shall be visited upon every one of his descendants."

Peace with God, p. 67-70

"It is by reason of man's apostasy that even brute animals suffer. 'The whole creation groaneth together' on his account, 'and travaileth together in pain to this day.' For the brute creation was 'made subject to vanity,' to abuse, pain, corruption, death, 'not willingly,' not by any act of its own, 'but by reason of him that subjected it'; of God, who, in consequence of Adam's sin, whom he had appointed lord of the whole lower world, for his sake pronounced this curse, not only on the ground, but on all which was before under his dominion."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Rationalistic Humanist

Understanding of the Fall

"Everyday in every way man is getting better and better." American deists such as Thomas Jefferson later picked up this common cry among the rationalists. This has been the assessment given by fallen man of his own condition, apart from God's revelation. Society feels the effects of this fallen reasoning in every realm. In theology, men such as Reinhold Niebuhr title a major book Moral Man and Immoral Society. Niebuhr displays the rationalist dilemma without answers. Man is good (at least neutral); how can society go so wrong? Although he would be unwilling to state blatantly that man is good, Niebuhr nevertheless does not have a Biblical understanding of the nature of man.

In rationalist sociology and psychology, man is not a fallen responsible agent before God, but rather a victim of circumstance. As Paul Simon sang, man is "like a rat in a maze" (Bookends). Man in the Spencer/Skinner system became a sophisticated "good" rat in a maze. Man is only a part of the machinery of the universe. Where does he turn for relief in this system? He turns to the same place Simon and Garfunkel point us to in the album, Bookends. Man in the Spencer/Skinner system turns to the successful businessman Richard Corey, "Richard Corey put a bullet through his head." Rationalistic man ultimately becomes self-destructive. As Solzhenitsyn has shown, rationalist/materialist man is capable of making a crazed Hitler look like a choirboy. The Communist takeover earlier in this century decimated multiplied millions.

What is Marxism but rationalistic/ materialism taken to its horrendous extremes?

Rationalism, be it theological rationalism or philosophical rationalism, always begins with man as the center and measure of all things. Philosophy and theology have both at one time or another emphasized either "free thinking" or "free willing." The concept of "free will" did not begin with Arminius, Charles Finney or the moralist philosophers of the early nineteenth century. "Free will" dates as far back as the Stoics. F.F. Bruce in his great book, New Testament History, brings this out:

But if the Stoic is conscious of his duty to cooperate with destiny, he is proudly conscious of his independence of the will of other men. Self-sufficiency – autarkeia - was a Stoic ideal...(p. 46).

This is autonomous, atomistic man in its germinal forms. Man does not need God's help. It is simply a matter of self-sufficiency. The essence of rationalism is "self." Rushdoony has pointed out that our age exalts self and autonomy to the point of blasphemy.

Some have pointed out that reason, optimism and self- centeredness add up to a rationalistic system with man's rational understanding at the center.

The Fall-What Fall?

Dr. Glenn Martin has shown in his lecture series on conflicting intellectual traditions that the elevation of man and demotion of God goes as far back as the Hellenic cyclicists and right up to the present occult revolt against heaven. Dr. Martin has also mentioned, "The major intellectual/ philosophical problem in western thinking is the belief in an incomplete fall."

The Greco-Roman Man

Alexander the Great is the classic Hellenistic/Greek picture of man. Alexander, the star pupil of Aristotle, conquered the whole world with nothing else to conquer. Looking over the whole world, Alexander did not see man in need of God but rather man in need of a new culture. Rather than man being fallen because of sin, people were fallen if they did not have the touch of Greek language and culture upon them that was necessary to bring unified mankind together. The awesome nature of Alexander's conquests caused many to compare him with the gods Dionysius and Hercules. "In the last year of his life he appeared to have asked the Greek state to treat him as divine" (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, Volume 1).

The Romans followed on the heels of the Greeks as Rome also held to the deification of man. Rather than a fallen sinner, man is actually god. Rome declared dead emperors as "gods" post-mortem.

The Non-Christian Rationalistic Man

We can include five groups under this heading: the humanists, rationalists, process philosophers, existentialist, and the contemporary occultists.

Humanist man is the measure of all things. Far from being a fallen agent responsible and lost, the humanists wrote two manifestoes declaring their "non-need" for God. Man can eventually conquer his environment by simply continuing to be and think and do as he is doing. Unlike pure rationalism, the whim of the moment either by emotion, experience, or reason dictates action.

Rationalist man is slightly different from a purely humanist man. Rationalism is a derivative in many respects of humanism. In rationalism, man is inherently good and perfectible. "Laws could be discovered concerning all human behavior by exercising reason rightly." The whole concept of "morality" developed with the rationalist philosophers. Hugo Grotius first popularized it. Men such as Bergson, writing 2 Sources of Religion and Morality; The Genealogy of Morals, and Kant with Critique of Practical Reason and Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone developed it. Kant further developed the whole concept of "moral law." Discussing moral law, Kant says, "The moral worth of an action lies not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon." For Kant, "moral worth" in an action does not actually lie in the action itself but rather upon the law or principle, which is governing the action. For Kant, reason was the governing principle. Man does not need a revealed law of God but needs simply to walk by the dictates of his mind and conscience and he will be "moral" (See, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Robinson, Vol. 3 and 4, p.317).

The sad thing about rationalism is that rationalism is invariably hurtful to man. Although it claims to elevate man, rationalism turns man into another animal. Rather than being made in the image of God, man ultimately becomes nothing more than matter in motion.

Man, for the process philosopher, is a bizarre maze of various factors, but he is getting better ("Every day in every way"). Dr. Glenn Martin and Dr. Sam Wilson include the Darwinians, Pragmatists, Marxists, and Freudians in the process thinkers. I would like also to include a simple "processed man" (for lack of a better term) as a prototype to examine. "Processed man" is a victim of circumstance. In Darwinism, man is a victim of evolved weaknesses. In Pragmatism, man is a victim of cultural conditioning. In Marxism, the Bourgeoisie victimizes the Proletarians. In Freudianism, man is a victim of his own sex drive. "Processed man" is not a fallen responsible agent to a Holy God. In some of the "processed" systems God is pre-suppositionally ruled out (ex. Marxism). Post-modernism does the same thing. Wells, Noebel and others have pointed out that post- modernism is the same old rationalism in a different can.

Man, in the existentialist sphere, is in a vacuum and cut off from other men. He lives for today. He experiences for today. He has no sense of history. In a real sense, existential man is both an outgrowth and a reaction to the process thinkers. He is an extension of the process thinkers in that there is no room for an external God in the existential mind (at least in the consistent existential mind). This lack of being linked to corporate man in existential thinking ultimately brings man exactly to the place that Heidegger has led him as a pioneer- "Angst"-total despair. Man as non-corporate man (un-fallen and unrelated to Adam) comes to a place of total isolation; and leads him to the place that it led Richard Corey, "Richard Corey put a bullet through is head." On the other hand, existential man is a reaction against "the process." This reaction is generated by the mindset of existentialism. Existentialism reacts against being a small drop in a big ocean of evolution.

The existential man wants to have a significant experience in life. The classic example of this revolt is found in the late 60s when some college campuses would have a scheduled "Happening." Rather than simply being another cog in the great impersonal process machine, man wants to have a significant experience. He does not want to be carried along by something as impersonal as a 'world spirit.'

In this craving for experience, existential man turns to experimentalism- drugs and the occult being good examples. In both the use of drugs and the occult, the major problem is malfocused epistemology.

The "Fall" of Man According

to the Rationalistic Christian

At the end of the eighteenth century the rationalistic Christian prototype appeared. His name was Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher was a Moravian without orthodoxy. Schleiermacher, who was most influenced by Kant, (although he studied Plato, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Fichte, and Schelling) presented a book to the intellectual community in Europe entitled Discourses on Religion to the Cultured Among its Despisers. In this book, he attempted to explain Christianity from a humanistic, man-centered, experientially- oriented perspective. This is what the standard Christian rationalist does. He wants to make his faith palatable and swallow-able to an anthropocentric, man-centered mind. How long has this been going on in the church of Jesus Christ? Since its inception (albeit under different labels with different amounts of devastation to the church). Schleiermacher had a similar understanding of the "non-fall" of man as Charles Finney.* It is to Finney that we will finally look for the rationalistic Christian perspective on the fall of man.

There were two major examples in the early church of the typical rationalistic "Christian" system. These two major examples include the gnostics as headed by either Cerinthus or Marcion, and the life and thought of Pelagius. The gnostic understood man to be perfectible.*

*Latourette points out two important things about Schleiermacher, however, which make it absolutely clear that Finney agreed with him [though not necessarily deliberately.]. First, the major influence in Schleiermacher's thinking was the classic moralist Kant. Second, Latourette describes Schleiermacher's understanding of man in terms, which could just as easily describe Finney's understanding. Simply insert this quote about Schleiermacher into a commentary on Finney's Systematic Theology: "He believed that sin is man's claim to self-sufficiency and is in seeking to find satisfaction elsewhere than in God...the world about man has so far lost its pristine perfection that from it continually come promptings to sin..."1

See as parallel to this, True and False Repentance Charles Finney, Kregel, p. 55.

Charles Finney's Understanding of the "Fall"

Erasmus, Taylor, Beecher, Finney, and the classic liberal theologians can be examined together under the study of Finney. We include the liberals because of the constraint of moralism in their theologies (ie. Bultmann's and Bornkamm's understanding of "radical obedience" in Kerygma and Myth, or Jesus of Nazareth, respectively). We group the other four together as well because of their emphasis on the sovereignty of the human will.

There are five major strands of thought in Finney's theology: the moralism of Kant, the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (as LaVerne Nesbitt has shown in The Theological Roots of Charles Finney), stoicism and Neo-Platonism can all be seen in Finney's thinking. Finney also had a love for and a degree of loyalty to the Bible.

It is clear from the outset that the same epistemological problem occurs in Finney that has occurred in the other rationalist thinkers (both Christian and non-Christian). Nesbitt has shown this in quoting Finney's Lectures on Systematic Theology,

Does reason affirm that we are deserving of the wrath and curse of God forever, for inheriting from Adam a sinful nature?...Reason can not condemn us, unless we have violated some law which it can recognize as such. Reason indignantly rebukes such nonsense.

Nesbitt's conclusion is correct! "As can be seen in the above citation, Finney again and again appeals to 'reason' for the certainty of his conclusion" Finney was a Christian rationalist.

Stoic atomism is the result of Finney's theological individualism (recall Bruce above). Man is alone in the ocean, non-corporate, non-represented by Adam in the councils of God's justice. It is interesting that John Wesley stated that if a person denies the Biblical doctrine of original sin, he must also logically deny the Biblical doctrine of justification as the imputed righteousness of Christ on our behalf. If we are not willing to accept the imputed guilt, neither can we logically accept the imputed righteousness of Christ. Did Finney fulfill Wesley's prophecy? Finney states,

Justification is not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ...Under the gospel, sinners are not justified by having the obedience of Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law in their stead...I can only say that this idea is absurd and impossible.

Finney

True and False Repentance

p.59, Kregel Publishers

If we are to follow Finney's thinking to its logical conclusion, we come up with a modified form of the Catholic Church works righteousness. Stoic, atomistic man is simply left by God to fend for himself before the awesome demands of an offended Holy God. This is a far cry from Luther's thunderclap from heaven declaring us judicially and imputationally righteous. "But this righteousness is heavenly and passive: which we have not of ourselves but receive it from heaven" (Luther, Commentary on Galatians).

For Finney, man is not by nature a sinner. "The truth is man's nature is all right, and is as well fitted to love and obey God as to hate and disobey him." Advocates of the Finney theology often accuse orthodox theologies of neo- Platonism. In some ways, Finney is neo-Platonic.

Why do we sin if we are not by nature sinners? Finney says, "The bodily appetites and constitutional susceptibilities of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasion of sin." Cerinthus, the gnostic, could not hasten to have said it better himself! Physical bodies are the problem; "the spirit" is not. How does this neo-Platonic understanding of man's nature affect Finney's view of man as the image of God?

Previous to moral agency, infants are no more subject of moral government than brutes are; their sufferings and death are to be accounted for as those of brutes, namely by ascribing them to physical interference with the laws of life and death.

Ibid, Finney

The sad thing about rationalism is that it is always hurtful to man. As in all other rationalistic systems, Finney actually defaces the image of God. Does God really account for the suffering and death of a child as He does the death of a dog?

The moralistic emphasis in Finney comes from Kant. Nesbitt has pointed out that others before the evangelist used the term "moral government" to describe their theology also (ex. Edwards). The first bright light to espouse a doctrine of "morals" in the present era though, was Kant. Where is the epistemological foundation built into Kant's system? In the mind. Finney would disagree and say in the Bible, and in reason. Finney's emphasis on morals is also linked together with the Stoic understanding of a free, autonomous, self- sufficient will. Taylor, before Finney, also emphasized this. A non-fallen will must be exercised in making right moral choices in order to be righteous after first being forgiven and public justice is satisfied for sin. This non-fallen will rules out the blinding and binding effects of sin in reaping (especially deliberate sin which occurred in Eden). Erasmus and the others follow this same incorrect path.

This legalism was coupled together with Bentham's utilitarianism in Finney's social action, particularly in his abolitionist efforts. David Chilton has made two important observations concerning the effects of Finney in the nineteenth century.

