# Did Christ Have to Die for Adam in order to deal with Original Sin?



## Peairtach (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't know if this is one of the "things not revealed" or not of value to peer into or something that shouldn't be bothered with.

Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?

Or is this a foolish Q?


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 1, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I don't know if this is one of the "things not revealed" or not of value to peer into or something that shouldn't be bothered with.
> 
> Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?



Christ did die to satisfy the punishment of Adam that was to come by the death of partaking of that tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, meaning death by that tree. Therefore Jesus had to die by a tree to satisfy the punishment of sin represented by the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and gives a picture of the gospel in the garden, before Adam was expelled from it. I think this can be used to give a picture of that satisfying of the wrath of God due to original guilt for humanity in Adam, for those that have faith. Therefore considering that Adam was given the gospel in the garden, Christ could pay for his sins and the original sin passed on in Adam’s line. Eve, being the mother of all living beings, in contrast with the seed of the serpent, that promise of salvation in faith will be passed on to them as well. However, due to the lack of repentance, the seeds of the serpent, who physically is in the line of Adam perish in their sins. 

The original sin was not removed federally by Christ’s sacrifice, because if such was the case then we would not have been born with original sin and the corruptions that follow original sin. Therefore that removal of original sin takes place for individuals that are in Christ, meaning the elect only. Of course this also affects how we see our children. What I mean is that they are also born of that original sin and need to come to faith in Christ, otherwise they will be shown to be the seed of the serpent.



Richard Tallach said:


> Or is this a foolish Q?


No, its not a foolish question.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 1, 2010)

If Christ died for Adam, his and only his sins are dealt with. 

If Christ died for you, then yours (both original and actual) are dealt with. 

Not foolish Q at all....


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 2, 2010)

A rather inchoate thought,

Adam's sin is imputed to to all in its guilt and pollution at conception.

If Christ did die for Adam (which we're not sure of anyway) Adam's sin was still passed on to the whole human race. Christ's death for Adam wouldn't and couldn't have had the effect I was thinking of, of removing original sin for the elect. Original sin passes to all.

Just a rather incoherent thought which, as Joshua would say, has almost certainly been explored by some theologian somewhere.

Christ deals with original sin by dying for the original guilt and pollution that has been imputed by God to the individual sinner because of his/her federal sinning in Adam.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 2, 2010)

I agree with your theological formulation in your most recent post.

I think it's more accurate to say that Christ died for the original guilt and corruption that all federally bear with Adam. In so doing, as far as Adam was in Christ, He atoned for Adam's guilt in that first trangression as well as all others who had the guilt and corruption imputed to them federally. I wouldn't say that God sees Christ as atoning for original sin by atoning for Adam and then seeing all who are in Adam and Christ as having their original sin atoned for insofar as Adam's sin was atoned for. The redeemed are in a new federal relationship - no longer seen as being federally united with Adam but in Christ (Romans 5).


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 7, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?
> 
> Or is this a foolish Q?


 
We don't have original (Adam's) sin anymore than your children have your sins. Sin came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12) by way of his original sin. Because Adam sinned, we sin. If Christ died for Adam's sins (I believe He did.) then Adam's guilt is removed because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Adam continued to sin everyday until the day of his death.

If Christ removed Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit, that would imply that the "Original Sin" was removed and thus all men sin no more, which we know isn't true.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 7, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> We don't have original (Adam's) sin anymore than your children have your sins. Sin came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12) by way of his original sin. Because Adam sinned, we sin.


 
It sounds like you are saying that we are sinners because we sin, rather than that we sin because we are sinners.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> teddyrux said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have original (Adam's) sin anymore than your children have your sins. Sin came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12) by way of his original sin. Because Adam sinned, we sin.
> ...



I'm concerned about the same thing Robert. Your analogy is a very poor one. Romans 5 is the clearest expression of the Federal relationship that all men have with Adam. The guilt and culpability of Adam's sin is imputed to everyone. I am not the head of the human race and so my sins are my own but do not make the error of assuming that because my sins are not imputed to my children that Adam's sin was not imputed to his posterity.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 8, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I don't know if this is one of the "things not revealed" or not of value to peer into or something that shouldn't be bothered with.
> 
> Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?
> 
> Or is this a foolish Q?


