Original Guilt is the doctrine that all of humanity is legally imputed the sin of Adam in the garden, even infants. But is there any good reason to believe in this doctrine? Some have objected that it simply is not fair because an agent s has no control over sin x, but yet agent s is held morally responsible for sin x. But perhaps there are good biblical reasons for thinking it is true. Here is two such scriptures that might suggest this:
Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
and
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
This is how Romans 5:12 and 8:10 might entail original sin:
P1: When people die it is only because of their sin (original or actual)
P2: Infants die
C3: Hence, infants have sin
P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original
P5: The sin is not actual.
C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.
Most People tend to think that infants in the womb and one day old infants do not have the mental capacity to actually sin, but it seems clear that one day old infants and infants in the womb do die. The sin they die for is therefore, original rather than actual. This argument seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?
Hey Nate, glad to see you are still blogging regularly. I need to follow your example!
ReplyDeleteAnyway-
“But perhaps there are good biblical reasons for thinking it is true. Here is one such scripture that might suggest this:
Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."“
Question: What about Christ? Did he inherit a body dead because of sin? If so then is he said to be with sin? If not then how is it that He died?
“This is how Romans 8:10 might entail original sin:
P1: The cause of death is sin
P2: Infants die
C3: Hence, infants sin”
Genetic fallacy? Also, conclusion does not seem to follow from Ps. It seems the only conclusion one can arrive at based on the Ps is that Infants die because of sin. Those who reject original guilt hold this.
“P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original
P5: The sin is not actual.
C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.”
I think this one is valid but I tend to think one can suffer some of the effects from sin without being guilty of it (ex: Jesus).
Hey Allison,
ReplyDeleteYou have some good thoughts and questions here.
Question: What about Christ? Did he inherit a body dead because of sin? If so then is he said to be with sin? If not then how is it that He died?
Response: This might be a problem for my argument here. But perhaps one might say that Christ suffered the wrath of our sin although he himself did not sin. It seems the babies are not in the same situation as Jesus in that they are not performing a substitutionary atonement so naturally they would die by original guilt.
Genetic fallacy? Also, conclusion does not seem to follow from Ps. It seems the only conclusion one can arrive at based on the Ps is that Infants die because of sin. Those who reject original guilt hold this.
Response: This would not be the Genetic fallacy. The Genetic fallacy is saying that x originated from something wrong therefore this x now is wrong necessarily. The argument is valid, but if you do not hold to original guilt you would reject premise 1, which is something that those who reject original guilt might do. But perhaps this might go against the face reading of the passage offered.
I hope you are well.
God Bless you,
NPT
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Response: This might be a problem for my argument here. But perhaps one might say that Christ suffered the wrath of our sin although he himself did not sin. It seems the babies are not in the same situation as Jesus in that they are not performing a substitutionary atonement so naturally they would die by original guilt.”
ReplyDeleteI would agree he suffered the wrath for our sin even though he did not sin. Still, in his purpose for becoming a man didn’t he have to take on a body that suffered the effects of sin? To have the ability to be tempted? If this is the case then it is an example (before the death and resurrection) of one inheriting the effects of Adam and not acquiring Adam’s guilt. He is a descendant of Adam and has inherited the passed on effects (a body doomed to die and perhaps a defect in human nature putting a bent towards sin [ability for temptation]) but is still not considered guilty for this in itself.
Yes, it is true that there isn’t any old baby who can atone for our sin. One individual simply not sinning does not= atonement for human race though this might be part of it. But what makes Jesus unique? I think we would agree it has to do with Him being God in human flesh, His unique death and resurrection. So, yes Jesus is unique. But here is my problem: did God just leave out the original guilt element in order to atone for the human race? Did Jesus not take on the full force of the human problem (which under your view would include original guilt)? If He didn’t then how is He atoning for it?
In addition, when you say “It seems the babies are not in the same situation as Jesus in that they are not performing a substitutionary atonement so naturally they would die by original guilt.” It looks like you just assume your view here. Or does one’s role or mission just automatically cancel out original guilt? Why think this?
“Genetic fallacy? Also, conclusion does not seem to follow from Ps. It seems the only conclusion one can arrive at based on the Ps is that Infants die because of sin. Those who reject original guilt hold this.
Response: This would not be the Genetic fallacy. The Genetic fallacy is saying that x originated from something wrong therefore this x now is wrong necessarily. The argument is valid, but if you do not hold to original guilt you would reject premise 1, which is something that those who reject original guilt might do. But perhaps this might go against the face reading of the passage offered.”