As the slogan of the French Revolution put it: 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death.' The abolitionists rising out of the early nineteenth century religious turmoil yearned for such a perfect society, and were willing to slaughter innocent people to achieve it.

David Chilton

Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators

p. 101

The non-Biblical understanding of the nature of man and God in the nineteenth century revivalist perfectionism of Finney had a far different societal effect than the Biblical revivalism of Wesley, who radically changed the social structures in England while avoiding a bloody French revolution or American civil war. It is no wonder that Bennet Tyler wrote in 1854 concerning Finney that "no orthodox body of Christians could receive him into their pulpit" (Ibid, Chilton).

Charles Finney, like his contemporary Joseph Smith, was a Mason. No doubt, Finney's Masonry helped his theology very little, as Smith's did for the Mormons (The Secret Six, Otto Scott, p.81).

For the twentieth-century Christian, John Wesley is our leader concerning original sin, not Charles Finney. Finney's understanding is to be avoided by evangelicals.

Masonry reminds us of some of the major cults of the past. Secret rites and inhuman barbarism threatening death to adherents speak of the ancient past. Cybele required castration for male adherents and transexuality for the ruling priestesses in the cult. Many cults were based on earlier neo- platonic anti-materialism.

Those in the representative cults were already perfect. The basis of being one of the "Cathari" (the cleansed ones) was, in essence, a putting away of the material nature of man or the universe. This looks like a continuation of Neo-Platonism (in which bodies are bad). However, there is an addition of Persian dualism in the gnostics. Where is fallen man responsible to God? He is not here.

Pelagius was (and still is) the paradigm for a rationalistic "Christian" understanding of sin. Working near the beginning of the fifth century, Pelagius was a British monk who lived in Rome. Pelagius saw sin in the church. He wanted to correct the problem. His motives were good. Unfortunately (as often happens) Pelagius attacked the problem forcefully but non-Biblically. Finney was semi-Pelagian. For Pelagius,

The low tone of Christian morals, he believed, was largely due to the lack of a vivid sense of personal responsibility. The doctrine of original sin taught by Tertullian and Ambrose had fostered, so he was convinced, the notion of moral inability and had undermineded the belief in human freedom without which virtue was quite impossible.

McGiffert makes two other significant and correct observations about Pelagius:

1. The doctrine of original sin he wholly rejected, insisting that sin is purely voluntary and individual and cannot be transmitted.

2. Pelagius' sympathies were with Stoicism rather than Neo-Platonism. His philosophy, if the term may be used in relation to him, was the common moral philosophy of the west to which Cicero had given clearest expression. His position was not in any way novel.

See, McGiffert

A History of Christian Thought

p. 125

Most of what we know of Pelagius is gained from the anti-heretical writings of the orthodox fathers, Pelagius' Commentary on Romans, and a letter written from him to a certain Demetrias.

Thomas Aquinas' Understanding of the "Fall"

The fact that Aquinas included in the Summa Theologica a section on the fall does not mean that his understanding is an orthodox one. In fact, his understanding of the tragedy in the garden is tainted in the same place that all of the other rationalist systems are tainted. In Aquinas' opinion, man's mind never fell. For St. Thomas, man's mind can acquire deep knowledge of the Holy One. Thomas calls this "Natural Theology." This underlying presupposition runs all through his Summa. His analogical argument for the existence of God also betrays a man-centeredness in his theological framework that is non-Biblical. Aquinas is the formative thinker for the majority of the contemporary Catholic church. This strange mixture of Aristotle and Christianity comes to its climax in some of the strange theological mixes which are presently being found in the Catholic church. Because of a non-Biblical epistemology stemming further back than Aquinas (although Aquinas is the rational epistemologist par excellence for the Catholics), the Catholic church is now able to produce charismatic Bultmannians and charismatic post-Bultmannians who do not even believe in the full authority of the New Testament scriptures. Revelation is attained in two directions for Aquinas; herein is the fallacy of his thinking. Revelation comes from God to earth. Revelation also occurs from earth to heavenward observation of available data. Man can even get revelation out of his own being. This analogical epistemology is neither Biblical nor correct. According to Romans, an incomplete and secondary revelation comes through creation. This revelation is by no means normative. It comes from God, incomplete and obscure at times. Reality (the observable data) was distorted at the fall (Romans 8). Man's ability to perceive and analyze this all-distorted data was also knocked out of focus. This can only be compared to looking at a human cell which has been invaded by a flu germ through an out of focus microscope and calling the tissue "healthy, exemplary tissue"; tissue so healthy, in fact, that it can be put into biology text books in picture form and be called "a normal healthy human tissue." Aquinas takes "natural" observation in a similar fashion and calls it normative revelation. A dangerous epistemology and a non-fallen mind are what Aquinas contributes to our study. Karl Barth saw this and attempted to counter it. Depending on whom one talks with, Barth was either very successful or very mistaken in what he did. Rebel Catholic theologian Hans Kung has wanted to follow Barth in this understanding of natural theology.

In the 1700s, Jonathan Edwards followed Aquinas' understanding relative to natural observation and drew spiritual conclusions. Edwards took some of his understanding from the writings of John Locke. The neo-orthodox, liberation, and contemporary socialist theologians also follow Aquinas in their faulty epistemological framework. All these are theologies, which place over-emphasis on subjective experience. Charismatics must be careful here also. Although there was a slight bit of enlightenment influence in Edwards, his understanding of the imputation of Adam's sin and guilt, and parts of his understanding of the bondage of the human will, were quite orthodox.

"Those who preach that man does not possess original sin are silver-tongued anti-christs!"

John Wesley

Works

"Know your disease!

Know your cure!   You were born in sin!

Therefore, you must be born again!"

John Wesley

Sermon on Original Sin

"Oh God, make me a man of one book!"

John Wesley

In Context with all of Scripture

We will look at Romans 5 in context with the whole of Scripture, with the book of Romans, and then in context with 1 Corinthians 15. Then we will study the passage itself.

Relative to Psalm 51, some have said that David was illegitimate: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). There are two important points that militate against this idea. First, we do not see even the slightest hint of this in the text of 1 Samuel. The Bible speaks honestly about the sins of the saints. Judges 11 mentions explicit illegitimacy relative to Jephthah. It seems strange that there is no mention of it in Psalm 51. Second, the law stated that no illegitimate person could enter the assembly of the Lord, much less be the most exalted King of Israel (Deut. 23:2). This was to be true even to the tenth generation. If divine law was true, then Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah would likewise be ruled out of the throne, as David's illegitimate child by Bathsheba was ruled out. Donald Guthrie states that this (Ps. 51) is "The Old Testament's greatest statement of the doctrine of original sin, and it as such was not pleaded as an excuse but called as a witness to the depth and extent of man's need" (New Bible Commentary Revised, Donald Guthrie, p. 483). The Bible does not teach atomism (a total isolation from the rest of humanity). The Bible teaches a corporate solidarity without excluding personal responsibility. Examples of this solidarity include Abraham, Jacob, Achan, Esau, David, Saul and finally Adam and Christ.

Abraham was promised in Genesis 17:7, I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Every Jew understood himself, therefore, as being included in this covenant in relationship with Abraham. At times this solidaric relationship was carried to the extreme of even calling Abraham their "Redeemer" as Edersheim points out in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. In rabbinic and apocalyptic literature the concept of the headship of Abraham was carried to similar extremes. Biblically the covenant with Abraham was commanded to the thousandth generation, being commanded and made with Abraham, sworn to Isaac, and established in Jacob (Ps. 105:8-10, 1 Chron. 16:15-17). In the wilderness experience of Israel and the "conquest" of Palestine, God remembered the covenant with Abraham and wished to fulfill his promise to him (Ps. 105:42, Deut. 9:5). God is the God of Abraham (1 Kings 18:36). Israel is the "seed of Abraham" (Jer. 33:26).

The non-Biblical traditions concerning Abraham are equally interesting. The first –century A.D. works of II Baruch IV. 4; VII state that the law was given to Abraham before it was given to Moses. Abraham was the first faithful observer of it. Another Jewish apocalyptic work, The Assumption of Moses, states that Joshua prayed to God to remember his covenant with Abraham concerning the promise of land before Joshua conquered it. According to The Testament of Judah, Judah's blessing came from Abraham. The Testament of Levi states that the merit of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob merited the survival of some of their seed during the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar. Among some Greco-Jewish writers mentioned by Josephus, Abraham is native to Babylon and is a teacher of astrology to the king of Egypt. Without Abraham the Egyptians would not have known the science of astrology, nor would the Greeks, who Josephus describes as having learned it from Egypt. Pseudo-Eupolemos portrays Abraham as a settler in Heliopolis for a period long enough to teach the priests science.

For the rabbis, Abraham was the first to recognize God's existence. The ages of this discovery vary from one year old (Midrash Rabbah on Genesis), to three years old (Midrash on Esther), but the usual view was that he was forty- eight. Abraham was depicted as a precious jewel sifted from a pile of rubbish or as a vial of perfume lying unknown which, upon being summoned, shed its aroma all about. Having been thus elected by God, the choice nation of earth was to stem from Abraham. The blessing of Abraham extended to those associated with him. The pricing of a cow was not done without blessing, and ships at sea were saved from peril on his behalf. The sick residing at Abraham's presence were healed immediately. God transferred to Abraham his own power to mediate blessing. Berekoth 55a states that the "refusal to offer the benediction (in Abraham's name) was one of three things which shorten one's days on earth." Priests derived their ability to bless from Abraham. Abraham was the mediator of blessing to the world.

Abraham's hospitality was often praised by the rabbis. Abraham actively sought them even though he had just been circumcised. His tent was open on all four sides so he could run to greet those who went by. His humility attracted angels to stop and visit with him. According to the rabbis, Abraham was tested ten times by God and each of his successful passing of these tests resulted in blessing for Israel. The rabbis linked the merit of Abraham to his seed even beginning with his nephew Lot. Most of the history of Abraham's descendants was the result of some moment of valor in the life of the patriarch, such as the tabernacle and animal sacrifice, Yom Kippur, and the parting of the Sea. The merit of Abraham proved fruitful in the lives of both Joseph and Daniel.

It is worth asking the question of the rabbis, "What if Abraham had been unfaithful?" Would there have been anyone to serve as the corporate head of the nation in rabbinic thinking through the centuries? As we look back on some of the Old Testament traditions, the candidates were quite few really. The judges didn't qualify and the first king really didn't qualify either. Faithful women in Old Testament thinking didn't qualify. Gentiles didn't qualify. So, in a real sense we are left with Abraham. There are other rich traditions about him in the rabbinic literature, as well. Abraham prayed that the merit of his passing the test on Moriah with Isaac would prove beneficial to future generations. The death of Abraham provided a great deal of rich material for the rabbis' speculations. When he died, the world lost its last great guide. As he went into the world to come, he was joined by Isaac and Jacob. There he lives making intercession for those who come after him. This parallels Hebrews 7:25 about Jesus Christ.

This understanding in background carried through into the New Testament era as Paul calls Abraham "our forefather according to the flesh" (Rom 4:1). This concept of "forefather Abraham" is also found in Rom 4:11, 16 and it is also spiritualized in Galatians 3:7. The concept of corporate solidarity was at the heart of what was happening in the Roman church. The Jewish element probably exhibited Jewish pride: "Abraham is our forefather."

Jacob is the corporate father of a whole race of people also mentioned in Rom 9:12-13. F.F. Bruce has pointed out that corporate language and personality are being employed in Romans 9 to portray a prophetic picture of the future.

"Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated" from Malachi 1:2 where again the context indicates it is the nations of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view (Bruce). The way in which communities can so freely be spoken of in terms of their ancestors is an example of the common oscillation in Biblical (and especially Old Testament) thought and speech between individual and corporate personality (cf. Romans 5:12ff). Israel was the elect nation and Edom had incurred the wrath of God because of their unbrotherly conduct toward Israel in the days of Israel's calamity (cf. Ps. 137:7, Jer. 49:7ff, Ezek. 25:12ff, 35:1ff, Obadiah 10ff). The phrase "house of Jacob" or "sons of Jacob" are also used in the Bible to denote this solidarity.

Another important Old Testament head of corporate identity is King David (mentioned three times in the book of Romans). God's dealings in corporate situations with David are similar to his dealing with men in Romans 5. Several passages of Scripture point out that God blessed future generations because of the way David lived. It may be argued by some that where God says he is blessing later generations for the sake of David, God is referring only to the covenant which he made with David in 1 Chronicles 17 and 2 Samuel 24:10-15. God speaks later to King Jeroboam and states concerning the division of the kingdom, "Nevertheless, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of David my servant whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes" (1 Kings 11:34). God contrasts the righteousness of David with the apostasy of Solomon in later life. God says that for the sake of David (who was a corporate head of Israel as its king) God was going to temporarily bless Israel. David's righteousness blessed the land later. Other examples of God blessing the land after David's death, "for David's sake," include: Isaiah 37:35, 1 Kings 11:12,13,32; 15:4,5; 2 Kings 19:34, 20:6. God blessed a whole nation because of the behavior of one man-David.

In 2 Samuel 21:1-6 we see from the life of Saul that an important consequence followed:

Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David sought the face of the Lord. And the Lord said, 'There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.' So the king called the Gibeonites. Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them. Saul had sought to slay them in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah. And David said to the Gibeonites, 'What shall I do for you? And how shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the Lord?' The Gibeonites said to him, 'It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.' And he said, 'What do you say that I shall do for you?' They said to the king, 'The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them up before the Lord at Gibeon on the mountain of the Lord,' And the king said, 'I will give them.'

