# Our own sins or Adam's?



## Sonoftheday (Mar 24, 2008)

Whose sin is it that damns us? Ours or Adam's?

I was raised being taught that because of Adam's transgression all of his offspring have been born with a sinful nature. As I grew older I learned the doctrine of Total Depravity and how sinful this nature truly is. We do not need Adam's sin to damn because we have committed many of our own, but through my studies it seems apparent to me that as our Federal Head Adam's sin is counted as the sin of all of mankind. This seems to be only explanation that allows for Christ's Righteousness to then be applied to all who are under his Headship.

The reason I bring it up is because my biblestudy teacher made the comment yesterday that we are not damned because of Adam's sin but because of our own (unless I missheard him).


----------



## beej6 (Mar 24, 2008)

Adam's sin is imputed to us (original sin), and that transgression is still damnable.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 24, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> Whose sin is it that damns us? Ours or Adam's?



Both. 

WSC
Q18: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell? 
A18: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2008)

WE sinned in Adam. I know it sounds Traducian, but we were in the loins of Adam sinning just as the lines of priests paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> WE sinned in Adam. I know it sounds Traducian, but we were in the loins of Adam sinning just as the lines of priests paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham.



That explains why the children of Adam sin, but it has no bearing on why the children of Adam are deserving of death (guilty) before they sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression, i.e., against law, Rom. 5:13, 14.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 24, 2008)

One has to distinguish between original and actual sins. The original sin of our earthly father, Adam, is that transgression which first and foremost would damn us apart from Christ. However, the transgressions of our own sins, called actual sin, that flows from our corrupted nature given us by Adam's fall, are equally damnable. 

So both incur a damnable guilt, but Adam's sin is the foundation of all that follows. We sinned in Adam only as we were represented by him as our federal head. We did not commit actual sin through that federal imputation, but actual sins follow from that imputation.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

we must recognize the difference between original sin and imputed sin.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> we must recognize the difference between original sin and imputed sin.



Well, unless one holds to the realist view (a la Shedd), the guilt of original sin is always an imputed guilt.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > we must recognize the difference between original sin and imputed sin.
> ...



yet original sin is our moral ruin (inherit sin) Imputed sin does not do that. Thats all I was stating. I think Winzer was onto the distinction. 

I know death results, but I think the question is worth investigating. Does original sin imputed to us result in damnation? Or are men damned becasue of actual sin?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 24, 2008)

Me thinks you may be confused. What do you mean by moral ruin? 

If you mean to say that the effects of the fall have corrupted our natures so that since the fall we "naturally" tend toward a moral depravity, then that would be true.

However, it should also be affirmed that we are ruined before God because of the moral culpability of the imputed guilt of Adam's sin, which would make your final statement incorrect.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Me thinks you may be confused. What do you mean by moral ruin?
> 
> If you mean to say that the effects of the fall have corrupted our natures so that since the fall we "naturally" tend toward a moral depravity, then that would be true.
> 
> However, it should also be affirmed that we are ruined before God because of the moral culpability of the imputed guilt of Adam's sin, which would make your final statement incorrect.



original sin is the cause of our moral run that is inherit in all people. Imputed sin is not what ruins us, imputed sin is the guilt or blame that is credited to our account. Imputed sin is outside of us per se'.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Does original sin imputed to us result in damnation? Or are men damned becasue of actual sin?



Please take this as an honest question asked (I do not mean it in a flipped or uncaring way), but if imputed sin does not damn us wouldn't abortion be the greatest evangelistic tool available to man?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Does original sin imputed to us result in damnation? Or are men damned becasue of actual sin?
> ...



James, I am just asking if there is any scripture that speaks on this, that's all. Is there any record of one being damned becasue of imputed sin?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



This seems to fit....

[NASB]Romans 5:12-19[/NASB]

"... so death {I read spiritual death - i.e. damnation} spread to all men" to mean that imputed sin does damn us. Thoughts?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 24, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Me thinks you may be confused. What do you mean by moral ruin?
> ...



Indeed, the effects of the fall that issued forth from the original sin of Adam corrupts our nature, but its imputed guilt also ruins us before God. I think it may be more clear to speak of the imputed guilt of original sin, rather than imputed sin (as some confuse this with the idea of an infused substance of sin), since it technically was the guilt of that sin which was imputed to us by virtue of Adam's federal headship.

P.S. even though certain translations render Romans 5:13 as "imputed sin", I still stand by the opinion that we should speak of "imputed guilt", as the term "ellogeitai" is an accounting term speaking of the placing of the debt of guilt on the books before God, which is clarified in vv.14ff. The ESV/RSV clear that up some.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 24, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Presbyterian said:
> ...



I think so, brother James. If we try and lessen the effects of imputed sin then I think you lose the parallel of Christ's imputed righteousness to our account. Just as it was a sin outside of ourselves that damns all men, so it is a righteousness outside of ourselves that justifies the elect. 

I think keeping the parallel between Adam as our first head and Christ (the last Adam) as our second head is essential to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2008)

Historically, original sin is the corruption of man's whole nature. It is not technically Adam's first sin, nor the imputation of the guilt of that first sin to his ordinary posterity. See Larger Catechism, 25, 26.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Historically, original sin is the corruption of man's whole nature. It is not technically Adam's first sin, nor the imputation of the guilt of that first sin to his ordinary posterity. See Larger Catechism, 25, 26.



this is what i was trying to say


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Historically, original sin is the corruption of man's whole nature. It is not technically Adam's first sin, nor the imputation of the guilt of that first sin to his ordinary posterity. See Larger Catechism, 25, 26.



But is the act (Adam's sin) removed from the result so as to be totally disconnected from our condition of total depravity (i.e. worthiness of damnation)? or am I confusing the subject?


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> But is the act (Adam's sin) removed from the result so as to be totally disconnected from our condition of total depravity (i.e. worthiness of damnation)? or am I confusing the subject?



No, it's not disconnected, just distinct. As this thread shows, it becomes confusing to use a term as a broad category which has a specific meaning within that category.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > But is the act (Adam's sin) removed from the result so as to be totally disconnected from our condition of total depravity (i.e. worthiness of damnation)? or am I confusing the subject?
> ...



Please bear with me on this, I'm trying to get a firm grasp on this one.

So it's not the imputation of the sin of Adam, but the result of that sin, the corruption of our natures, that has the damning effect? Yet it is in the act itself that Adam brought death upon himself and his posterity. It sort of seems like two sides of the same coin to me. 



> So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
> --Romans 5:18



It would seem that this verse makes reference to the act (one transgression) resulting in condemnation upon all. What other scriptures shed light on this subject?


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> So it's not the imputation of the sin of Adam, but the result of that sin, the corruption of our natures, that has the damning effect? Yet it is in the act itself that Adam brought death upon himself and his posterity. It sort of seems like two sides of the same coin to me.



 My only point in clarifying the meaning of original sin was to show that it does not include Adam's first sin or its imputation. I thought we were agreed that condemnation came through Adam's first transgression being imputed to his posterity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > So it's not the imputation of the sin of Adam, but the result of that sin, the corruption of our natures, that has the damning effect? Yet it is in the act itself that Adam brought death upon himself and his posterity. It sort of seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
> ...



Yes, we are agreed then. I mistook your clarification as an indication that I was missing some subtle point.

Sorry for the confusion.  It must be the late hour. 

Blessings!

I'll go to bed now.


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2008)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I'll go to bed now.



 Have a good sleep.


----------