Sorry, I mislabeled on the genetic fallacy. As for your conclusion not following your premise…I am critiquing your validity and not the soundness of your Ps. I do not hold to original guilt and do hold to P1. I think sin can cause death without individuals being considered guilty before God for the sin that brought about death. In other words: Adam sinned and the effects of that sin get passed down (death and a natural bent towards doing wrong). The same can be said when a nation sins against God. A penalty can come about and individuals can suffer its effects without being guilty on an individual scale. In sum: your conclusion does not follow because sin causing something that another suffers from does not necessarily lead to one being said to sin or to be actually guilt for it. That is a different matter.
Hello Allison,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for not being clear in my first response.
Jesus is imputed all of our sins like infants are imputed Adams sin (legally). Thus, Infants and Jesus die for the same reason: imputed sins. This is clearly taught in the Bible that Jesus was imputed our sins:
2 Corinthians 5:21 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
So I do not know if your Jesus counter example is effective in light of those considerations.
If you reject one of my premises that means you think my argument is valid but not sound. I understand your alternative interpretation the reason I do not accept it and I still accept premise 1 is because disagree with your interpretation of Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
It seems this passage is referring to the righteousness that the believer has and not the righteousness that someone else has that effects the life and death of the person. This righteousness is paralleled with sin and as a result of the context the best interpretation would lead us to believe this sin is referring to the sin that person has (imputed or actual) rather than a sin that someone else has that effects the life or death of someone.
I hope that clears things up. I hope if anyone has any other questions that they would not be shy and just ask away.
God Bless,
NPT
Catz206,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't your counter-example assume that Jesus would have died even if he had not taken on the guilt and punishment of our sin on the cross? I can't actually see any reason to believe that. Can you give some argument for why we should beleive that that would have been the case?
Nate-
ReplyDelete“Jesus is imputed all of our sins like infants are imputed Adams sin (legally). Thus, Infants and Jesus die for the same reason: imputed sins. This is clearly taught in the Bible that Jesus was imputed our sins:”
As you know, I fully agree. However, if one is really guilty by their blood connection to Adam then Jesus would not be taking on something undeserved.
“2 Corinthians 5:21 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Beautiful.
“If you reject one of my premises that means you think my argument is valid but not sound. I understand your alternative interpretation the reason I do not accept it and I still accept premise 1 is because disagree with your interpretation of Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
Like I said before…I accept your P1 and P2 and reject your C3. I do not think it actually follows. My critique is NOT on the soundness but on its validity. Perhaps I am mistaken on this note and you can clear that up.
P1: The cause of death is sin- Agreed. Adam sinned so now all die. Sound.
P2: Infants die- Obviously. Sound.
C3: Hence, infants sin- If you mean that infants are now counted as really guilty for the sin of Adam as though they did it and not merely that they die “because of sin” then this does not follow. It seems all you can get from P1 and P2 is that they die because of sin and not anything additional…that would require more P.
Hope that clears things up.
“It seems this passage is referring to the righteousness that the believer has and not the righteousness that someone else has that effects the life and death of the person. This righteousness is paralleled with sin and as a result of the context the best interpretation would lead us to believe this sin is referring to the sin that person has (imputed or actual) rather than a sin that someone else has that effects the life or death of someone.”
The believer has righteousness because they are in Jesus Christ who has righteousness. This is the undeserved part. I would agree that the audience Paul is speaking to has committed actual sin. I do not see the context necessarily leading us to accept that one is actually guilty for Adam’s sin beyond how we participate in his sin by virtue of ourselves sinning after finding ourselves helplessly going that way (effects. Rom7).
“I hope that clears things up.”
Thankx Nate as always.
David-
ReplyDelete“Doesn't your counter-example assume that Jesus would have died even if he had not taken on the guilt and punishment of our sin on the cross? I can't actually see any reason to believe that. Can you give some argument for why we should beleive that that would have been the case?”
It would help me a lot if you would give me a specific quote. : ) I can try and answer what I think you are saying though: I do think it possible that if Nate is correct then Jesus could not have taken on the guilt and punishment of our sins on the cross. Why do I think this: because He Himself would be guilty and not innocent by virtue of inheriting the body and bent towards sin that Adam had. If God decided to leave out the bent towards sin part I do not see how He could have been tempted or have truly taken our burdens upon Himself.