Saul constitutes two corporate headships here. First of all, Saul was the corporate head of Israel as their king. His headship caused God to deal with the whole nation after Saul's death according to what Saul did (21:1,2). The intention of the passage was to show that Saul's guilt must be punished. This brings us to the second important point of Saul's corporate headship-his family. God brought Saul's curse upon his seven sons. It is argued at times that God does not deal with people in this way from either a passage in the law, which says that God will not punish sons for the sins of their father or out of

Ezekiel 18, which says something similar. There are other passages in the Bible that teach otherwise.

You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Exodus 20:5

The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.

Numbers 14:18

Historical Christianity has contended that God is perfectly just to visit the sins of fathers upon the children if he wants to; he is God. He is the God who inspired Numbers 14:18. The same God who wrote Numbers 14:18 is also infinite enough to hold each person personally accountable for their own personal sins. We must simply be able to confess our humility before God as the Hebrews did when faced with such apparently difficult passages as Numbers 14:18 taken side-by-side with Ezekiel 18:17. Some have contended that since Ezekiel was written after the Numbers and Exodus passages that God no longer works that way. This was not the interpretation of the Jewish community of Jesus' day concerning these passages.

Jesus told the weeping women of Jerusalem that they should not weep for him but for themselves and for their children because of what was going to happen to them in 70 A.D. (See Luke). The shout of the crowd was that his blood would be upon them and upon their children. Likewise the promise of God in Acts 2:38ff was to them and to their children. Also there was speculation why Titus destroyed Jerusalem.

The death of John the Baptist and James' martyrdom were examples of unrighteousness, which were given as reasons for the fall of Jerusalem. We cannot write off one set of Scriptures to fit them into our pattern or mold. There are a few, thankfully only a few, difficult issues in Scripture which we must simply live with or else explain away. This is a "live with" instance. Bible readers are to hold both to corporate and individual responsibility.

Christ and Adam are also shown in the Bible to be corporate heads, Adam to an earthly race, Christ to a heavenly one. This brings us to placing Romans 5:12-21 in context with 1 Corinthians 15 and in the context of the whole book of Romans.

"Thus have I considered a large number of texts, which testify of original sin, imputed and inherent. Some are more express than others, of which kind are Job xiv.4; Psalm li,5; lviii.3; Rom.v.12, &c.; 1 Cor. xv.22; Eph.ii.3. That in Ephesians presents us with a direct proof of the entire doctrine. Those in Romans and Corinthians relate directly to original sin imputed, and are but consequential proofs of original corruption."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

The Book of Romans

It is important to see the Biblical support for the historic concept of original sin. To see this we must take a look at the book of Romans and, in particular, at Romans 5. In the Bible, a person is either "in Adam" or "in Christ."

In the year 49 A.D., Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome. There were riots that the Jews were starting. The Jews rioted because of one person named "Chrestus." Church historians have held that this is a misspelling for the word "Christ" and the Jews were actually rioting in Rome about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. In Acts 18:2, Paul, on his second missionary journey, left Athens and then met a Jew named Aquila "who had lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla because Claudius had commanded all Jews to leave Rome." When Claudius died in 54 A.D., Nero took over and declared an amnesty for all of the Jews. Some of the Jews and some of the Christian Jews went back into Rome as a result of Nero's decree.

Paul wrote the book of Romans on his second missionary journey (probably 57-58 A.D.) from Corinth. People like Priscilla and Aquila would have returned to Rome after having been forced out. F.F. Bruce says that at the time "Jewish believers and a large number of Gentiles settled in Rome." Jews and Gentiles, who had been separated for a period of years, were now being thrown back together and were having readjustment problems. Church historians found that there were several Christian congregations in Rome. After the Jews came back, there were five or six house churches and also thirteen Jewish synagogues (Beaton, Bruce, Josephus).

Romans 16 lists several of the different fellowships. Romans 16:3-5 points to the fellowship that was meeting in the home of Priscilla and Aquila. Verse 16:10 says, "Greet Apelles and Aristobulus." In 16:11 Paul greets his "kinsman Herodian" and those who belong to the "family of Narcissus"; in 16:14, "Asyncritus, Patrobus, Phlegon, Hermes, and the brethren with them"; and in 16:15, "Philologus, Julian, Nereus" and others with them.

In chapter one, Paul addresses the Christians in Rome. Chapter 1:7 does not say to "the church in Rome," but to all "God's beloved in Rome who are called to be saints."

There are specific places in the letter where Paul addresses Jews and places where he addresses Gentiles. There are also passages where he addresses both. He mentions Jews in 2:17; 3:1,2,9,19; 7:1: "Do you not know brethren for I am speaking to them who know the law that the law is binding on a person only during his life."

The places where he specifically addresses Gentiles are as follows: In 9:23ff, Paul discusses a Gentile named Pharaoh. In verses 22-24, he talks about Gentiles who have been created by God for His glory and have been accounted worthy for his kingdom. In verse 24, Paul says, "us whom he has called," and then Paul says it is not the Jews only but also the Gentiles who are a part of the "us." In 11:13, Paul specifically says, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry."

So there are places where he addresses Jews or Gentiles specifically then there are the other verses where he speaks to both groups. Romans 2:9-11is a good example: "There will be tribulation and distress upon every human being who does evil to the Jew first and also to the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality." In 3:9, he begins by speaking specifically to Jews, but ends by speaking to both groups: "Both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin." He emphasizes the sameness of the two groups again in 3:22-23: "There is no distinction since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." In 3:29 he states, "Is God the God of the Jews only or is God the God of the Gentiles also; yes of Gentiles also." In 10:12, Paul mentions that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. That is good news for all of us. God has chosen to include Gentiles in the true Israel by letting us be a part of the Christian family.

Paul addresses the problems of disunity, judging each other, and despising and thinking little of each other. Chapters 14 and 15 deal with the specific Roman problems. They included: what to eat and drink, what day to worship on, should people pay their taxes, should they obey civil authorities. In addressing this problem of disunity, Paul builds his argument in theology in chapters 1-11. There is no doubt that the problem was occurring. The error and the disunity in the church were based on a wrong understanding of what God was doing among the Jews and Gentiles in the church. Paul said that some good things were happening in the church in chapter 14.

The key verses in the book are 15:5-6: "May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another in accord with Christ Jesus that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The goal is a unified voice of praise, which glorifies God. Romans 1:17 is also another verse which some people give as the key verse. Some have seen Romans as a theology book, but I think that Romans is like Paul's other letters in that Paul is addressing specific circumstances and groups of people.

A brief overview of the book begins with chapters 1-3. The summary of this section is that justification by faith puts Jews and Gentiles on the same level. They are both saved by faith and thus they are equal in how they come to God. One is not above another. Romans 3:29-30 summarize these first three chapters: "Or is God the God of Jews only, or is He the God of Gentiles also, since God is one and He will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith." In these first three chapters, both groups are sinners and both are freed from the wrath of God. Romans 3:9 mentions that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners.

In Romans 1:23, it looks like Paul is describing Gentiles' sin when he says that they were involved in idolatry. They changed the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, or birds, or animals, or reptiles. Romans 2:1-8 describes the Jews' sin, which was Jewish pride (Romans 2:17-24). They knew the law and told people not to steal, commit adultery, or to be involved in idolatry, but Paul asks the question, "Are you involved with the same thing?" Both Jews and Gentiles are freed from the wrath of God in verses 21-26 of chapter 3. In verse 26, Paul states that when Jesus was killed it was to prove at the present time that God is righteous and the justifier of the person who believes in Jesus.

Both Jews and Gentiles will be judged by God in 2:9- 11: "There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, to the Jew first and also the Greek." In verse 10, "There will be glory and honor and peace for every human being who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek." "On the day when according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:16).

Both Jews and Gentiles in the church are "true Jews." For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.

Romans 2:28- 29

Jews and Gentiles are both made righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction.

Romans 3:21-22

Notice that in verse 22, there is no distinction; there is only one way for a person to be righteous. In 3:23, all have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles. In 24, both Jews and Gen- tiles are justified by God's grace. His praise is not from men but from God (2:28). Paul cuts right across both Jewish and Gentile pride with that statement.

Both are under the power of sin in 3:9: "I have charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin." In 3:10-18, Paul says eight times that no one is righteous. This should speak to us when we see people who outwardly are righteous. God has said that no one is righteous. This means that Christians are just like the man on the street without Christ; the only difference between us and the man on the street is the fact that Jesus is in our lives. We know this by experience. Think about the kinds of sins that we know Christians have committed. Christians are able to do the same things as non-Christians. It should not be this way; the Holy Spirit should help us not to sin. The Bible speaks to us right where we live.

In 3:19-20, Paul addresses Jews saying that they are all under the power of sin. He states also that Jews have an added problem. Not only are Jews under the power of sin, they are also under the law. Paul gives good news right after he gives the bad news. It is good news for both groups. In 3:21-22, the righteousness, which comes from God, is available for both groups. He states, "The righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the works of the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it. This is the righteousness of God through faith for all who believe, for there is no distinction." Notice that in verse 22 there is no distinction; there is only one way for a person to be righteous. In 3:23, all have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles. In 3:24, Paul says that both Jews and Gentiles are justified by God's grace as a gift after laying out the fact that they are in such a bad condition, and that both Jews and Gentiles are hopeless without Jesus. In 3:27, Paul asks a very important question, which was especially significant for the conflict which was occurring in the Roman church: "What becomes of our boasting?" Jewish boasting and Gentile boasting are both excluded on the principle of faith. Paul concludes by saying that both Jews and Gentiles are righteous by their faith.

We find in chapters 4 and 5 that both Jews and Gentiles have a common father. In chapter 4, Paul points out that Abraham is the father of righteous Gentiles and of righteous Jews. In chapter 5, Paul compares two other fathers with father Abraham. Our father Adam is compared with "father" Christ.

In chapter 3, Paul has already said that neither group has any reason to boast. In 3:19-20, he says that people are righteous apart from the law. Then in chapter 4 he gives an example of a man who lived before the law of Moses- Abraham.

Abraham was a man who lived four hundred years before the law of Moses was given, and he was justified by his faith. In 4:6-8, Paul gives an example of a man who lived four hundred years after the law of Moses-David. Paul is pointing out that the way of righteousness four hundred years before and after the law is the same. In 4:6, David says that there is a blessing upon the man whom God reckons righteous apart from works. The word "apart" in Greek here is a similar word as "divorced." God counts them righteous divorced from works. David knew this because this is what God had done for him. In 4:9, both Jews and Gentiles have received the blessing of righteousness. Paul asked the rhetorical question whether this blessing is upon the circumcised only or also upon the uncircumcised. This was to show that Abraham was the father of those who were righteous without being circumcised. In 4:12, both Jews and Gentiles have the same father-Abraham. In 4:16, "Abraham is the father of many nations." This is an amazing thing for Paul to say, since Paul was raised a Jew. No proselyte to Judaism could call Abraham his "father." Paul knew this but states the diametric opposite and then carries it one step further. In 4:13-15, both Jews and Gentiles have the same inheritance since Abraham is their father.

In 5:1, Paul says that they have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. What do you think that a Jew and a Gentile who were fighting with each other would have thought of when they read 5:1? Do you think they would have thought, "I have peace with God, therefore, I should have peace with this Jew or this Gentile sitting next to me"? In 5:9-11, Paul says that both Jews and Gentiles have received reconciliation with God. In 5:10 he says that while we were enemies we were reconciled with God. Those who were alienated from each other might have thought that they needed to be reconciled with each other. In 5:12-18, it says that the two distinct groups of humanity are no longer Jews and Gentiles, but those in Adam and those in Christ. He says that as Christians you are both in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles. Unsaved people are in Adam; saved people are in Christ. Therefore they should not think of themselves any longer as Jews and Gentiles; they are one humanity-a new humanity.

In chapters 1-3, both are freed from sin, and both were originally under the wrath of God. In chapter 4, both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians have Abraham as their father. In chapter 5, we see the distinction is no longer Jew and non-Jew, but now Christian and non-Christian. It is not according to physical descent whether a person is in the grace of God. Paul points out that physical descent is from Adam and that brings condemnation in chapter 5. We must be spiritually born in the family of Jesus. This is the background for chapters 6-8. In chapters 6 and 7, each of the two groups need to reckon themselves dead to things. In chapter 6, they must reckon themselves dead to sin (6:11). In 6:7, a dead person does not sin. In 6:22 he says, "now have been set free from sin." How were we set free from sin? We died. In 7:1, Paul addresses himself particularly to Jews: "I am speaking to those who know the law." In 7:1ff, a dead person is not bound by the law. In 7:4 Paul says, "Likewise my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." In 7:6, he says that we are discharged from the law-dead. We are now free to serve in the new life of the Spirit. In chapter 8, Paul talks about being alive in the Spirit. In 8:2, "The life of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death." (The spirit of life.) In chapter 6 and 7, Paul states that both groups have died before the spirit of life comes upon them. In 8:5 he says, "Those who set their minds on the things of the flesh live by the flesh, and those who set their minds on the things of the Spirit live by the Spirit." Both Jews and Gentiles should set their minds on the things of the Spirit. In 8:12, both groups are debtors to God. In verses 12-16, both groups have received sonship. In verse 14, anyone who is led by the Spirit is a son of God. Both groups have received the Spirit of sonship. The Spirit bears witness that both are sons of God. He concludes this with both groups being joint heirs with Jesus. In 8:23-24, both share a common hope of the redemption of their bodies. In 8:26-27, both Jews and Gentiles have a weakness in prayer which the Spirit will help with. The summary of chapter 6-8 is found in 8:33-39; on the basis of everything God has done for both Jews and Gentiles, how can they bring a charge against God's elect? How can the Gentile Christians bring a charge against the Jewish Christians or vice-versa. Paul, in Titus 1:1, also calls God's people His "elect." In Romans 8:34, Paul asks another question: "Who is to condemn each other?" In 8:35 he asks, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" They cannot separate each other from the love of Christ. This is the conclusion of chapters 6-8. Then there is the next section- chapters 9-11.

