# The Imputation of Adam's Guilt + Creationism - Why was Virgin Birth necessary?



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

I'm trying to find a good resource that will explain why it was necessary that Christ be born of a Virgin in order that the guilt of Adam's Sin was not imputed to Him.

According to Reformed Systematics, each Soul is created by God and the guilt of Adam's Sin is imputed to that soul as it is joined to the body that proceeds from the parents.

Is it because the imputation of the Curse passes from the male head that Christ's humanity did not have the guilt and corruption of Adam's Sin imputed to Him? Is it proper to understand that the reason why the guilt and corruption of Adam's Sin that was imputed to them at conception was on account of male participation in conception and not the female?

What verses would I use to understand this better and who has written a brief treatise on the subject?


----------



## lynnie (Jun 28, 2009)

I am pretty sure Stott covers this well in The Cross of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I am pretty sure Stott covers this well in The Cross of Christ.



Does Stott hold to a Creationist view and to the Immediate Imputation of Adam's Sin?


----------



## BJClark (Jun 28, 2009)

I'd say Gen. 3 covers it if I'm reading it correctly..God was still speaking to the serpent in this verse..

Gen 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." 

A woman can't have offspring w/out a man..except through God's intervention.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 28, 2009)

I pulled Stott off the shelf and can't find this even with his index. Maybe I remember wrong.

Grabbed my Grudem..pg 530-531. ( yeah, at PB Grudem is generally not considered Reformed enough  )

_Luke 1:35- Luke 1:35 (English Standard Version)

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God._

He says scripture nowhere asserts that sin comes only through the father. Jesus was holy because of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and preventing the transmission of sin from Mary, as well as the conception by the power of the HS.

Back in college when I studied botany my prof was into parthenogenesis. Apparently there were a number of mother-daughter identical look alikes in England back in the 60s and they did reciprocal skin graphs with no rejection. Supposedly at the time of conception the moms had gone through some awful trauma ( WW11 bombs maybe?) and the speculation was that chemical and hormonal forces trigggered the division of eggs w/o sperm ( you can do this in a lab) and led to mom-daughter clones. Sounds like tinfoil but he was the head of the department with a national academic reputation so I figured it was true. Anyway, if true, that would mean girls get sin from Mom, as I assume none of those daughters were another Eve and never aged or sinned. guess I should research this some day, sorry to get off track......


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2009)

It may be a bit sweeping to say that "Reformed Systematics" hold to creationism: there is a traducianist strain also.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

py3ak said:


> It may be a bit sweeping to say that "Reformed Systematics" hold to creationism: there is a traducianist strain also.



Yes, there have been some Traducianists but our Confessions are Creationist and the point of my query is how to understand this issue from that basis. I understand the issue from a Traducian perspective as the soul would not be the immediate creation of God.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2009)

I think that might be a little strong also, Rich. Westminster is certainly not explicit on the point of creationism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

I don't want to get into a debate about Creationism or Traducianism here. My question is not a defense of either view but focuses on how to understand Christ's Virgin Birth in light of Creationism and Immediate Imputation of Adam's Sin to his posterity.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2009)

No, I understand that: just being ornery.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 28, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm trying to find a good resource that will explain why it was necessary that Christ be born of a Virgin in order that the guilt of Adam's Sin was not imputed to Him.
> 
> According to Reformed Systematics, each Soul is created by God and the guilt of Adam's Sin is imputed to that soul as it is joined to the body that proceeds from the parents.
> 
> ...



_The Person of Christ_ by Donald Macleod is very helpful, not only on this question but also on others related to Christology. Chapter one is on the virgin birth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to find a good resource that will explain why it was necessary that Christ be born of a Virgin in order that the guilt of Adam's Sin was not imputed to Him.
> ...



Do you have a summary of his answer?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2009)

At the moment of conception Adam's sin is imputed to the individual (Psalm 51:5)

Most are conceived with a male sperm and a female ovum.

Jesus was conceived with the Holy Spirit and a female ovum.

The above isn't Donald MacLeod; just my musings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> At the moment of conception Adam's sin is imputed to the individual (Psalm 51:5)
> 
> Most are conceived with a male sperm and a female ovum.
> 
> Jesus was conceived with the Holy Spirit and a female ovum.



Thus, is the argument that imputation of Adam's sin is on account of male participation in conception and, since the Spirit overshadowed Mary that the conceived soul that was united to Christ's Deity was not subject to the Imputation of Sin?