 
Christ had to die for Adam in order for Adam, himself, to be saved from his sin. As far as the rest of us, Adam ceased to be our covenant head when he broke the covenant. In Christ, all of God's elect have their new covenant head. He is the second Adam, taking Adam's former role in the covenant, succeeding where Adam failed. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 AM ----------




teddyrux said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?
> ...


 
I definitely don't agree with your interpretation of Romans 5:12. It is talking about our having sinned in Adam when he sinned, not our subsequent sinning which followed. The "sin came into the world" and "all sinned" are referring to the same event: when Adam sinned for us in the garden of Eden. (Not to mention the fact that "ef ho" may mean "In whom...all sinned" As in, we sinned in Adam. Thus St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Beza, and the Geneva Bible have it.)


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 8, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Since we all have our original sin as well as our actual transgressions, and since we committed our original sin federally (covenantally) in Adam when he ate from the Tree, did Christ have to die for Adam's sins (including his first one) in order to remove the original guilt and pollution of the elect?
> ...


 
This is wrong, both Biblically and Confessionally according to the Confession you have listed as that to which you subscribe. In Adam's sin ALL mankind are culpable. His sin is ours. We are conceived guilty of that original sin, whether we ever commit any sin on our own. Not only do we sin in actuality, but we are sinful and despicable in God's sight apart from the blood of Christ. 

We can go clearly to Romans 5:12-21 and see that Adam served as our covenant head, and we sinned in his original act of sin. It is OURS every bit as much as it is HIS. Check also 1 Cor. 15:21-22,45,49.

Christ came to die for the elect and to cover their sins, both original and personal. If we are in Christ, both of those are covered. If we are not, then neither of them are. If Adam was elect, then Christ's righteousness is Adam's, and Adam is present with Christ, glorified and immutably good today. This has NO bearing whatsoever on the fact that in Adam all his posterity have broken the covenant of works and are guilty of that original sin. 

For the Reformed position on original sin, go back and look again at WCF Chapter 6, WLC Q&A 21-29 and WSC Q&A 13-19. Therein clearly is taught the correct doctrine of original sin and its imputation to us.
For the view of redemption in Christ, look again at WCF Chapter 7, as well as WLC Q&A 20,30-35 and WSC Q&A 12 and 20. There the role of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for and covenant head of the elect is clearly taught.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 8, 2010)

Seriously? I'm wrong in saying that I didn't eat the forbidden fruit? Because that is what I said. What confessions says that I ate the forbidden fruit? Because Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, I sin. Again, that is what I said.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 8, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Seriously? I'm wrong in saying that I didn't eat the forbidden fruit? Because that is what I said. What confessions says that I ate the forbidden fruit? Because Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, I sin. Again, that is what I said.


 
You didn't eat the fruit. But when Adam ate the fruit, you sinned.

Read this.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 8, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> You didn't eat the fruit. But when Adam ate the fruit, you sinned.


 
Read what you quoted. I said that.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 8, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't eat the fruit. But when Adam ate the fruit, you sinned.
> ...



No, you said, "I sin." I took that to mean that you do actually quite often, even daily sin as a result of Adam eating the fruit. That's true enough, but it doesn't tell the whole story. 

What I am saying is that we all sinned in Adam when he ate the fruit, at that very moment, even though we weren't personally there. I wrote an essay on this topic which may be helpful, and I gave you the link.


----------



## rbcbob (Jul 8, 2010)

Robert and Rich, would you both agree to the following?

1. We are constitutionally sinners; sinners by nature. We have transmitted spiritual disease (Psalm 51:5). 2. We are sinners by practice; characteristically sinners (Genesis 6:5). 3. The first necessarily flows out of the second.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 8, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> teddyrux said:
> 
> 
> > Willem van Oranje said:
> ...