It is interesting to note how often people will preach on chapters 1-8 and then skip 9-11. The reason is that 9-11 are more difficult. Once a person understands the background of the whole book they are easier to understand. These are not three chapters that Paul put in as an after thought. They are very important parts of his whole argument. In 9:23-24, Paul says that God has shown mercy to both Jews and Gentiles. In 9:16, both groups are dependent upon God's mercy. In chapter 10:12-13, he states the same thought which is prevalent throughout the whole letter: "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is lord of all and bestows his riches upon all. For everyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved." This is also true in 11:29-32, particularly in verse 32 where he states, "God has consigned all men to disobedience [both Jews and Greeks] that he may have mercy upon all [both Jews and Greeks]." Jews and Gentiles are both woven into God's plan of mercy. Paul closes this section with a glorious doxology in 11:33-36.

Chapters 1-11 display the common ground that Jews and Gentiles stand on. Both were sinners; they were under the power of sin and under the wrath of God. Both were under the power of death. But when they became Christians, both groups were saved on the basis of grace. Both were debtors to God; they have received mercy; they are part of God's plan; they haveAbraham as their father. They are both "true" Jews. In Christ they are both part of a new humanity- both saved Jews and Gentiles. They both have died to sin and to the law; they have both received sonship. They both have a common hope, the redemption of their bodies. They both inherit the promises.

Chapters 1-11 make up the major division. Paul states that based on everything that has happened in 1-11, now they are to live according to the instructions given in 12-16. Paul states in 1-11 that God has been good to both Jews and Gentiles on the basis of God's common mercy to them. Because God has been merciful to Jews and Gentiles, they are to present their bodies and their lives on His altar (12:1ff). This is the first response to God's mercy. As well, in 12:3 Paul says that they should not think more highly of themselves than they are, and he reminds them that they are one body in Christ in the very next verse. In 12:9-10, they are to love each other genuinely with brotherly love, to hate what is evil, and to hold fast to what is good. They are to outdo one another in showing honor and live in harmony with one another, not being haughty, but associate with the lowly and never be conceited (12:16).

In chapter 13 we must ask the question, "Why would Paul say this about the Roman government?" Perhaps there was disagreement between the Jews and Gentiles about obedience to Roman authorities, especially in the area of paying taxes. The Jews did not want to pay taxes to the Romans. The tax officials were not popular. Suppose you were a Jewish Christian who had been thrown out of your home ten years earlier, and now you have returned to Rome. The Romans come to your door and tell you to pay taxes again. Bitterness was a possibility in the hearts of the Jewish Christians against the Roman government. In 13:6-7, Paul commands them to pay their taxes. In 13:8, they are to owe no one anything except to love each other since this is the fulfilling of the law. Paul says that this is the way to relate to the Roman government now that they have returned to the city.

Chapters 14-15 probably describe the immediate problems that were going on in the Roman churches. Many New Testament teachers think that the Jews and the Gentiles were not worshiping together and that the issues discussed in these chapters were the problems in Rome (See Beaton, Bruce, Stuhlmacher and Beker and Lincoln). In chapter 14, Paul talks about the "strong" and the "weak." It is probable that when he discusses the "strong" Christian, he was discussing the Gentiles in the Roman congregations and when he discusses the "weak," he is referring to the Jews in the Roman congregations (14:3, 10, 13).

They were apparently passing judgment on each other in certain areas: "One man believes he can eat anything while the other eats only vegetables." There was meat (probably pork) that was available, but the Jews did not feel good about eating it. Imagine being a Jewish believer in Rome at a Gentile love feast. In the midst of the praise and worship, the Gentiles bring out the meat (pigs' feet) and put them on each plate. The Jews would not want to eat them even though they were free in the Gospel to eat them. The same thing is true about drinking in 14:17-21-particularly verse 21. Paul says it is not right to eat meat or to drink wine or to do anything that makes your brother stumble. The Gentile world at this time was characterized by drunkenness. Some of the Jews were offended by the fact that some of the Gentiles felt free to have a glass of wine. This was certainly a part of the Jewish culture, but the Jews apparently did not abuse it as the Gentiles did. Gentiles abused wine. This actually happened in the church in Corinth. Paul says they should not offend their brethren who do not feel free in the Spirit to do this. Worse yet, they should not judge those who feel bound to not drink and eat. Likewise those who do not eat or drink should not judge those who do. This is a significant word for many in the evangelical church.

They disagreed over which day to worship on. In verses 5 and 6 Paul says,

One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems everyday alike. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord since he gives thanks to God, while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord.

The Jewish Christians wanted to worship on the Jewish Sabbath, which would be late Friday night or Saturday. Some among the Gentiles did not have the convenience to worship at those times and wanted to worship on a different day. Paul says that if the Gentiles want to worship on a Wednesday or a Sunday, that is fine, and if the Jews want to worship on the Jewish Sabbath, that is also fine. Both groups are wanting to give praise to God. Paul's response to all of the judging is not to despise each other (14:3), for God has welcomed both groups. Later Paul instructs them to welcome each other. In 14:15, Paul says they should walk in love, and in 14:4 they are not to judge each other. Both Jews and Gentiles will give an account of their lives before God who is the judge (verse 12). He indicates in 14:6 that both groups are trying to honor God. Therefore, in 14:13 he states, "Do not put a stumbling block in the way of a brother." He goes on to direct them in verse 19 to strive for peace and a mutual building up of each other, and in 23, he tells them not to use their faith to destroy their brother. In 15:1-2, he says the strong should bear with the weak. Therefore, at the love feast, it would mean putting away the pigs. Christ is the example. Jesus did not live to please himself, therefore the Gentiles should live to please the Jews and vice-versa. In 15:2, they should live so as to build other people up. In 15:8, they should strive to be servants like Jesus. The goal of all this is a spirit of unity so that with one heart and mouth they may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (15:5-6).

Paul closes this letter by sending greetings to people. Then in 16:17 he states that they should take note of those who oppose this teaching and create dissensions and difficulties; they are to avoid those people. He tells them to avoid anyone who is trying to split up the churches. God's goal is unity.

"Consequently, to 'be made sinners' is to be condemned of God, or to be 'children of wrath,' and that on account of Adam's sin."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Recapitulating the Book of Romans

To briefly recapitulate, the church in Rome was made up of Jews and Gentiles. Romans 2:17, 3:1,9 and 7:1 clearly show that there were Jews present in the congregation. We see also that Gentiles participated in the Roman church in 11:13. The Roman church met in homes. It has been argued that there were five or possibly six different fellowships meeting in Rome to which Paul wrote this letter. Paul did not address "the church at Rome," but rather "all God's beloved in Rome who are called to be saints" (Romans 1:7).

It is possible that the Jewish and Gentile believers were not even meeting together in fellowship meetings. During Claudius' reign the Jews and Gentiles were separated, and Claudius forced the Jews out of Rome. They later returned, at least partially, and thus there was an adjustment period going on in the church. The Roman Jewish and Gentile Christians had to adjust to each other after their five year separation. Paul's argument to deal with this problem is a theological argument basically against disunity and judging each other in the fellowship. Chapters 14 and 15 address the central problem.

Paul builds his arguments by showing the commonality and sameness of the two groups: "May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." To summarize Paul's argument:

1. Both Jews and Gentiles are sinners (1-2:8)

2. Both will be judged (2:9)

3. Both are true Jews (2:29)

4. Both are under the power of sin (3:9)

5. Both receive common justification and blessings (4:9)

6. Both have Abraham as their common father (4:11, 16)

7. Both have a common heavenly identity in Christ (5:18)

8. Both are dead to sin and to the law (6 and 7)

9. Both are alive and free from condemnation (8:1,5)

10. Both are debtors to God (8:12)

11. Both are a part of God's plan (9-11)

Paul concludes his argument from chapters 12-16 with ethical injunctions and instructions for common edification of both Jews and Gentiles. The major points can be found in : 14:3, 15:7, 14:4,5,12,13,19,22; 15:1,2,5,8.

In immediate Context with Romans 4-7

How does Romans 5:12-19 fit into Paul's immediate argument? Well, 5:12ff is part of an argument that begins in 4:1 and extends all the way to the end of chapter 7. Chapter 5 is a vital part of that whole argument! The most relevant context for chapter 5 is to look at chapter 4. Here Paul begins his discussion with some very significant words: "What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?" To every Jew reading this letter the thought of corporate solidarity would have overpowered their thinking. The born- again Jew would think to himself, "Yes, I am a son of Abraham my forefather and corporate head." Paul's answer would be, "That is right; he is a corporate head for you, but he is also the corporate head of all the Gentile believers." Then Paul does an amazing thing to undercut Jewish nationalistic pride.

In chapter 5, Paul points out two other headships, which are also just as real to the Romans (Jews and Gentile) as the corporate headship under Abraham. Paul thus sets chapter 5 in stark relief and contrast to chapter 4 to secure his point concerning headship. Paul says, "Yes, my Jewish friends, there are two humanities just as you think, except their corporate heads are not the ones you think (Abraham vs. non-Abraham). One corporate head is Adam, the other is Christ." Paul points out that the corporate head for all Jews is either Adam or Christ. For the Jewish believers, headship is now Christ and no longer Adam.

"'By man came death: In Adam all die' (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). Let the reader please bear in mind the whole of the two verses and the context. By 'man,' in the twenty-first verse, is meant Adam. The 'all' spoken of are all his natural descendants. These 'all die'; that is, as his descendants, are liable to death, yea, to death everlasting.'"

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

1 Corinthians 15

We must consider two important texts in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. In these two passages, Paul illustrates the Jewish understanding of headship in either Christ or Adam to his Gentile audience in Corinth. It was not necessary for him to define his terms or set the context at length in Romans as in Corinthians because the audience in Romans 4 and 5 is partly Jewish and thus familiar with the concept of headship. As Jews dominated Rome, Gentiles dominated Corinth.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 says,

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man also comes the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order, Christ the first fruits, then at this coming those who belong to Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 says,

Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being,' the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual, which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Paul states in Romans 5:14 that Adam was a type of "him who was to come." Seebass points out correctly,

In Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22 and 45-49, Paul sets out the contrast between the old and the new age, between man under sin and under the salvation of God, by typological parallelism of Adam and Christ, where Adam is the type and Christ the antitype.

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,

Vol. 1, p. 84

Both Adam and Christ are corporate heads of two different humanities. They ushered in different ages. This was clear to any Jew reading Paul’s letters to the Romans (as was the case) or the Corinthians (as was not the case although there were some converted Jews in Corinth). Gentiles understood this concept of solidarity far less (if at all). This reminds us of twenty-first-century Christianity in general. Luke 3:38 points out the fact that there is another “son of God,” which was Adam. (Paul influenced Luke’s thinking. They were traveling companions.) Adam, to any Jew during the life of Jesus, ushered in what was called “the present evil age.” Geerhardus Vos in Pauline Eschatology and Andrew Lincoln in Paradise Now and Not Yet point this out. George Ladd popularized this concept at the end of the twentieth century.

Paul reinterpreted Jewish apocalypticism as a basic new understanding of the “present evil age” and Christ is “the coming one” who ushers in the “age to come.” An example of the usage of this phrase is in Hebrews 6:5. What we have with Jesus is a totally new humanity being in a realm where:

The concept is eschatological. The risen one brings us a new and, for us, unknown existence with God (1 Cor. 15:44ff). Hence the new creation is more than a mere restoration of the original; it is something totally new and until now, unknown.

Ibid., Vol.1, p. 84

Romans 5 is not only a passage about the fall of Adam and the human race, but it is also eschatological about the "Coming One." Christ, the "Coming One," ushers in a whole new age, "the coming age," with a whole new race of beings not based on physical birth, such as Abraham or Adam. This new race of beings is created by a "heavenly origin" with a heavenly  originator-Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21 we read, "By a man came death." Vos has pointed out that this verse has two parallelisms:

1. Antithetic (opposite) - By a man came death/ by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

2. Synonymous (similare) - By a man came death/for as in Adam all die (vs. 22).

In these two verses, there is another synonymous parallelism: By a man has come also the resurrection of the dead/also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The terms "all" and "in Adam" and "in Christ" are extremely significant. Paul emphasizes two humanities in these two references in 1 Corinthians 15, just as in Romans 4 and 5. The two humanities are "all-in Adam" or "all-in Christ." As Vos states, if 1 Cor. 15:21 and 22 are not interpreted properly as two humanities we will find universalism in Paul which is not there. Karl Barth approached this interpretive universalism, and C.H. Dodd actually wrote this in his interpretation of Romans 5:18.

