This is a lightly edited transcript of what I actually said when I taught this session at Spring Creek Bible Church on November 22, 2015, as Part 7 of The Doctrines of Man and Sin class. It differs from what I planned to say; for the prepared text, see the manuscript.
We’re at part seven of our series on the doctrines of man and sin. We spent the first five weeks on the doctrine of man, last week entered the doctrine of sin with the fall, and today we transition to original sin. We’ll cover four things: the definition of original sin, the various views people have held, the biblical teaching, and some objections.
Defining Original Sin
Jonathan Edwards wrote an important (and not lightweight) work on original sin, and he opens with this definition: “By original sin, as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate sinful depravity of the heart. But…when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of, it is [also] understood…to include…the imputation of Adam’s first sin; or, in other words, the liableness or exposedness of Adam’s posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake of the punishment of that sin.” So he defines it in two parts: first, our innate depravity—a sinful nature like Adam’s—and second, guilt, a sharing in the punishment for sin because of our connection with Adam and the imputation of his sin to us.
A note on terminology, because “original sin” is used in three ways. Sometimes it means the original sin—Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden. Second, and as Edwards mentioned first, it means the corrupt, depraved nature we have from birth (also called inherent sin, inherited sin, original corruption, or “originated” sin—some distinguish Adam’s “originating” sin from our “originated” sin). Third, it means original or imputed guilt—the sense in which we are guilty because of what Adam did, not only inheriting his nature but sharing his guilt. Some reject that third element, so the phrase means different things to different people. Because of the ambiguity, some good systematic theologies (Wayne Grudem, John Frame) prefer “inherited sin,” though that term has its own limits, since it can seem to attach only to the corrupted nature and not the guilt they also affirm.
The Historical Views
The Pelagian view (from Pelagius, a contemporary of Augustine) held that Adam merely set a bad example that makes us likely to sin—no corruption inherited, no guilt before God; a very loose connection between Adam’s sin and ours. The Arminian view goes further: it affirms Adam’s bad example and that we’re born corrupted—it does affirm total depravity—but adds the doctrine of prevenient grace, a universal grace that effectively undoes that depravity and resets us to a neutral state with a free will able to choose God. So while it affirms corruption and even resulting guilt, prevenient grace cancels them, leaving in effect no guilt. (Arminians point to texts like “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” [Titus 2:11], “I, when I am lifted up…will draw all people to myself” [John 12:32], and “the true light, which gives light to everyone” [John 1:9] to argue for such a universal grace.)
The immediate imputation view affirms Adam’s example, corruption, and guilt—but holds that our guilt is not Adam’s guilt directly; rather, because we’re born corrupt, we’re guilty of our own corruption. One problem is that this breaks the parallel Paul draws between Adam and Christ in Romans 5: we don’t receive Christ’s righteousness in a mediated way (Christ doesn’t first make us righteous and then declare us righteous on that basis; he declares sinners righteous immediately), so if the parallel is as tight as it seems, we’re counted sinners not by being corrupt and therefore guilty, but guilty even before our natures are corrupted. The Augustinian view (Augustine, also a contemporary of Pelagius, was among the first to articulate a robust doctrine of original sin) affirms example, corruption, and guilt, locating the guilt-connection in natural propagation: Augustine held traducianism (the soul passed down from parents), so Adam’s sin passes to us naturally. He read the end of Romans 5:12—“because all sinned”—as “in whom all sinned,” taking it to mean we were literally in Adam, sinning with him. This is the natural or seminal headship view, supported (its advocates say) by Hebrews 7:7–10, where Levi pays tithes to Melchizedek “in the loins” of Abraham—though I think that reads the author’s point too literally.
Finally, the Calvinist view is nearly identical to the Augustinian—affirming Adam’s bad example, inherited corruption, and imputed guilt—but grounds the guilt in representation rather than natural headship. This is the federal headship (covenant headship, or federalism) view: Adam represents all humanity not because we were physically in him, but because God appointed him the federal representative head of the human race. It’s usually paired with the creationist view of the soul, though the two don’t strictly require each other.
What the Bible Teaches
As we look at the data, some questions help: Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners later? Put another way, are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we’re sinners? If we’re not born sinners, why does no one ever resist and stay sinless—why is humanity universally sinful? And if we are sinners, are we guilty only for our own sin, or somehow guilty in Adam’s? I’d like to move from broad to narrow through four observations.
First, sin is universal. “Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5); “there is no one who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46); “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (Job 14:4); “If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities…who could stand?” (Psalm 130:3); “no one living is righteous before you” (Psalm 143:2); “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20); “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23—though in context focused on those then justified by grace); “as in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22, an indirect witness, since death results from sin); and we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3). No one but Christ escapes sin’s reach—which is a problem for the Pelagian and Arminian views. If sin came only by external example, isn’t it conceivable that at least one person might not follow it? Some Arminians even hold to perfectionism—that a Christian can attain sinless perfection. If two such parents sheltered a child from every bad example, it would seem theoretically possible to produce a sinless person—yet Scripture never allows even the possibility of a sinless person outside of Christ.
Second, sin is natural—not just something we do, but part of our nature. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5)—David traces his sinfulness to the very moment of his origin (this is his own sin, not merely his mother’s). “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth” (Psalm 58:3). John 3:6—“that which is born of the flesh is flesh”—where “flesh” seems to carry more than a neutral physical sense: what comes from a fallen, sinful person is itself fallen and sinful. And again, “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). This decisively rules out the Pelagian view and presses hard on the Arminian, since these texts don’t read as something instantly undone by prevenient grace; the unbeliever remains by nature a child of wrath until God rescues him.