 
So I have to exactly explain what "I sin." means? It means what the London Confession of 2689 says it means. It means what the New Hampshire Baptist Confessions says it means. CLARIFICATION: This does not mean that confessions hold the weight of Scripture. END CLARIFICATION

You have told me that I'm wrong, but you and I are saying the same thing, just using different words.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 8, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > teddyrux said:
> ...


 
I only said that I do not agree with your interpretation of Romans 5:12. You said that because Adam sinned, "I sin." Perhaps you could clarify as to why you are using the present tense? Romans 5:12 is not talking about the transmission of the sinful nature. It's talking about the representative, federal, imputation of Adam's sin to all who descended to him by means of ordinary generation. That is, every one of them sinned (past tense) in him in the garden of Eden. It is neither referring to the sinful nature which they acquired as punishment for this sin by God's just decree, nor their own actual sinning which results from it. It is talking about the imputation of Adam's sin to us before we were born, while Adam was yet in the garden. At that moment we sinned in him. 

I'm just attempting to clarify. You may agree with what I have said, and I hope you do. But there are many who are unclear on this doctrine. And it is a very important doctrine.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 8, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Seriously? I'm wrong in saying that I didn't eat the forbidden fruit? Because that is what I said. What confessions says that I ate the forbidden fruit? Because Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, I sin. Again, that is what I said.


 
No confession says you ate the forbidden fruit, but you ARE guilty of Adam's sin, and whether Christ died for Adam as an elect person is irrelevant to whether we draw that conclusion or not.

I also wasn't talking about your statement (which I have yet to locate) where you said that you did not eat the forbidden fruit. I was responding to your statement that Adam's original sin is not something that we have (by which I inferred that you meant Adam's original sin is not something that we are responsible for). 

Your understanding of Adam's covenant headship seems to be missing something. Your statement "We don't have original (Adam's) sin anymore than your children have your sins" indicates that. Parents are not the representative head of children. Adam IS the representative head of all the human race, and therefore his original sin IS ours at conception. Again, Christ's death in Adam's place has ZERO to do with our inheritance of Adam's sinful condition and of his guilt.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 8, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Adam IS the representative head of all the human race,



...except for Christ, that is. Hence the distinction, "all those descended from him by ordinary generation sinned in him..."


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 8, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Adam IS the representative head of all the human race,
> ...



Yes, of course... didn't think I had to specify that since it's not really germane to the discussion.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 9, 2010)

Adam sinned. Because he sinned we are all born in sin and are sinners. I do not have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not sin when Adam did. I was not born. I don't believe there is Scriptural evidence for this. As the Bereans did, I will examine them if someone provides them.

Christ came into the world to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect so that when God looks on His elect He does not see their sins, He sees Christ's righteousness. This does not mean that we do not sin, because it's clear from Scripture that we continue in sin until we die.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 9, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Adam sinned. Because he sinned we are all born in sin and are sinners. I do not have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not sin when Adam did. I was not born. I don't believe there is Scriptural evidence for this. As the Bereans did, I will examine them if someone provides them.
> 
> Christ came into the world to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect so that when God looks on His elect He does not see their sins, He sees Christ's righteousness. This does not mean that we do not sin, because it's clear from Scripture that we continue in sin until we die.


 
Romans 5:12 states it explicitly. Then the apostle repeats it several times. We sinned in Adam when he ate of the forbidden fruit. We sinned in him by representation, as he was our covenantal, federal head. Because of this sin in the garden, God punished Adam and all of his posterity descended by ordinary generation with a nature which is inherently sinful. I suppose that you did not read my essay?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Adam sinned. Because he sinned we are all born in sin and are sinners. I do not have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not sin when Adam did. I was not born. I don't believe there is Scriptural evidence for this. As the Bereans did, I will examine them if someone provides them.
> 
> Christ came into the world to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect so that when God looks on His elect He does not see their sins, He sees Christ's righteousness. This does not mean that we do not sin, because it's clear from Scripture that we continue in sin until we die.


Recommend this book: Amazon.com: The Imputation of Adam's Sin (9780875523415): John Murray: Books

You did sin with Adam. Adam's sin was imputed to you - not only the guilt of it but culpability in it. If you look at Romans 5 then you will see a symmetry of federal participation.