In 1 Corinthians 15:22, the future tense is used relative to the fact that "so in Christ shall all be made alive." This again points to the future eschatological nature of the passages in question. Romans 5:19 shows that same future tense used in the passive voice just as 1 Cor. 15:22 is in future passive. In 1 Cor. 15:22, "all" will be made alive. In Romans 5:19, "many" will be made righteous.

Paul uses "all" and "many' synonymously (Bruce and others agree). The same is true in Romans 5:18 and 19 where "all" and "many" are used interchangeably. This occurs in other parts of Scripture (Isaiah 53:6 "all"; 53:12 "many"). The Adam/Christ theme is clearly an eschatological theme discussing the "humanity of the present evil age" versus the "humanity of the age to come" ushered in by the "Coming One"-Jesus.

There are four reasons why 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 do not teach universalism:

1. The "all" or the "many" are talking about either the "all" or the "many" "in Christ" or "in Adam" (see Bruce).

2. One place where "all" does demand the definition of all of humanity is in 1 Cor. 15:49 where Paul states that every Christian has borne the image of Adam. The spiritual movement was from "in Adam" to "in Christ." The Scripture gives us no picture that we move the other way-ever. Christians bear Adam's image no longer. In the past we did, but now we do not. Non-Christians continue to bear the image. We all (Christians and non- Christians) bear some of the effects of Adam's image.

3. Everyone is not "in Adam"; Christians are "in Christ." Christians were once "in Adam." In fact, we derived our life from him (1 Corinthians 15:48). Adam was the source of our life until we were born into the new family/ race. Christ gives us life now.

4. Non-Christians are not "in Christ." They are "in Adam." They derive their "life" from Adam. Christians derive their life from Christ.

Relative to Adam, we find further important grammatical usage which more sharply points out the two different humanities. In 1 Cor. 15:22, the antithetical parallelism to "so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (future passive) is contrasted with "for as in Adam all die" (present active). The time of the race of Adam is present or, as in the preceding verse (15:21), past. The time of the "coming" race is either future or, as in the preceding verse (15:21), at the first coming of the "Coming One." All in Adam die. All in Christ shall be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:23 parallels Romans 6:1-4. Romans 6:1-4 is an important contextual note for Romans 5:12-21. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 parallels Romans 5:12-21. The context for both is eschatological. We are to walk in the newness of life after him with whom we have been united in death baptism.

In 1 Corinthians 15:23, Christ is the "first fruits" of a new order and brings those "who belong to him" to resurrection life. Thus Christ's resurrection is the first-fruits for those living in the humanity of the "age to come." Christ's resurrection guarantees the resurrection of Christians over death as well. Resurrection is a key theme in both 1 Corinthians 15:23 and Romans 6:1-4. In 15:23, the phrase, "those who belong to Him," is either a genitive of source or a genitive of realm which means that those in the new humanity receive their life from "Him who is to come," or they operate in his realm of dominion and ownership. This is also true in 15:49. Paul suggests either life or dominion, ownership, or realm. "All" in the "age to come" race are owned, dominated, ruled, or given life by Christ. "All" in the "present evil age" race are owned, dominated, ruled, or given life by Adam. These two races are mutually exclusive. People either get life from Adam or Christ. Life from Adam actually ends in death. Life from Christ is exactly that-life. Those who are Christians bear the image of the "man from heaven" and will further bear it in the future (15:48-49). We once bore the image of Adam, who was our physical life source (from the beginning of our life), but not anymore (15:49).

In 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, we have a contrast between the first and last Adam. The concept again is clearly eschatology. In Greek, the "last Adam" is the "eschatos Adam" (15:45). Paul tells us four things about the "eschatos Adam" that are relevant for us in our Christian life:

1. Similar to 15:23, Christ is the resurrection fountainhead-a "Life-giving Spirit."

2. He is the head for a whole race like himself.

3. Christ's origin is heaven. He is a heavenly man.

4. The resurrection bodies of those in his race will be like his (vs. 49).

There is an important distinction between the first Adam and the "eschatos (last) Adam." The "eschatos (last) Adam" operates in a "heavenly, spiritual realm," while the first Adam is only a "living being" operating in the realm of dust.

In 1 Corinthians 15:47, we have stark contrasts made between the heads of the two races. The first man is (literally) out of the earth (ex with the genitive), the last man is (literally) out of heaven (ex with the genitive). Similar uses of the genitive are genitives of source showing that the "eschatos Adam" has his life originated in heaven. He is the heavenly man. By contrast, the first Adam is the head of a race of men who have life originated "out of" earth (15:48).

1 Corinthians 15:48 indicates the characteristic of the two races. This is the way the two races and the heads of the two races actually are. "As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven." Verse 48 shows that there is a vital link between the two races and their two life sources.

Paul concludes by pointing out, "Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (15:49). Paul uses the genitive to say that the man of dust has an image, which we all bore. Verses 48 and 49 point out that we are either "dusty" or "heavenly" based on our life source. If our life source is the man of dust we are going to have a similar destiny as he did. The people of dust receive the same death as their source-the man "of dust." The same is true for the people of heaven. The people "of heaven" receive the same destiny as the man "of heaven." Far from teaching universalism, theAdam/Christ motif teaches two opposite (heaven or hell) destinies for two different humanities. Heaven or hell as eternal destinies are dependent upon who our life source is (Christ or Adam) and into which race (Christ or Adam) we are born.

We still bear results of the image of Adam in that we die physically. In ourselves there dwells no good thing, and we are still sinners (1 Tim 1:4ff). We no longer bear Adam's image in that we are not condemned with him because of our faith in Christ. Christ is now our "eternal" life source. "As is the man from heaven, so are those borne from him" (1 Cor. 15:48, 49).

"But I make this statement brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor. 15:50).

The conclusion of the Adam/Christ motif in 1 Corinthians can be best summed up in the following:

Christ

Adam

By a man resurrection

By a man came death

In Christ all be made alive

In Adam all die

A life-giving Spirit

A living being

The “Spiritual”

The “Natural” psychic

From heaven (genitive of source)

From dust (genitive of source)

Humanity - man from heaven

Humanity - man from dust

We shall bear his name

We have all borne his image

With 1 Corinthians 15 as background we are now able to deal with Romans 5 directly. We will look at the passage verse-by-verse keeping in mind what we have learned in 1 Corinthians.

"[Paul] expressly says we are children of wrath, even as others, by nature or from our birth. He does not say we became so...by imitation."

John Wesley

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Romans 5:12-21

In Romans 5:12, sin came into the world through one man. (This cannot however be referring to the first chronological sin, since Adam did not sin first-1 Tim 2:14.) What this is talking about is not the actual entrance of sin into the world, but it is talking about the difference between two representative heads. To talk about the chronological entrance of sin into the world, Paul should have started with Eve. Instead, Paul talks about corporate headship in context with Romans 4-6. He does precisely the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:21: "By a man came death." Again, in 1 Corinthians, Paul is not giving a chronology of iniquity, but rather is describing the corporate head of a race as he did earlier in 1 Corinthians 11 (discussing headship). Consider the following references in Romans:

5:15  "Many died through one man's trespass."

5:16 "Judgment following one trespass brought condemnation."

5:17 "Because of one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

1 Corinthians 15:22 says, "In Adam all die." Romans 5:15 says, "Many died through one man's trespass." This is the cause for the spread of death; 1 Corinthians 15:22 points out that being a part of the humanity like the man from dust causes death. In Adam "all men sinned"(Rom. 5:12). Being "in Adam" brings death-the wages of sin: "In Adam, all die" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Adam's sin comes upon his family just like Saul's did.

Romans 5:14 points out that the sins of those between Adam and Moses were different than the sin of Adam. Adam disobeyed a known law; those between Adam and Moses did not. At the same time, according to Romans 5:12, death spread to all men because "all men sinned." Edwards says that if these are personal, conscious acts of sin, then how does one account for the massive numbers of infant deaths in the ancient world. This is, in fact, a well taken point. Sin and only sin produces death (Edwards, Works, Vol. 1, p. 146).

If Paul is trying to give a detailed, chronological and personal account of how sin began and spread, why did he not begin with the first individual, chronological sin which was Eve's? If Paul is emphasizing individual acts in Romans, then he certainly would have mentioned Eve as he did in 1 Timothy. All men sinned, but they did not sin like Adam sinned.

Paul states in 5:12 that it was "by one man." Actual, personal sins come into the world through many people, and the first actual sins entered the world through Eve, who was a woman. Luther points out that the death that spread to all men because all men sinned cannot mean personal sins, since some die who have not committed personal acts of sin. F.F. Bruce made a parallel statement concerning this verse in his commentary on Hebrews 7:9,10:

Reverting for a moment to the tithe-receiving tribe of Levi, our author points out that Levi, the ancestor of that priestly tribe and the embodiment of that corporate personality, maybe said himself to have paid tithes to Melchizedek...Levi was Abraham's great-grandson, and was yet unborn when Abraham met Melchizedek; but an ancestor is regarded in Biblical thought as containing within himself all his descendants...preeminently Adam (Rm. 5:12) where 'all sinned' is a way of indicating what happened when Adam sinned.

Commentary on Hebrews

p. 141ff

Hebrews 7:9-10 says, "One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him." Luther continues that through Adam's sin, he became a figure of "the one that was to come" in that his one sin has come upon "all." The righteousness of the Coming One comes upon "all." 1 Corinthians 15:49 says that we have all borne his (Adam's) likeness.

Romans 5:13 says, "Sin is not counted where there is no law." This is a commentary on 3:20 and 4:15. In 5:13 it is relating to Adam and Moses; in 3:20 it is Christ and Moses; in 4:15 it is Abraham and Moses. These are the three corporate heads in question in Romans 4 and 5. The point is that even in the non-counting of sin "where there is no law," the "wages of sin" were still visited upon all of the descendants of Adam before the law (Romans 6:23). Why is this? Because they were in Adam's loins when he did it (remember Bruce). The law in Romans 3, 4 and 5 has nothing to do with either righteousness or condemnation. What matters in Romans 3, 4 and 5? What really matters is who your head is, who your source is, and into which race (earthly or heavenly) you were born!

In Romans 5:14, "transgression" is what Adam did. In 1 Timothy, Eve also committed a "transgression." All of the sinners between Adam and Moses did not do this! They sinned in Adam and they sinned personally, but they did not deliberately step over a known line as Adam and Eve did.

The sin described in Romans 5:14 is not an imitation of Adam; it is something else. It is important to note at this juncture that, to be consistent with corporate thinking, one does not choose his corporate head. A proselyte to Judaism could never be called a "son of Abraham" simply because he chose to become a Jew (Edersheim). Likewise, according to Romans 5:14, we did not choose Adam as our corporate head by imitating his sin. We are in his family because our origin is like his - "dusty" (1 Corinthians 15:48). Our "heavenly " source (Jesus Christ) chose us; we did not choose him (John 15:16).

Paul's use of the "world" in 5:13 is also interesting, because in Romans, "world" is closely linked to the Palestinian understanding of the "present evil age." This understanding of the "world" once again takes us into the realm of eschatology, as it should in the Adam/Christ motif. In Romans 1:20, the "world" is without excuse; in 3:6, God judges the "world"; in 3:19, the whole "world" is held accountable to God (note the eschatology here); in 5:12, sin is in the "world" (also in 5:13); and in 11:15, the "world" is in need of reconciliation to God. This understanding of the "world" parallels Ephesians 2:1-3 where Paul calls us spiritually dead and by nature "children of wrath." In Ephesians 2, we are "born already ruined."

In Romans 5:14, death reigned over those whose sins were not voluntary transgressions like that of Adam. The many sins of the many individuals are compared with the single "transgression" of Adam. The implication is that the many "sins" are in a different category than the one "transgression" of Adam. The next statement in Romans 5:14 shows us why. Adam is the "type of Him who is the Coming One." The reason that the sins of those between Adam and Moses are different than the transgression of Adam is that those between Adam and Moses were not the head of a whole race of human beings as Adam was. Death reigned because the head of the race transgressed. Romans 5:17 must be taken into context with 1 Corinthians where it says that we bore his image. They sin because they are a part of his race. In Adam all sin; in Adam all die.

The "type of the Coming One" in 5:14 brings all of the eschatological framework into the Romans 5 passage that we have earlier found in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage. When Paul introduces the "Coming One" (also introducing by implication the coming age) into the passage, he immediately separates two distinct races of men-those who bear the image of the "Coming One" and those who bear the image of the "type of the Coming One" (see also 1 Corinthians 15:47, 48).

Paul introduces eschatology in his argument here in Romans 5. In the context of the racial fighting (Jew and Gentile) in the Roman church, Paul says that indeed there are two races. They are not "circumcised" and "uncircumcised," but one "out of the earth" race and one "out of heaven" race. Three chapters earlier (2:28, 29), Paul said that true circumcision is a matter of the heart and not physical. Likewise in chapters 9-11, Paul reemphasizes that physical descent means nothing, because everyone who is physically descended from Abraham is not necessarily one of his physical children. Paul concludes his parallel argument in Romans 9:8 by bluntly stating, "This means that it is the children of promise who are reckoned as descendants." Paul is trying to diffuse the present racial squabbling in the Roman church.

