original sin

[Reformationist]

I'm just stuck a bit between whether by Adam's failure to uphold righteousness we fell into bondage because he was deemed representive of mankind, or if we are born in bondage as a consequence of his transgression.

Actually it's both. Our sinful state is the product of the propagation of Adam's inherited sinful nature. Additionally, the very fact that we incur the consequence of his sin shows our shared guilt. Unless God deemed Adam's actions as representative of all who came from him as the root of humanity then it would be unrighteous to impute unto us the consequence of sin. How we view our relationship to Adam and, thus, our status before God directly affects our comprehension of the atonement of Christ. Fortunately, being that you and I are both reformed Christians, there are probably quite a few things that we are in agreement about. That being said, let us consider the atonement of Christ. By His obedience we are justified before God. When the merit of Christ's obedience is imputed to us does God still regard us as a sinner whom He grants eternal life simply because He is pleased in the propitiatory work of His Son or does He count us as righteous for His Son's sake, truly recognizing us as righteous and obedient? We are not just pardoned of the penalty of sin in the atonement. There is a very important aspect to our redemption that so many Christians fail to fully comprehend and that is expiation. Just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to God's elect, their sins are expiated (sent away) and imputed to Christ. He who knew no sin became sin for us. Along with the rewards garnered for us by the obedience of Christ, we also fear no condemnation because we are in Christ Jesus. The truth of this is shown as a two-fold expression in the Bible:

Romans 4:7,8
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

Blessed are those whose sins are covered (imputation of the righteousness of Christ). Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin (expiation of sin and its condemnation).

Essentially, my position is this: Mankind is born into a state of total depravity as a result of Adam's fall. Adam himself is responsible for the sin, but the result is that mankind is now born with a sinful nature.

Here's the thing though. If the progeny of Adam does not stand before God guilty of sin from birth, how does He justify charging them, not only with the results of Adam's sin, but the death that springs from it?

I'm hoping someone could better address Ezekiel 18:19, 20. I don't think R.C. has done very well to provide a counter-argument to the Realist view of the Fall. Now, I'm not a Realist, don't misjudge that statement. I see that I'm somewhere between Realism (in that I don't fully accept all of the federal view) and federalism (in that I believe that Adam was a represent of mankind and that his sin caused mankind to become fallen--we weren't "there" in Eden when it happned).

I will simply tell you that I think the provision of Ezekiel 18:19,20 does not apply to either Adam or Christ.

My only contention is that Adam's sin is a consequence that caused the fall of men.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Of what was Adam's sin a consequence?

We are fallen because Adam sinned, but his sin is not our sin. We each have our own sin, but we are not responsible by association, by representation, by whatever, for Adam's sin.

I believe the Gospel says differently. For instance, in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." So, as we know death to be a universal event that all humanity are subject to, then I believe it can only be rightly acknowledged that this is the product of a shared status before God as condemned sinners. This isn't a status we earn because of personal sin. This is a status we are born with.

Am I splitting hairs, here?

I don't think so.

God bless

 

[Jon_]

Actually it's both. Our sinful state is the product of the propagation of Adam's inherited sinful nature. Additionally, the very fact that we incur the consequence of his sin shows our shared guilt. Unless God deemed Adam's actions as representative of all who came from him as the root of humanity then it would be unrighteous to impute unto us the consequence of sin. How we view our relationship to Adam and, thus, our status before God directly affects our comprehension of the atonement of Christ.

Ah, when you put it this way it really starts to make sense to me.