By your argument above, let us apply your same sentence to Christ (the Second Adam):

"I do not have Christ's righteousness because He obeyed and was righteous. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not obey when Christ obeyed. I was not born."


----------



## lynnie (Jul 9, 2010)

_
By your argument above, let us apply your same sentence to Christ (the Second Adam):

"I do not have Christ's righteousness because He obeyed and was righteous. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not obey when Christ obeyed. I was not born." _

Good one  It's all about imputation.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 9, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> teddyrux said:
> 
> 
> > Adam sinned. Because he sinned we are all born in sin and are sinners. I do not have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. I can't have it, I didn't do that. I did not sin when Adam did. I was not born. I don't believe there is Scriptural evidence for this. As the Bereans did, I will examine them if someone provides them.
> ...


 
Romans 5:12 (ESV) "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—"

Where does this say that anyone "sinned in Adam"?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 9, 2010)

Adam is the "one man". The apostle says here that "all sinned." The construction of this sentence indicates that when "sin came into the world through one man", "all sinned." The ESV here mirrors the Greek (aorist tense) where it (the ESV) uses the imperfect tense for both verbs, "came" and "sinned", indicating that both verbs are speaking of the same event, i. e. when the "one man" sinned, "all sinned." And subsequent to this event when through the "one man", "all sinned", death spread to all men. Notice that "death spread" subsequent to, and as a result of the "all sinned" and not simply parallel to it. In other words death comes upon all of us over time because we all sinned in Adam. Furthermore, the context is speaking about Adam's sin, not the sins that you or I commit in our daily lives. Also notice that the apostle further says, "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." In other words, when Adam disobeyed, we were made sinners (at that moment.) Being "made sinners" indicates that we are guilty of Adam's sin, not merely that we receive the punishment due to it. And it was by the immediate means of Adam's disobedience that we were "made sinners", not indirectly due to us inheriting sinful natures from him. I am really reproducing arguments from my essay, here. So I think it would be better for you to read that.

The doctrine which says that our guilt is not due to the imputation of Adam's sin, but that it is mediated through the means of us inheriting sinful natures by natural generation does not do justice to this passage. And furthermore, it tends toward Arminianism, or worse. I want everyone to be aware of this.


----------



## teddyrux (Jul 9, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> The doctrine which says that our guilt is not due to the imputation of Adam's sin, but that it is mediated through the means of us inheriting sinful natures by natural generation does not do justice to this passage. And furthermore, it tends toward Arminianism, or worse. I want everyone to be aware of this.


 
I don't hold to that doctrine and a reading of my posts in this topic clearly show that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Romans 5:12 (ESV) "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—"
> 
> Where does this say that anyone "sinned in Adam"?


 
At the end of the verse: "all sinned".

Correspondingly: "7For 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."

The redeemed "...receive...the gift of righteousness...." Again, note the symmetry of federal identification.

From the LBCF:



> Paragraph 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we *in them* whereby death came upon all:3 all becoming dead in sin,4 and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.5
> 3 Rom. 3:23
> 4 Rom 5:12, etc.
> 5 Titus 1:15; Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-19
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 9, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > teddyrux said:
> ...



Romans 5:18 and also 1 Corinthians 15:22 make this clear:

[bible]Romans 5:18[/bible] 

[bible]1 Corinthians 15:22[/bible]


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jul 9, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > The doctrine which says that our guilt is not due to the imputation of Adam's sin, but that it is mediated through the means of us inheriting sinful natures by natural generation does not do justice to this passage. And furthermore, it tends toward Arminianism, or worse. I want everyone to be aware of this.
> ...


 
You expressed precisely that doctrine when you said,


> Adam sinned. Because he sinned we are all born in sin and are sinners. I do not have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit. I can't have it, I didn't do that.



While it's true that you personally did not bite the fruit, nonetheless you share in that sinful act, in the guilt and the punishment of Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit. The imputation of Adam's sin to you occurred long before you were later conceived with a sinful nature. _You have Adam's sin of eating the forbidden fruit._


----------