It is certain that Romans 4 and 5 were written to the Jews in the fellowship ("Abraham our forefather according to the flesh..."). He undercuts Jewish racial pride of having Abraham as their forefather according to the flesh by reminding them that, further back, the Jews and the Gentiles have another common forefather-Adam. The Christians there also have another racial head to whom they are now linked with a heavenly linkage-Jesus the Coming One, head of the "coming race" of the "Coming One." These two forefathers are common to Jews and Gentiles. Paul says in Romans 5 that everyone has either Adam as his forefather or Jesus the "eschatos" Adam as his forefather. We receive the merits or demerits of one of these two forefathers on the basis of Paul's argument. Jesus was considerably more harsh than Paul. In John 8:33, 37, 39, 53, and 56 the opposing Jews are noted as having Abraham as their father. Jesus responds in John 8:44 that their father is not Abraham but rather the devil!

In context with Paul's eschatological introduction of the "Coming One" bringing a "coming age," Romans 5:15 immediately begins to make contrasts between the two types of humanity. The actions of the heads of the two races determine the effects upon their races. There are important differences. The "eschatos" Adam has greater effect than the "man of dust":

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many have died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God, and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.

Romans 5:15

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 it says, "Many died through one man's trespass," and "in Adam all die." It also says, "The grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many...in Christ shall all be made alive." Notice the interchange of the words "all" and "many." This interchange is also evident in Romans 5:18-19. But for those who are in union with the "eschatos" Adam "much more" have the grace of God. This parallels the effects of the "Eschatos” Adam who is a “life- giving spirit,” where as the first Adam is only a “living being.” In fact, in 1 Corinthians, death is the inevitable result of union with the “man of dust.” We all formerly bore his image.

In Romans 5:16, Paul continues with his eschatologically distinct categories: “And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s trespass. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.” The “gift” brings more eschatology into the mind of the Jewish audience, as this is the word used for the wedding gift in Genesis 24:53 in the LXX. The eschatological marriage feast comes into focus with the “gift” following “many trespasses” far outweighing the “judgment following one trespass.”

It is clear that the corporate eschatological picture of Christ and Adam is also being drawn in this verse since here, as in the preceding verse, the “one trespass” and the “trespass of one man” are being contrasted with the wedding gift. The judgment of God came upon those united to Adam after one trespass. It came upon “many” after one trespass of one man. The wedding gift comes to those united to the “heavenly man,” the “eschatos” Adam, after many trespasses. The bride of Christ receives the wedding gift. The power of the wedding gift is much greater than the power of the condemnation, which was given after one trespass. The wedding gift is brought by the “heavenly man” for his bride. Condemnation is Adam’s present to those united to him. The wedding gift is justification (the public declaration of righteousness for the bride). This gift publicly unites her to her husband and Lord. “Since he is your Lord, bow to him” (Ps 45:11).

More distinctions related to the eschaton follow in verse 17: “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” As in 1 Corinthians 15:26, death is personalized and personified. Death is king in Adam’s realm. Death reigns because of the trespass of the one “man of dust.” It is not everybody’s personal sins, but it is one sin of one man which brings the reign of death.

The free gift, justification, has been given to the bride. Those who are invited to the banquet are the believers-the bride. This cuts across the Jewish nationalistic pride the same way that Jesus did in Matthew 8:11 and John 8:44. God has a new bride-both Jews and Gentiles. The bride is also the new humanity in union with the "eschatos" Adam. "Life" is mentioned here in the same context as in 1 Corinthians 15:45. The reign in life is the reign of those who are "in Christ, the life-giving Spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:46 shows us that the reign is a reign in the Spirit and not the psyche (soul).

The "coming age" is again being distinguished from the "present evil age" in verse 18: "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men." Some state that orthodox Christianity (to be consistent here) must interpret this passage as universalism if "condemnation of all men" is to be paralleled with "life for all men." In the context of Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians and Romans 5, this is clearly impossible. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). "One man's trespass led to condemnation for all men." If verse 18 is to be taken as literal ("all men" meaning all human beings) then verse 19 is a direct contradiction to verse 18. Verse 19 says that "many" were made sinners. It is one of the two, but it cannot be both at the same time. Historic Christianity has consistently said through the years that the "all" of verse 18 is the same as the "many" of verse 19 (see Bruce on either Romans or Hebrews). Both the "all" or "many" are qualifying words for union with corporate heads. Scripture teaches that we all (including Christians) formerly bore the image ofAdam. Everyone does not presently bear the image of Christ, nor will they in the future (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). We bore Adam's image by being out of the "dust," which is our physical existence. We are bearers of Christ's image by virtue of a second heavenly birth and source of life. Here the two words "all" mean two very distinct and mutually exclusive categories of people ("all" in Christ or "all" in Adam-1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

In 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 15:45, there is an important Greek word which helps clear up the context of "all men" in the Adam/Christ motif of Romans 5. Zoepoema is the Greek root in both passages. "Made alive" and "life-giving" are therefore related. "Life for all" in Romans 5:18 is related to "made alive" and "life-giving " in 1 Corinthians. The "all" made alive in 1 Corinthians 15:22 are made alive by the "life- giving Spirit" of 15:45. This is significant for Romans 5:18. The "life for all" in Romans 5:18 must be interpreted by the "all made alive" in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Those that the "life for all" pertains to in Romans 5 are also made alive by the same "life-giving Spirit" of 1 Corinthians 15:45. The "all" made alive in 15:22 are contrasted with "in Adam" all die. Those made alive are those "in Christ." This theme of "life" is present in the eschatology of Romans 5:17, 18 and 21. "Life" is for the "all" in Christ; one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men (Romans 5:18, 1 Corinthians 15:22). "In Christ" shall "all be made alive." The consistent usage of the word is obvious: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Universalism is not present in either 1 Corinthians or Romans.

Continuing in his consistent eschatology, Paul emphasizes the actions of the head of the present evil age:

5:15 one man's trespass

5:16 one man's sin

5:17 one man's trespass

5:18 one man's trespass

5:19 one man's disobedience

These are all contrasted with the other corporate head of the age to come-Jesus:

5:15 one man Jesus Christ

5:17 through the one man Jesus Christ

5:18 one man's act of righteousness

5:19 one man's obedience

These passages are Paul's discussion of totally different humanities with two completely different origins.

Verse 19 continues the argument:

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

In being consistent with the context of the rest of the passage, "Through one man's obedience, many will be made righteous." In Isaiah 53:12 it says, "He bore the sin of many." Some scholars think that the Isaiah passage is the background for what Paul is doing here in Romans 5. "Many" and "all" are interchanged in the Adam/Christ motif in Romans 5:18- 19 as well as in the parallel passages in 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:15. The "many" in Romans is also a synonym for the body of Christ (see 8:29, 12:4,5). F.F. Bruce points out that 5:19 should be read "the many" (Commentary on Romans, p.133). Romans 5:19 is also a parallelism to 5:15. It is clearly set in the eschatological framework of 1 Corinthians 15 as well. "Believers" are modified by verbs in the future tense indicating a future eschatological hope. Romans 5:19 ("will be made righteous") parallels 1 Corinthians 15:49 ("we shall also bear the image of the man from heaven"). Romans 5:20 and 21 close this eschatological passage with "grace" reigning in the future tense through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Lord of the future.

Conclusions

1. The "eschatos" Adam more than reverses the effect of the first Adam.

2. "All" in each realm receive the benefits of the actions of their corporate, eschatological heads.

3. The law of Moses makes no difference here.

4. Both sin and righteousness, obedience and disobedience have multiplied results on their respective races ("many made sinners" versus "many made righteous"; "condemnation for all" versus "life for all").

5. The first and last Adam each start new humanities- one earthly, the other heavenly.

6. "All" are effected similarly by their racial heads. "In Adam" all die. "In Christ" all shall be made alive.

7. The Jew/Gentile issue is a non-issue since physical descent is not of primary importance. Therefore, being physical descendants of Abraham does not have eternal consequences.

8. The ultimate effects of the first Adam are in the past. The ultimate effects of the "eschatos" Adam are in the eschaton.

9. All "in Adam" are condemned by the trespass of one man. By the obedience of one man, "all" in Christ are acquitted and given the wedding gift, justification, as a free gift after many trespasses.

5:15 one man's trespass

5:16 one man's sin

5:17 one man's trespass

5:18 one man's trespass

5:19 one man's disobedience

These are all contrasted with the other corporate head of the age to come, Jesus:

5:15 one man Jesus Christ

5:17 through the one man Jesus Christ

5:18 one man's act of righteousness

5:19 one man's obedience

10. We are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" because Adam and Christ are life sources. We are not "in Adam" or "in Christ" by imitation of their actions. We are there by birth or rebirth. Remember, Wesley said that this is not a matter of imitating Adam's sin and thus being in his "family."

11. In context with the rest of Romans:

1. Relationship with Abraham is excluded with a relationship to either Adam or Christ.

2. Relationship to chapter 6 is the burial of the "old" man and the resurrection of the "new." This is eschatological because we "rise" to walk in the newness of life. This newness of life is given to us by the "life-giving Spirit."

3. Relationship to the Holy Spirit in Romans and 1 Corinthians 15 is that Christ is the life-giving Spirit.

4. Relationship to the eschaton:

1. 5:14 - the coming one

2. 5:15 - the wedding gift

3. 5:18 - "life" for all

4. 5:19 - the future belongs to the heavenly race.

5. 5:21 - grace will reign in the future through Jesus Christ.

Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 both teach that men are linked either by birth or rebirth with a corporate life source-Adam (and therefore condemned) or with the "eschatos" Adam (and therefore justified). There is no middle or neutral ground.

"Either you or I mistake the whole of Christianity from the beginning to the end! Either my scheme or yours is as contrary to the scriptural as the Koran is. Is it mine or yours?"

John Wesley

Letter to The Reverend John Taylor D.D.

July 3, 1759

Conclusion

In conclusion, we observe the organizational and ecclesiastical effects of abandoning the historic doctrine of original sin.

Francis Schaeffer states in The Great Evangelical Disaster that the contemporary church is de-emphasizing doctrinal content. Schaeffer points out that one of the main areas of de-emphasis is the fall of man. This devastates the church in the long run. The faithful thing to do in Schaeffer's view is to re-emphasize Biblical content.

We see that in the past two hundred years the lack of faithfulness in Biblical preaching and teaching on this topic has brought harm to many sectors of the church. Missions has been greatly harmed. Personal living has been less victorious. Remember, Wesley said a proper understanding of original sin and justification would promote true holiness.

A few examples are in order. The Salvation Army and the Moravians are two outstanding examples. Wesley taught that understanding the doctrine of original sin was an impetus to personal holiness. The Moravians influenced Wesley, and the Moravians themselves were influenced by

Luther. Rationalism took different points of attack on the Army and the Moravians.

Friedrich Schleiermacher took rationalism to the Moravians. Original sin for Schleiermacher was as Latourette states, "an inescapable trend in all men" (Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 1121-1124). Schleiermacher shows no humble understanding of the devastating effects of Adam on everyone else. Original sin for Schleiermacher is merely a "trend." Kant influenced Schleiermacher. The power on the Moravians in the 1700s included the doctrine of original sin. As the Moravian's orthodox teaching left, the power left also. Schleiermacher sent the power away from the pietists by his unbelief and false teaching. Jesus pointed to this truth in Matthew 22:29 and Mark 12:24: "Is not this why you are in error because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?"

At this point the question may be raised, "What about the Catholics?" They have basically held to this orthodox doctrine through the years. The other elements of non-Biblical theology in Catholicism are sufficiently strong to keep sustained power off of it. Some have seen signs of revival in the present Catholic charismatic renewal. The stirring of vitality will probably be short-lived because of the lack of universal Catholic Biblical learning for the laity and the clergy. Charismatic Catholic Bultmannians can not sustain a true spiritual revival.

The influence of Charles Finney on the Salvation Army is another example of detrimental historic effects of this doctrinal aberration. Winkie Pratney has shown the significant influence of Finney's Systematic Theology upon the Booth family. This is further documented by the Army teaching on "perfection." Wesley's understanding of Christian perfection, together with Finney's understanding of a non-fall, brought this on.

Horrifying indeed is the testimony of the great expositor H.A. Ironside. His career ended in the Salvation Army through being unable to live the "victorious" life. Horrifying indeed is the testimony of spiritual derelicts whom Ironside points to as further damaging witness against denying the orthodox positions on original sin (H.A. Ironside, Holiness, the True and the False, p. 7-40). It is not at all surprising that the power generated through the strength of the Booth's quickly diminished by the next generation-only fifty short years. The same is true of Finney, except his influence lasted more than fifty years, primarily due to the influence of Oberlin College and Finney's writings. Wesley and Zinzendorf's influence lasted longer (influentially post- mortem). This was probably due to the fact that their two movements at least began with a Biblical understanding of the nature of man and then swayed.

Both church history and the Bible show the cruciality of adhering to the orthodox doctrine of the fall. Schaeffer lamented that in forgetting history and the Bible, the contemporary evangelical constructed an incorrect view of man. Only one answer can be given to this incorrect view of man-the faithful teaching of Scripture. This involves conflict and confrontation.

Schaeffer outlined in chapter 2 of The Great Evangelical Disaster that on a watershed, where snowflakes lie only a few inches apart at one point on a mountain, the snow will melt and droplets, formerly only inches apart, will ultimately end up thousands of miles apart. What we presently believe will effect the church of the future. The only answer is loving Biblical confrontation on the issue of original sin.

To conclude, Schaeffer states on page 151 of The Great Evangelical Disaster:

If there is not loving confrontation, but courageous confrontation, and if we do not have the courage to draw lines even when we wish we did not have to, then history will look back at this time as the time when certain 'evangelical colleges' went the way of Union Seminary in New York and other evangelical organizations were lost to Christ's cause forever.