----------



## KMK (Jun 28, 2009)

In creation, God established a natural law that all things regenerate according to their own 'kind'. Therefore, the union of a male and female sinner, would produce more male and female sinners. However, the union of a female sinner and the HS produces something of a different 'kind'. It was necessary that Jesus be a different 'kind' than a sinner. And, since it is by the female's womb that conception occurs, it was necessary that the female participate in the generation of this 'kind'. (Just thinking out loud)


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2009)

Jesus wasn't included in the Covenant of Works with Adam as its head because although he was a man, He was not a man born of Adam's seed (?) or "ordinary generation" as the Shorter (Larger?) Catechism says.

Therefore God was not covenantally bound to impute Adam's sin to Jesus at His conception.

The precise questions that remain are

(a) What were the precise terms of the Covenant of Works? Applying to Adam's seed?

(b) How does being conceived in the way Jesus was mean that you are not Adam's seed? At least in some sense? Jesus had male grandfathers.

(c) Speaking reverently, the Holy Spirit provided new male DNA that had nothing to do with Adam? Or the miracle was done some other way?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 28, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



He tackles several different issues in that chapter. But, essentially the reason that Adam's sin was not imputed to Jesus in his virgin conception is that his human nature was created by the Holy Spirit, instead of procreated by ordinary generation. He created his human nature from the substance of Mary or her seed, just like Adam was formed from the dust. And everything God creates, he creates good. So he was created, not proceated by ordinary generation, and so did not bear Adam's image (like Seth). The author further stresses that a sinless humanity is not possible without a miracle. I'm probably not stating it as clear as he but that's the gist.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 28, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



Uh . . .nit-picking again, but . . .


Was the human nature of Christ "created" in any way at all . . .even by being conceived in human form, flesh and nature, by the Holy Spirit?

We say NO!

Being _divinely conceived_ cannot ever equate with being _created!_


----------



## KMK (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Were you 'created' or 'conceived'? Which ever, Christ, as you kin was likewise.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 29, 2009)

KMK said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



We are created. 

Christ, being the Lord from heaven (I Cor. 15:47), is uncreate.


----------



## KMK (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Rushs said:
> ...



The Father 'prepared' a body for him.



> Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:



The HS 'formed' it by overshadowing the virgin.



> Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.



Christ's human nature could not have been immediately created in the same way as Adam (from the dust) because he would not have been our 'kin'. But I don't see anything wrong with saying His human nature was mediately created through conception in the same way ours is.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 29, 2009)

KMK said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



With all due respect, Pastor, are you not failing to distinguish between being created, and procreated through finite (and sinful) conception versus being divinely "begotten" = Eternal Generation?


----------



## KMK (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Rushs said:
> ...



Just to be clear, we are talking about Christ's _human_ nature specifically. Are you saying that Christ's _human_ nature was eternally generated? If so, what does Heb 10:5 mean? Where was Christ's body before the world began?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 29, 2009)

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Question 26: How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?
> Answer: Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.
> ...


.

-----Added 6/29/2009 at 08:28:07 EST-----



> *Semper Fidelis*
> Thus, is the argument that imputation of Adam's sin is on account of male participation in conception and, since the Spirit overshadowed Mary that the conceived soul that was united to Christ's Deity was not subject to the Imputation of Sin?
> __________________



It would seem that the life nature comes from the man and that nature has a bias, tendency, bondage to sin because that is what that nature is.

Jesus did not receive that nature because of the the Holy Spirit- He is, was and forever shall be perfect and that is the nature Jesus has.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Rushs said:
> ...



You are failing to account for the two natures in the one Person, Christ. 


> II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.


The Person of Christ is eternal, uncreated, and eternally generated. The human nature, however, was taken upon the Son "in the fullness of time". There was not an eternal human nature but Christ's human nature was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary and was "...of her substance."


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 29, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> You are failing to account for the two natures in the one Person, Christ.



I don't believe so. I understand the hypostatic union of the two natures in the Person of Christ. What I am objecting to is the usage of the word "create" when speaking of the Son being born of a woman. That language is unbiblical and unconfessional. Jesus, as the Son of Man was conceived, born, and begotten; not created.





> > II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
> 
> 
> The Person of Christ is eternal, uncreated, and eternally generated. The human nature, however, was taken upon the Son "in the fullness of time". There was not an eternal human nature but Christ's human nature was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary and was "...of her substance."



Agreed, but as to whether His human nature is not eternal, I am not sure.