Fortunately, being that you and I are both reformed Christians, there are probably quite a few things that we are in agreement about. That being said, let us consider the atonement of Christ. By His obedience we are justified before God. When the merit of Christ's obedience is imputed to us does God still regard us as a sinner whom He grants eternal life simply because He is pleased in the propitiatory work of His Son or does He count us as righteous for His Son's sake, truly recognizing us as righteous and obedient? We are not just pardoned of the penalty of sin in the atonement. There is a very important aspect to our redemption that so many Christians fail to fully comprehend and that is expiation. Just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed to God's elect, their sins are expiated (sent away) and imputed to Christ. He who knew no sin became sin for us. Along with the rewards garnered for us by the obedience of Christ, we also fear no condemnation because we are in Christ Jesus. The truth of this is shown as a two-fold expression in the Bible:

Romans 4:7,8
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

Blessed are those whose sins are covered (imputation of the righteousness of Christ). Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin (expiation of sin and its condemnation).

Complete agreement here.

Here's the thing though. If the progeny of Adam does not stand before God guilty of sin from birth, how does He justify charging them, not only with the results of Adam's sin, but the death that springs from it?

Right, I don't dispute that we are all guilty of sin from birth. Psalms 51:5 and 58:3 (and other passages, of course) tell us that we are.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Of what was Adam's sin a consequence?

Ack, sorry. That sentence was worded poorly. It should have rang more to the tune of, It was a consequence of Adam's sin that caused the fall of man.

I believe the Gospel says differently. For instance, in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." So, as we know death to be a universal event that all humanity are subject to, then I believe it can only be rightly acknowledged that this is the product of a shared status before God as condemned sinners. This isn't a status we earn because of personal sin. This is a status we are born with.

This is a great verse, I can't see how I overlooked it. The more I study the issue and the Scriptures that govern the Fall, the more I agree with the federal view. In our fallen state, we are enemies of God. Therefore, our children are born enemies of God. Are they born that way because of anything they have yet done? No. They are born that way because they were born enemies. It is the representative state of the progentior that the progeny reflects.

Yes, I understand this now. Thanks for taking the time out to elaborate on the subject. God bless.

 

[Knight]

Jon,

You've stumbled upon one of Reformationist's favorite topics......


Have fun.

 

[Reformationist]

Ah, when you put it this way it really starts to make sense to me.

Good. Can you explain it to me now.

Complete agreement here.

That's good.

Right, I don't dispute that we are all guilty of sin from birth. Psalms 51:5 and 58:3 (and other passages, of course) tell us that we are.

My apologies. I had thought you were saying that the consequence of the Fall that we suffered was limited to that of the inheriting a sinful nature.

Ack, sorry. That sentence was worded poorly. It should have rang more to the tune of, It was a consequence of Adam's sin that caused the fall of man.

Ahh. I see now. I should've figured that's what you meant. My apologies.

This is a great verse, I can't see how I overlooked it. The more I study the issue and the Scriptures that govern the Fall, the more I agree with the federal view. In our fallen state, we are enemies of God. Therefore, our children are born enemies of God. Are they born that way because of anything they have yet done? No. They are born that way because they were born enemies. It is the representative state of the progentior that the progeny reflects.

Nicely stated. Don't get me wrong. The Fall is an assault on the natural way in which we tend to view things so it isn't easy to understand. I, myself, struggle with many aspects of the Fall, primarily that of why Adam chose to sin in the first place. Anyway, it is a weighty subject and a don't do it justice.

Yes, I understand this now. Thanks for taking the time out to elaborate on the subject. God bless.

It was my pleasure. I have much to learn about it myself, as is the case with most biblical issues.

Thanks for your insight and the eloquent way you expressed yourself in this post.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Jon,

You've stumbled upon one of Reformationist's favorite topics......


Have fun.

LOL! Is it that obvious?

 

[cygnusx1]

I feel really dumb here..... I have to be totally honest(or else people aren't going to know where I stand on this-at least how ignorant I feel on this) and say that you've TOTALLY lost me.

could you possibly elaberate just a bit here....i feel sooo silly asking......

sorry Sister for any confusion , I have been trying to locate a work by Pink on-line , but it appears not all his work has been posted up so I am checking my cdrom , that is odd , no mention in my cdrom of the book Spiritual Union and Communion ......... perhaps it was published under another name ?
I will be back ........D.V.>