Bibliography

Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan.

Augustine, The Confessions; Pelican Books, New York. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology; Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1938.

Henry Bettenson, The Early Fathers; Oxford Press, London. Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology; Zondervan Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971.

F.F. Bruce, Commentary on Hebrews; Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

F.F. Bruce, Commentary on Romans; Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans; Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971.

David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators; Institute of Christian Economics Press, Tyler, Texas, 1981.

Jonathan Edwards, The Work of Jonathan Edwards; Banner of Truth, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 1979.

Charles Finney, True and False Repentance; Kregel Publishers.

Billy Graham, Peace with God; World Wide Publishers. Donald Guthrie ed., The New Bible Commentary Revised; Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970.

James Hastings, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Harper and Row.

H.A. Ironside, Holiness, The False and the True; Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, New Jersey, 1982.

Kenneth Scott Latourette, The History of Christianity; Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1953.

Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans; Kregel Publishers. Arthur McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought; Scribners, London, 1946.

Robinson, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Harper and Row.

Francis Schaeffer, Escape from Reason; Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1970.

Jerry Smith, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Union Theological Seminary, 1979-80.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago.

Merrill Tenney, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia; Zondervan Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology; Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1979.

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, Perfectionism; Puritan and Reformed, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

John Wesley, Works.

Appendix 1

What About Infants?

This question often comes up when thinking about the historic orthodox doctrine of original sin. One of the best responses I have found came from Gleason Archer.

Gleason Archer wrote regularly for Billy Graham's Decision Magazine on difficult Bible questions. He was professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also taught at Fuller Seminary. He later published a book entitled The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Archer addresses this very question in discussing Romans 5. I will quote it, at length in its full context.

In Romans 5:14 what is meant by "those who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression"?

Romans 5:12-14 reads: "Therefore, just as through one man, Adam, sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-for until the law was given [to Israel in the time of Moses] sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's offense, who is a type of Him who was to come [namely, Jesus]." This passage clearly teaches that (1) in the case of man, created in the image of the immortal God, death was not a necessity of nature but a penalty for sin-that primal sin of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve at the very beginning of the human race; (2) the covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself but for all his descendants, and therefore his sin of partaking of the forbidden fruit involved not only himself but also all his posterity in a state of sin and death; (3) the penal consequences of that primal fall affect all mankind, even before the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, and before the first portion of Holy Scripture was revealed and committed to written form; and (4) because of that primal sin, death struck down all mankind, from the time of Adam down to the time of Moses-even those of Adam's descendants who had not consciously chosen to disobey God as Adam did.

This raises the question, "Who of the human race have not like Adam consciously chosen to disobey God?" Which of us have not personally repeated Adam's offense, on the basis of our own free will? The answer is, "Not a mother's son of us-except for those who died in infancy, without becoming old enough to make a responsible moral decision." It may be arguable how long this state of true innocence continues after a child has been born. All too soon parents come to realize the reality of the rebellious, Adamic nature in their infants; and they find themselves very early in the course of child-rearing speaking of their little ones as being "good" or "naughty" on that particular day. Nevertheless, whether a child may be regarded as culpably sinful when he throws his first tantrum, or whether later, when he enters the toddler stage, his Adamic ancestry is unmistakable. All too soon we recognize ourselves in him-or her!

Be that as it may, it is quite clear that at the very earliest stages of a child's life, he is fully innocent so far as his own moral manifestations are concerned. Nevertheless, as v.14 points out, death-which is for humans a penalty for sin-"reigned" over the whole human race, even including those infants who, dying in infancy, had no opportunity to recapitulate Adam's fall. Yet they are clearly involved in Adam's guilt and in Adam's fall.

This raises the question, "Why should this be so?" How can it be just to condemn a soul that has never personally, consciously sinned? The answer to this difficult question is to be found in the federal headship of Adam and in the foreseen potential of the infant who has been prematurely cut off. Romans 5 sets forth Adam and Christ as the two federal heads (or covenant representatives) of the human race. Adam was appointed the authorized representative of all mankind; Christ was appointed the authorized representative of redeemed mankind. The first representative responded to the covenant of works with an act of God-rejecting disobedience; the second representative responded to that covenant with a God-affirming act of obedience-his voluntary death on the cross as an atonement for the sin of fallen man- as a climax and seal of a perfectly sinless, law-keeping life.

Romans 5 teaches that the moral response of each federal head inured to all those who were embraced within the covenant-by the principle of imputation. Adam's sin was imputed to all his descendants-including infants dying in infancy-just as Christ's sinless obedience was reckoned to all those who by faith belong to Him. All the human race fell into sin and guilt through Adam's fall; but all those who are in Christ are redeemed through his righteousness, which is reckoned to their account by the grace of God, extended to all those who sincerely and savingly believe in His Son, Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Failure to accept the principle of the federal headship of Adam implies also a rejection of the federal headship of Christ. He who rejects his involvement in original sin (for this is what the federal headship of Adam implies) by the same token rejects the principle of justification by faith in Christ. The same passage teaches both; therefore he who rejects the one by implication rejects the other as well.

But in its application to children dying in infancy, a very serious problem arises in regard to salvation. If the benefits of Calvary are available only to one who repents and believes, what hope is there for an infant who dies before he is capable of repenting and believing? This leads us to the foreseen potential of the dying infant. That is to say, any infant who is permitted to live to the age of accountability will surely repeat the sin of Adam and thus recapitulate his fall on the basis of his own free will and voluntary choice, a choice for which he is fully responsible. But if the child who died in infancy had been permitted to live, he would also have made some kind of response to the gracious offer of the gospel, whether by way of acceptance or rejection. God knows what is in the heart of man even before he is born. God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you"(Jer.1:5). God did not have to wait and see how Jeremiah would respond before He chose him. The same was true of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13-150) and of the messianic servant of the Lord (Isa. 49:1). If then God knows in advance what each child will do and how he will respond when he reaches the age of moral decision, there is every reason to believe that God knows how every child will respond to His call and whether or not he would embrace His offer of redeeming grace.

Therefore, it may be considered a necessary inference (although there may be no explicit teaching in Scripture on this particular point) from God's foreknowledge of the future response of each child that He also knows what would be the response of each child that He also knows what would be his response if he were permitted to live long enough to make that response. We therefore conclude that all infants dying in infancy are dealt with in accordance with this principle of the foreseen potential.

We close with an observation about the commonly entertained view that all children who die in infancy are automatically saved, since they have not committed any sin. This opinion, however kindly and well intentioned it may be, suffers from two serious objections. First, it in effect amounts to a rejection of the doctrine of original sin as taught in Romans 5, for it presupposes that we come into the world as sinless and free from guilt as if Adam had never fallen-a clear contradiction of scriptural teaching on this matter. Second, this doctrine of the universal salvation of all children dying in infancy leads to a rather horrifying moral dilemma for every parent. That is to say, if dying in infancy insures the safe passage of one's child to heaven-whereas he might well reject the Lord in later life and thus end up in hell-then it becomes almost obligatory for each parent to strangle his child as soon as it is born-and thus all abortionists are performing a good work! Even though a parent who practices infanticide may be technically guilty of murder, his motive for the deed greatly diminishes (even if it may not altogether eliminate) the guilt that would otherwise attach to that monstrous crime. Is it conceivable that God would so order His moral universe as to furnish a special motive of a most benevolent sort for each parent to slay his infant child before it attains the age of accountability? Yet this is the inescapable consequence of the doctrine of the universal salvation of infants dying in infancy.

In light of all these factors, a far better statement is that found in the Westminster Confession (x.3): "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word"-that is the mentally incompetent.

Taken from Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Leonard Archer Jr. copyright @1982 by Zondervan Corporation.

Used by permission of The Zondervan Corporation

Appendix 2

John Wesley's Sermon Original Sin

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Genesis 6:5

1. How widely different is this from the fair pictures of human nature which men have drawn in all ages! The writings of many of the ancients abound with gay descriptions of the dignity of man; whom some of them paint as having all virtue and happiness in his composition, or, at least, entirely in his power, without being beholden to any other being; yea, as self-sufficient, able to live on his own stock, and little inferior to God himself.

2. Nor have Heathens alone, men who are guided in their researches by little more than a dim light of reason, but many likewise of them that bear the name of Christ, and to whom are entrusted the oracles of God, spoken as magnificently concerning the nature of man, as if it were all innocence and perfection. Accounts of this kind have particularly abounded in the present century; and perhaps in no part of the world more than in our own country. Here not a few persons of strong understanding, as well as extensive learning, have employed their utmost abilities to show, what they termed, "the fair side of human nature." And it must be acknowledged, that, if their accounts of him be just, man is still but "a little lower than the angels;" or, as the words may be more literally rendered, "a little less than God."

3. Is it any wonder, that these accounts are very readily received by the generality of men? For who is not easily persuaded to think favorably of himself? Accordingly, writers of this kind are most universally read, admired, applauded. And innumerable are the converts they have made, not only in the lay, but the learned world. So that it is now quite unfashionable to talk otherwise, to say anything to the disparagement of human nature; which is generally allowed, notwithstanding a few infirmities, to be very innocent, and wise, and virtuous!

4. But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles?- for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to the flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural. The Scripture avers, that "by one man's disobedience all men were constituted sinners"; that "in Adam all died," spiritually died, lost the life and the image of God; that fallen, sinful Adam then "begat a son in his own likeness;"- nor was it possible he should beget him in any other; for "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"-that consequently we, as well as other men, were by nature "dead in trespasses and sins," "without hope, without God in the world," and therefore "children of wrath"; that every man may say, "I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me"; that "there is no difference," in that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," of that glorious image of God wherein man was originally created. And hence, when "the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, he saw they were all gone out of the way; they were altogether become abominable, there was none righteous, no, not one," none that truly sought after God: Just agreeable this, to what is declared by the Holy Ghost in the words above recited, "God saw," when he looked down from heaven before, "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth"; so great, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

This is God's account of man: from which I shall take occasion. First, to show what men were before the flood: Secondly, to inquire, whether they are not the same now: And, thirdly, to add some inferences.

I.

1. I am, first, by opening the words of the text, to show what men were before the flood. And we may fully depend on the account here given: For God saw it, and he cannot be deceived. He "saw that the wickedness of man was great":- Not of this or that man; not of a few men only; not barely of the greater part, but of man in general; of men universally. The word includes the whole human race, every partaker of human nature. And it is not easy for us to compute their numbers, to tell how many thousands of millions they were. The earth then retained much of its primeval beauty and original fruitfulness. The face of the globe was not rent and torn as it is now; and spring and summer went hand in hand. It is therefore probable, it afforded sustenance for far more inhabitants than it is now capable of sustaining; and these must be immensely multiplied, while men begat sons and daughters for seven or eight hundred years together. Yet, among all this inconceivable number, only "Noah found favor with God." He alone (perhaps including part of his household) was an exemption from the universal wickedness, which, by the just judgment of God, in a short time after brought on universal destruction. All the rest were partakers in the same guilt, as they were in the same punishment.

2. "God saw all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart";- of his soul, his inward man, the spirit within him, the principle of all his inward and outward motions. He "saw all the imaginations": It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within: all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination, affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought. It must of consequence include every word and action, as naturally flowing from these fountains, and being either good or evil according to the fountain from which they severally flow.

3. Now God saw that all this, the whole thereof, was evil;- contrary to moral rectitude; contrary to the nature of God, which necessarily includes all good; contrary to the divine will, the eternal standard of good and evil; contrary to the pure, holy image of God, wherein man was originally created, and wherein he stood when God, surveying the works of his hands, saw them all to be very good; contrary to justice, mercy, and truth, and to the essential relations which each man bore to his Creator and his fellow-creatures.

4. But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness? No; none at all: "God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil." It cannot indeed be denied, but many of them, perhaps all, and good motions put into their hearts; from the Spirit of God did He also "strive with man," if haply he might repent, more especially during that gracious reprieve, the hundred and twenty years, while the ark was preparing. But still "in his flesh dwelt no good thing"; all his nature was purely evil: It was wholly consistent with itself, and unmixed with anything of an opposite nature.

5. However, it may still be matter of inquiry, "Was there no intermission of this evil? Were there no lucid intervals, wherein something good might be found in the heart of man?" We are not here to consider, what the grace of God might occasionally work in his soul; and, abstracted from this, we have no reason to believe, there was any intermission of that evil. For God, who "saw the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart to be only evil," saw likewise, that it was always the same, that it "was only evil continually"; every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good.

II.   Such is the authentic account of the whole race of mankind which He who knoweth what is in man, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins, hath left upon record for our instruction. Such were all men before God brought the flood upon the earth. We are, secondly, to inquire, whether they are the same now.

1. And this is certain, the Scripture gives us no reason to think any otherwise of them. On the contrary, all the above cited passages of Scripture refer to those who lived after the flood. It was above a thousand years after, that God declared by David concerning the children of men, "They are all gone out of the way, of truth and holiness; there is none righteous, no, not one." And to this bear all the Prophets witness, in their several generations. So Isaiah, concerning God's peculiar people, (and certainly the Heathens were in no better condition) "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." The same account is given by the Apostles, yea, by the whole tenor of the oracles of God. From all these we learn, concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is "still evil, only evil," and "continually."