I myself think Jesus absolutely DID take on the guilt and punishment for our sins on the cross. He Himself was innocent. Meaning: not guilty of Adam’s sin. He Himself took on a body corrupted by Adam (this includes ability to be tempted by sin) and did what we could not do- lived in obedience and within the love of God. Because He was innocent (which I think He might not have be if Nate’s view is true) and took on the fullness of the human problem (which may not have been the case if original guilt is part of the equation) He was able to atone for our sins being the perfect sacrifice to bridge the gap between God and man.
Catz206,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with locating original sin in "the ability to be tempted" is that Adam obvioulsy had the ability to be tempted by sin before the Fall, because he was tempted and gave in. So Jesus can be tempted by sin without inheriting origianl sin from Adam. This is the view I would take: that Jesus was neither sinful nor was he yet glorified, but rather he was in the same state of innosence that Adam was in before the Fall. This allowed him to accomplish what Adam could not and thereby secure perfect righteousness for those whom He chooses to impute it to.
So no, I don't think that Jesus is a counter-example to original guilt.
I also don't think that merely having a "natural bent toward sin" does justice to the Biblical teaching regarding total depravity, but that's another discussion.
Hello Allison,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I fully agree. However, if one is really guilty by their blood connection to Adam then Jesus would not be taking on something undeserved.
Response: Yes, he does take on this wholly undeserved for us. But this is not through his connection with Adam metaphysically, but it is by virtue of the covenantal connection that legally imputes our sins to Christ.
C3: Hence, infants sin- If you mean that infants are now counted as really guilty for the sin of Adam as though they did it and not merely that they die “because of sin” then this does not follow. It seems all you can get from P1 and P2 is that they die because of sin and not anything additional…that would require more P.
Response: I alerted the argument to make my meaning and intention clearer. I think this slight alteration. I meant to communicate the idea that all people die because of their sin rather than just sin in the abstract.
The believer has righteousness because they are in Jesus Christ who has righteousness. This is the undeserved part. I would agree that the audience Paul is speaking to has committed actual sin. I do not see the context necessarily leading us to accept that one is actually guilty for Adam’s sin beyond how we participate in his sin by virtue of ourselves sinning after finding ourselves helplessly going that way (effects. Rom7).
Response: I gave a biblical argument for thinking this is true and I am not sure i caught a response to that in this paragraph.
I hope that helps. I cleared up my argument and I added a verse that might continue the discussion.
God Bless,
NPT
Nate and Nilson-
ReplyDeletesorry I haven't responded. I have been in Ethiopia for a while! I will look at what you have to say now.
Nilsen-
ReplyDelete“The problem with locating original sin in ‘the ability to be tempted’ is that Adam obvioulsy had the ability to be tempted by sin before the Fall, because he was tempted and gave in.”
I have not LOCATED "original sin in ‘the ability to be tempted’”. The main part of what I was trying to say and which I would like you to address was: If Nate’s view is correct then Jesus has either not taken on the fullness of the human condition since original guilt would have been part of that or was not innocent by virtue of being born as one of Adam’s descendants.
The main support for this was in Christ receiving a corrupted body (which would include original guilt) and inheriting a BENT towards sin. This bent towards sin (which under the view of original is part of the corruption and enough to make one guilty under Nate’s view) is to be distinguished from being tempted. I said: “If God decided to leave out the bent towards sin part I do not see how He could have been tempted or have truly taken our burdens upon Himself.”
Still, I should have clarified a little: I meant tempted in the same way as Adam’s descendants are tempted. Meaning: He has a body that has suffered corruption and the multiplication of temptation that results. We all agree that Adam was tempted without having sin in him. Hopefully this clarifies things. Anyway, the main part I was going for was that Christ entering into the human condition and atoning for it couldn’t really happen if original guilt was true since he either a) did not take on the full human condition or b) was full of sin.
“I also don't think that merely having a ‘natural bent toward sin’ does justice to the Biblical teaching regarding total depravity, but that's another discussion.”
Sure, there is also a helplessness and inability for man to do the good that he wants to do. Corruption covers more than a bent towards sin. But yeah, we are only talking about part of the picture- another discussion.
Nate-
ReplyDeleteMy initial comment: “As you know, I fully agree. However, if one is really guilty by their blood connection to Adam then Jesus would not be taking on something undeserved.”
Your Response: “Yes, he does take on this wholly undeserved for us. But this is not through his connection with Adam metaphysically, but it is by virtue of the covenantal connection that legally imputes our sins to Christ.”
My response: I know your doctrine does not outright teach that Christ was taking on sin and He deserved it- that would be heresy. It seems though that if original guilt is true that it would have been passed on to Jesus through Adam and so my virtue of the connection He would have been guilty of sin. If that was somehow left out of the equation He would not have been taking on fallen man’s condition and so He could not atone for us.