Third, sin is inherited. If we’re sinful by nature, where did that nature come from? We inherited it from our parents, who inherited it from Adam and Eve—sin passed down the whole line, as those passages tying sinfulness to conception and birth indicate. And fourth, sin is Adamic—connected all the way back to the original sin, an unbroken chain of corruption. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22) makes the connection explicit.
The central text is Romans 5:12–21. Paul writes, “Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin…so death spread to all men because all sinned.” That last phrase—“because all sinned”—is the crux. Some take it to mean death spreads because we each sin; but notice the tenses are all simple past (sin came, death spread, all sinned), which suggests Paul isn’t describing the sins we commit daily but placing “all sinned” back in the event of Adam’s fall. As Grudem puts it, “the entire paragraph is taken up with a comparison between Adam and Christ….When Paul says…‘because all sinned,’ he is saying that through the sin of Adam ‘all sinned.’” Verses 13–14 confirm it: sin was in the world before the law (given at Moses), but “sin is not counted where there is no law”—yet “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.” So people between Adam and Moses died even though their sin wasn’t counted against a law—which, as Grudem notes, is “very good proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin.” Throughout the passage Paul keeps stressing the one trespass: “the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (v. 16); “because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man” (v. 17); “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” (v. 18); “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (v. 19). He carefully distinguishes our many trespasses (which the free gift of justification answers) from Adam’s one trespass (to which condemnation is tied). What’s clear is that Adam’s sin is the cause of our sinfulness (vv. 12, 19), our condemnation (vv. 16, 18), and our death (vv. 15, 17): because of Adam we are all sinful, condemned, subject to death, and guilty before God. Paul doesn’t here connect this directly to our birth or conception—but joined to all the passages tying sin to the very start of life, it points to these realities being true of us before we ever commit an act of sin, which can only point back to Adam.
Objections
Two objections usually arise. The first: it’s not fair for God to punish us for Adam’s sin. A few things to say. We must submit our sense of fairness to Scripture—every part of us was corrupted by the fall, our sense of fairness included; it wasn’t held back from sin’s influence. The parable of the workers in the vineyard is a good check: our instinct cries “unfair” when those who worked one hour are paid the same as those who worked all day, yet it was perfectly just. So we constantly need to realign our sense of fairness to God’s Word rather than judge his Word by it—and our sense of fairness won’t be fully accurate until we’re glorified. Second, our American, democratic, individualistic culture makes this especially hard; much of the world thinks far more corporately, and the idea of being represented is not so offensive there. Third, is God not free to create a world in which he appoints one man, Adam, to represent everyone, and another, Christ, to represent a subset? He is the God of the universe, free to run his world as he wills. The real question isn’t whether God could do this but whether it’s consistent with his character. (As one member pointed out: we may bristle at Adam’s representing us, but we’re glad enough to have Christ represent us—we don’t object to the principle when it works in our favor.)
The second objection: the Bible seems to teach that God punishes people only for their own sin. “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor children because of their fathers; each one shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16; applied in 2 Kings 14:6); “everyone shall die for his own iniquity” (Jeremiah 31:29–30); “the soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). Interestingly, the Jeremiah text sits in the context of the new covenant, pointing to a future reality. I won’t resolve every tension, but the Bible also plainly teaches that a person’s sin affects others. God warns that he visits “the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9), and “our fathers sinned…and we bear their iniquities” (Lamentations 5:7). Achan sinned, and God’s anger burned against all Israel—thirty-six men died in battle who had no part in his theft (Joshua 7). David sinned with Bathsheba, and though God spared and forgave David, the infant son died. All the firstborn of Egypt died because of Pharaoh’s hardened heart, and infants and children perished in the conquests God commanded. So there clearly are cases where someone is included in the punishment for another’s sin. And this actually supports the guilt of Adam: David’s son, who died, was himself guilty before God—not of his father’s sin, but, I believe, because of Adam’s—which points to a universal guilt.
Is it fair? A few closing observations. Most importantly, if we object to Adam representing us, shall we also object to the second Adam representing us? Just as there’s a solidarity between all humanity and Adam, there’s a solidarity between the new humanity and Christ—and representation is our only hope of salvation. Second, those who protest overlook that they are guilty of their own sins anyway; even setting Adam aside, you stand guilty before God for what you yourself have done. Third, we have no reason to think we’d have acted any differently than our representative did. And finally, God is just: “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means” (Romans 9:14); “all his ways are justice…just and upright is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4); “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25). As Randy Vanderhyde put it in one of our apologetics sessions, “When God chose our representative, he did so perfectly, infallibly—not because Adam was infallible, but because God is. Given God’s infallibility, I can never argue that Adam was a poor choice to represent me.” (I had planned a section on infants, but we’ll have to save that for another time.)
Let’s close in prayer. Father, thank you for your Word and what it teaches us. Give us the conviction, strength, and grace to believe and accept it as true, even when it doesn’t feel right, even when our sense of justice is offended. Thank you that, though you saw fit to have us represented by Adam in his sin, corruption, and guilt, you also saw fit to have us represented by the second Adam, Jesus—that where Adam brought sin, Christ brought grace; where Adam brought guilt, Christ brought innocence; where Adam brought condemnation, Christ brought justification; and where Adam brought death, you brought life and resurrection. Thank you that you made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. In his name we pray, amen.