2. And this account of the present state of man is confirmed by daily experience. It is true, the natural man discerns it not: And this is not to be wondered at. So long as a man born blind continues so, he is scarce sensible of his want: Much less, could we suppose a place where all were born without sight, would they be sensible of the want of it. In like manner, so long as men remain in their natural blindness of understanding, they are not sensible of their spiritual wants, and of this in particular. But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convicted, that "every man living," themselves especially, are, by nature, "altogether vanity"; that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

3. We see, when God opens our eyes, that we were before atheio-without God, or, rather, Atheists, in the world. We had, by nature, no knowledge of God, no acquaintance with him. It is true, as soon as we came to the use of reason, we learned "the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead, from the things that are made." From the things that are seen we inferred the existence of an eternal, powerful Being, that is not seen. But still, although we acknowledge his being had no acquaintance with him. As we know there is an Emperor of China, whom yet we do not know; so we knew there is a King of all the earth, yet we knew him not. Indeed we could not by any of our natural faculties. By none of these could we attain the knowledge of God. We could no more perceive him by our natural understanding, than we could see him with our eyes. For "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal him. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Father revealeth him."

4. We read of an ancient king, who, being desirous to know what was the natural language of men, in order to bring the matter to a certain issue, made the following experiment: He ordered two infants, as soon as they were born, to be conveyed to a place prepared for them, where they were brought up without any instruction at all, and without ever hearing a human voice. And what was the event? Why, that when they were at length brought out of their confinement, they spoke no language at all; they uttered only inarticulate sounds, like those of other animals. Were two infants in like manner to be brought up from the womb without being instructed in any religion, there is little room to doubt but (unless the grace of God interposed) they even would be just the same. They would have no religion at all: They would have no more knowledge of God than the beasts of the field, than the wild ass's colt. Such is natural religion, abstracted from traditional, and from the influences of God's Spirit!

5. And having no knowledge, we can have no love of God: We cannot love him we know not. Most men talk indeed of loving God, and perhaps imagine they do; at least, few will acknowledge they do not love him: But the fact is too plain to be denied. No man loves God by nature, any more than he does a stone, or the earth he treads upon. What we love we delight in: But no man has naturally any delight in God. In our natural state we cannot conceive how any one should delight in him. We take no pleasure in him at all; he is utterly tasteless to us. To love God! It is far above, out of our sight. We cannot, naturally, attain unto it.

6. We have by nature, not only no love, but no fear of God. It is allowed, indeed, that most men have, sooner or later, a kind of senseless, irrational fear, properly called superstition; though the blundering Epicureans gave it the name of religion. Yet even this is not natural, but acquired; chiefly by conversation or from example. By nature "God is not in all our thoughts": We leave him to manage his own affairs, to sit quietly, as we imagine, in heaven, and leave us on earth to manage ours; so that we have no more of the fear of God before our eyes, than the love of God in our hearts.

7. Thus are all men "Atheists in the world." But Atheism itself does not screen us from idolatry. In his natural state, every man born into the world is a rank idolater. Perhaps, indeed, we may not be such in the vulgar sense of the word. We do not, like the idolatrous Heathens, worship molten or graven images. We do not of our own hands. We do not pray to the angels or saints in heaven, any more than to the saints that are upon the earth. But what then? We have set up our idols in our hearts; and to these we bow down and worship them: We worship ourselves, when we pay that honor to ourselves which is due to God only. Therefore all pride is idolatry; it is ascribing to ourselves what is due to God alone. And although pride was not made for man, yet where is the man that is born without it? But hereby we rob God of his unalienable right, and idolatrously usurp his glory.

8. But pride is not the only sort of idolatry, which we are all by nature guilty of. Satan has stamped his own image on our heart in self-will also. "I will," said he, before he was cast out of heaven, "I will sit upon the sides of the north"; I will do my own will and pleasure, independently of that of my Creator. The same does every man born into the world say, and that in a thousand instances; nay, and avow it too, without ever blushing upon the account, without either fear or shame. Ask the man, "Why did you do this?" He answers, "Because I had a mind to it." What is this but, "Because it was my will"; that is, in effect, because the devil and I agreed; because Satan and I govern our actions by one and the same principle. The will of God, mean time, is not in his thoughts, is not considered in the least degree; although it be the supreme rule of every intelligent creature, whether in heaven or earth, resulting from the essential, unalterable relation which all creatures bear to their Creator.

9. So far we bear the image of the devil and tread in his steps. But at the next step we leave Satan behind; we run into an idolatry whereof he is not guilty: I mean love of the world; which is now as natural to every man, as to love his own will. What is more natural to us than to seek happiness in the creature, instead of the Creator?-to seek that satisfaction in the works of his hands, which can be found in God only? What more natural than "the desire of the flesh?" That is, of the pleasure of sense in every kind? Men indeed talk magnificently of despising these low pleasures, particularly men of learning and education. They affect to sit loose to the gratification of these appetites wherein they stand on a level with the beasts that perish. But it is mere affectation; for every man is conscious to himself, that in this respect he is, by nature, a very beast. Sensual appetites, even those of the lowest kind, have, more or less, the dominion over him. They lead him captive; they drag him to and fro, in spite of his boasting reason. The man, with all his good breeding, and other accomplishments, has no pre-eminence over the goat: Nay, it is much to be doubted, whether the beast has not the pre- eminence over him. Certainly he has, if we may harken to one of their modern oracles, who very decently tells us,

Once in a season beasts too taste of love;

Only the beast of reason is its slave,

And in that folly drudges all the year.

A considerable difference indeed, it must be allowed, there is between man and man, arising (beside that wrought by preventing grace) from difference of constitution and of education. But, notwithstanding this, who, that is not utterly ignorant of himself, can here cast the first stone at another? Who can abide the test of our blessed Lord's comment on the Seventh Commandment: "He that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart?" So that one knows not which to wonder at most, the ignorance or the insolence of those men who speak with such disdain of them that are overcome by desires which every man has felt in his own breast; the desire of every pleasure of sense, innocent or not, being natural to every child of man.

10. And so is "the desire of the eye"; the desire of the pleasures of the imagination. These arise either from great, or beautiful, or uncommon objects;-if the two former do not coincide with the latter; for perhaps it would appear, upon a diligent inquiry, that neither grand nor beautiful objects please any longer than they are new; that when the novelty of them is over, the greatest part, at least, of the pleasure they give is over; and in the same proportion as they become familiar, they become flat and insipid. But let us experience this ever so often, the same desire will remain still. The inbred thirst continues fixed in the soul; nay, the more it is indulged, the more it increases, and incites us to follow after another, and yet another object; although we leave every one with an abortive hope, and a deluded expectation. Yea,

The hoary fool, who many days has struggled with continued sorrow,

Renews his hope, and fondly lays

The desperate bet upon tomorrow!

Tomorrow comes! 'Tis noon!

'Tis night!

This day, like all the former, flies:

Yet on he goes, to seek delight

To-morrow, till to-night he dies!

11. A third symptom of this fatal disease, the love of the world, which is so deeply rooted in our nature, is "the pride of life"; the desire of praise, of the honor that cometh of men. This the greatest admirers of human nature allow to be strictly natural; as natural as the sight, or hearing, or any other of the external senses. And are they ashamed of it, even men of letters, men of refined and improved understanding? So far from it that they glory therein! They applaud themselves for their love of applause! Yea, eminent Christians, so called, make no difficulty of adopting the saying of the old, vain Heathen, -Animal dissoluti est et nequam negligere quid de se homines sentiant: "Not to regard what men think of us is the mark of a wicked and abandoned mind." So that to go calm and unmoved through honor and dishonor, through evil report and good report, is with them a sign of one that is, indeed, not fit to life: "Away with such a fellow from the earth!" But would one imagine that these men had ever heard of Jesus Christ or his Apostles; or that they knew who it was that said, "How can ye believe who receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor which cometh of God only?" But if this is really so, if it be impossible to believe, and consequently to please God, so long as we receive or seek honor one of another, and seek not the honor which cometh of God only; then in what a condition are all mankind! The Christians as well as Heathens! Since they all seek honor one of another! Since it is as natural for them so to do, themselves being the judges, as it is to see the light which strikes upon their eye, or to hear the sound which enters their ear; yea, since they account it a sign of a virtuous mind, to seek the praise of men, and of a vicious one, to be content with the honor that cometh of God only!

III.

1. I proceed to draw a few inferences from what has been said. And, first, from hence we may learn one grand fundamental difference between Christianity, considered as a system of doctrines, and the most refined Heathenism. Many of the ancient Heathens have largely described the vices of particular men. They have spoken much against their covetousness, or cruelty; their luxury, or prodigality. Some have dared to say that "no man is born without vices of one kind of another." But still as none of them were apprized of the fall of man, so none of them knew of his total corruption. They knew not that all men were empty of all good, and filled with all manner of evil. They were wholly ignorant of the entire deprivation of the whole human nature, of every man born into the world, in every faculty of his soul not so much by those particular vices which reign in particular persons, as by the general flood of Atheism and idolatry, of pride, self-will, and love of the world. This, therefore, is the first grand distinguishing point between Heathenism and Christianity. The one acknowledges that many men are infected with many vices, and even born with a proneness to them; but supposes withal, that in some the natural good much over-balances the evil: The other declares that all men are conceived in sin," and "shapen in wickedness";-that hence there is in every man a "carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to" his "law"; and which so infects the whole soul, that "there dwelleth in" him, "in his flesh," in his natural state, "no good thing"; but "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil," only evil, and that "continually."

2. Hence we may, secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are but Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: "Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but a Heathen still.

3. We may learn from hence, in the third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is therapeia psyches, God's method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God.-in particular, of this important truth, "Christ loved me-and gave himself for me." By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God: and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, "faith" thus "working by love"; working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the "superfluity of naughtiness." For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only " a well-ordered train of words." According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to "cleanse the outside of the cup?" Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

5. But ye have not so learned the oracles of God. Ye know, that He who seeth what is in man gives a far different account both of nature and grace, of our fall and our recovery. Ye know that the great end of religion is, to renew our hearts in the image of God, to repair that total loss of righteousness and true holiness which we sustained by the sin of our first parent. Ye know that all religion which does not answer this end, all that stops short of this, the renewal of our soul in the image of God, after the likeness of Him that created it, is no other than a poor farce, and a mere mockery of God, to the destruction of our own soul. O beware of all those teachers of lies, who would palm this upon you for Christianity! Regard them not, although they should come unto you with all the deceiveableness of unrighteousness; with all smoothness of language, all decency, yea, beauty and elegance of expression, all professions of earnest good will to you, and reverence for the Holy Scriptures. Keep to the plain, old faith, "once delivered to the saints," and delivered by the Spirit of God to our hearts. Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, "ye must be born again," born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive. "You that were dead in sins hath he quickened:" He hath already given you a principle of life, even faith in him who loved you and gave himself for you! Now, "go on from faith to faith," until your whole sickness be healed; and all that "mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus!"

Appendix 3

Thoughts in Historical Context

I quoted Wesley above where he mentioned, no need of baptism for infants if they have no guilt or taint of original sin. Wesley followed Luther, Calvin and the other reformers (except for the Anabaptists) in this. Remember that Wesley's heritage was Puritan.

The long standing Protestant opinion has been that children are forgiven the taint of original sin because of their parent's faith at baptism and are protected and on their way to heaven through the grace participation in the covenant community via baptism. Some within the reformed tradition believe that infants are on their way to heaven simply by the faith of their parents-baptism really has nothing to do with it.

Wesley called this prevenient grace. In other words, the grace that "went before." Calvin, Luther and the other giants would have used different terms. The early church held the same idea. Tertullian most specifically illustrated it for posterity discussing "post-baptismal sins."

A time of an "age of accountability" occurs in all of these traditions when the children become old enough to accept for themselves the faith bestowed upon them by their parents. Various scriptures were used to support these ideas.

Some recent church leaders have suggested that all dead infants go to heaven. This is outside the line of theology in church history. All infants going to heaven is as universalistic as believing that all other people are going to heaven who have never had a chance to hear the gospel.

This becomes very personal when people think of their own children. Many of the staunchest defenders of the orthodox doctrine of original sin lost children in infancy. Ultimately, we know that "the judge of all the earth will do right" in judgment of these infants.

This understanding, of course, raises questions of foreknowledge, election and other topics that are not really addressed here. Wesley writes in his treatise on baptism,

It has already been proved, that this original stain cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation...The infants of believers, the true children of faithful Abraham, always were under the gospel covenant....Infants need to be washed from original sin; therefore they are proper subjects of baptism.

Whether through infant baptism or simple faith of the parents, the majority of the church in history has univocally declared, "All Children in Adam die, all Children in Christ live." Paul writes, "in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2000)

Articles of Religion of the United Methodist Church: Article VII-Of Original or Birth Sin

"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually."

From the Methodist Book of Discipline of 1808 following John Wesley's original text in the Sunday Service of the Methodists (1784).

Table of Contents

Copyright

To the Memory of John Wesley

What is an Arminian?

For all of those who have experienced unexplainable tragedy and resulting pain

A Foreword From The Author

The Jewish Understanding of Original Sin: A Historical Look

A Definition of Original Sin in Christian Theology

The Patristic Age

The Creeds

The Reformation

Post Reformation Until the Present

The Rationalistic Humanist Understanding of the Fall

In Context with all of Scripture

The Book of Romans

Recapitulating the Book of Romans

1 Corinthians 15

Romans 5: 12-21

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendices

Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2000)