Just for the record: I agree with you that it has to do with imputation.
My initial comment: “C3: Hence, infants sin- If you mean that infants are now counted as really guilty for the sin of Adam as though they did it and not merely that they die “because of sin” then this does not follow. It seems all you can get from P1 and P2 is that they die because of sin and not anything additional…that would require more P.”
Your Response: “I alerted the argument to make my meaning and intention clearer. I think this slight alteration. I meant to communicate the idea that all people die because of their sin rather than just sin in the abstract.”
My Response: Great. Ya, wording can be tricky. I wasn’t too clear earlier when I added a statement about Jesus being able to be tempted.
My initial comment: “The believer has righteousness because they are in Jesus Christ who has righteousness. This is the undeserved part. I would agree that the audience Paul is speaking to has committed actual sin. I do not see the context necessarily leading us to accept that one is actually guilty for Adam’s sin beyond how we participate in his sin by virtue of ourselves sinning after finding ourselves helplessly going that way (effects. Rom7).”
Your Response: “I gave a biblical argument for thinking this is true and I am not sure i caught a response to that in this paragraph.”
My Response: Did I address it earlier? Or did we discuss together some other time?
“I hope that helps. I cleared up my argument and I added a verse that might continue the discussion.”
Cool. Is this the one you added to ByWhoseAuthority? If so, I’ll address the new form there later. Or you could publish your thoughts on the new verse and what I have said in the response section there and I will respond.
Hope you guys are well! I have made some interesting discoveries in Ethiopia regarding the Ethiopian Orthodox church there. I’ll have to fill you in later.
You Said: I know your doctrine does not outright teach that Christ was taking on sin and He deserved it- that would be heresy. It seems though that if original guilt is true that it would have been passed on to Jesus through Adam and so my virtue of the connection He would have been guilty of sin. If that was somehow left out of the equation He would not have been taking on fallen man’s condition and so He could not atone for us.
ReplyDeleteResponse: The Reformed doctrine teaches that Jesus was imputed sin on the cross and he is viewed as sinful and deserving the punishment of sin which is the wrath of God and death, but he did not actually sin. Also, infants in Adam are view as sinful and deserving the wrath of God even though they have no sinned. Jesus and Adam are different covenant head (Rom. 5). All who are in Adam are under sin and all who are in Christ are in righteousness. Christ is not in Adam and thus he has no covenantally connection with Adam thereby exempting him from original guilt. Jesus is in the same position as Adam is in, namely that he has a unfallen human nature and he can earn righteousness for us. The difference is that Adam failed and Christ succeeded. For this reason of earning our righteousness and being in a different covenant he does not and does not need to take on fallen human nature.
You Said: Did I address it earlier? Or did we discuss together some other time?
Response: No, you did not really address it exegetically. Here it is:
"I understand your alternative interpretation the reason I do not accept it and I still accept premise 1 is because disagree with your interpretation of Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
It seems this passage is referring to the righteousness that the believer has and not the righteousness that someone else has that effects the life and death of the person. This righteousness is paralleled with sin and as a result of the context the best interpretation would lead us to believe this sin is referring to the sin that person has (imputed or actual) rather than a sin that someone else has that effects the life or death of someone."
You Said: Cool. Is this the one you added to ByWhoseAuthority? If so, I’ll address the new form there later. Or you could publish your thoughts on the new verse and what I have said in the response section there and I will respond.
Response: No, it is on here as well. I just added Romans 5:12.
I am glad to hear you had a fun and educational trip.
God Bless,
NPT
Catz206,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Still, I should have clarified a little: I meant tempted in the same way as Adam’s descendants are tempted."
But I don't think that Jesus WAS tempted in the same way as Adam's descendants, nor do I think he needed to be. He is the second Adam, and as such He needed only to be in the same position as Adam himself. Our fallenness has nothing to do with HOW we encounter temptation and feel it's "sting." Adam was tempted in just the same way that his fallen descendants are tempted today. Our fallen state simply makes it the case that we naturally succumb to temptation apart from the grace of God, but it doesn't fundamentally change the way in which we experience temptation. Adam was not fallen, and yet he experienced temptation as we do and succumbed to it (as we do). The same would then be true of Christ (except that he did not succumb to the temptation as we did).
In short, then, I reject your premise that Christ needed to have a fallen human body/nature. I don't think he did, and therefore Nate's argument does not apply to Christ.