For the Son of God being immutable, does retain the nature of men in glory. See Larger Catechism Questions and Answers 53 and 55, where it speaks of Christ functioning "in our nature" and "appearing in our nature, continually".

???


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > You are failing to account for the two natures in the one Person, Christ.
> ...



His human nature is not eternal. There was a time when it did not exist, unlike his divine nature. Though his human nature will continue on forever like ours will in glory. 

As for your objection to special creation in the act of the virgin conception, just think it out. Jesus had the same amount of chromosomes as we did. Half he got from Mary. Where did the other half come from? The Holy Spirit had to create them by a miracle. That's the only way you get something that wasn't there before. He was not a clone of Mary. Jesus needed DNA to be a male rather than a female. Where did he get that from, if not from an earthly father? The Holy Spirit had to supply it. What else does "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost" mean? If he was to be completely human without an earthly father, that means he needed the Holy Spirit to miraculously create what was lacking from an earthly father. Hope that answers your concern.


----------



## KMK (Jun 29, 2009)

Reformed Rushs said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > You are failing to account for the two natures in the one Person, Christ.
> ...



In the beginning was the Word. The Word was/is a 'person' with a divine nature. It was not until the Word became flesh that the Word assumed a human nature along with His divine nature. If the human nature of the Word is eternally generated, where was it in the beginning? Was the human nature of the Word its own person? No. When the angel speaks to Mary he refers to the birth of the 'holy thing' in the future tense. There was never a moment of time when the soul and body of His human nature were united but were not a part of the Word's 'person'.

If you object to the word 'created' in reference to the uniting of soul and body within the person of the Word, then you should also object to the word 'created' in reference to the uniting of your own soul and body within your own person.

As I mentioned earlier, the human nature of Christ was not created in the same sense as Adam (immediately by God). But, Christ's kinship to us depends upon a human nature that was created in the same way we are (mediately). 

I can understand if you reject the word 'creation' when speaking of Christ as a person, but it is perfectly acceptable to use the word when speaking of Christ's human nature. That said, when speaking to laymen I would probably stick to the word 'conceived' in order to avoid confusion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 29, 2009)

Jim,

I think you need to study the hypostatic union of Christ further. I need to get this thread back on topic but, suffice to say, your view on the human nature of Christ being eternal is incorrect.

 Let's get back on topic.


----------



## KMK (Jun 29, 2009)

It appears that the human nature of Christ needed to be the 'seed of the woman' in order to be our kin and needed to be 'prepared' and 'formed' by the HS in order to be without original sin. Could it have been reversed? From a biological perspective it seems absurd. Could the man have provided the seed and the HS conceived in His womb??? I am not sure if this is an issue of headship or of biology.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 29, 2009)

> Is it because the imputation of the Curse passes from the male head that Christ's humanity did not have the guilt and corruption of Adam's Sin imputed to Him?



Just a mere housewifely thought about this  -- it reminded me of the phrasing that God will visit iniquity of the '_fathers_ upon the children to the third and fourth generation' etc. I don't know if that wording is significant, but I have found comfort that Christ's Father is perfect, and so I in Christ inherit a blessing rather than a curse. (though I'm not sure if that is a legitimate inference?)


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jun 29, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jim,
> 
> I think you need to study the hypostatic union of Christ further. I need to get this thread back on topic but, suffice to say, your view on the human nature of Christ being eternal is incorrect.
> 
> Let's get back on topic.




Rich,

Being new here, and not having had much chance yet, to share all my theological views, I find it surprising you would so quickly evaluate them as lacking and incorrect, but I will in good spirit, heed your exhortation, and continue to study the hypostatic union of Christ and further consider the eternal nature of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps I will start another thread on these subjects, for I consider knowledge of sound Christology to be supremely important and vital to our Christian witness.

Meanwhile, to cooperate in getting this thread back on track, I will give you my brief but sincere answer to your OP:

Christ was born of a virgin in order to_ fulfill God's Covenant promise_ (Genesis 3:15) and _to fulfill all the Scriptures_. (e.g. Isaiah 7:14)

What God has ordained will necessarily happen, without fail.

Presenting a Savior through the seed of a woman, was the purpose and promise of God. It was His revealed will, and He manifested this grace through His Son, according to His word.

I doubt analysis beyond the revelations of Holy Scripture (such as speculating about biology, DNA, and generics) will ever be much help, for Holy Scripture is silent about such things.

Jim


----------

