# Imputed guilt separated from corruption AND Death by sin



## Afterthought (Jul 1, 2011)

Sorry for posting so much so quickly. I'm not ignoring what I've already posted or what others have replied to what I've posted, but I wanted to get this thread out while I thought about the other posts/replies.


I had two kinds of questions. Firstly, what is the chain of reasoning used to prove that people are imputed guilt in Adam in Romans 5? I bet Murray's book works, but is there any quick way of showing it in Romans 5 so that I could show it to someone I was trying to prove it to? Is it valid to use this kind of reasoning for 1 Corinthians 15: In Adam all died, therefore, in Adam all sinned because death is the punishment for sin? And then, what can we say to people who agree people are born sinful or sin early on in life, but that they are not imputed the guilt of Adam's sin (that is, they agree people are born corrupt but that they are not imputed the guilt of Adam's sin)? It seems strange to me to separate imputed guilt from inherited corruption, but how can we show it is wrong?


Secondly, I understand that in Romans 5 it says "death by sin," and this is used to show death in general (including animal death) came by sin, but doesn't the context show that Paul is speaking about human death only there? He is saying that death is the penalty for sinning, yet we don't say animals sinned in Adam or sin because of Adam.


Thanks for any help!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2011)

Rom.5 isn't talking about all death (man, animals, old age, carnivorous, etc.), but judicial death-sentence. v12 says clearly, "death spread to all MEN." Rom.8:19-22 most clearly points to the whole of creation being subjected to the curse (of death) on account of the sin of the head (of creation).

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, *even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam*, who was a type of the one who was to come. 

The bolded portion may be understood (following the argument) as referring "even" to the young, in whom we cannot discern any actual transgressions of God's explicit will/law.

Some argue that all this phrase states is that there are many other men who have not sinned _by eating the forbidden fruit,_ and that this alone is what Paul has in mind; or refers simply to other men who had no positive commandment. However, lets look at the terminology Paul uses, ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως ᾿Αδάμ, "after the *likeness* of the tresspass of Adam." In other words,, death comes also upon those who have not sinned in ways _similar_ to Adam's--however great the dissimilarity (and none more than infants).

--
Note the use of ὁμοιώμα, which brings to mind the ancient Christological controversy over the single letter "iota," in which the Arians craved its insertion (ὅμοιο--, yielding the sense of "similar") over against the orthodox who insisted ot its omission (ὁμοou--, yielding the sense of "identical")​--​
Death is the result of sin, so where death is present sin must be present, and sin is only present where some sort of law reigns. Therefore, though the law of Moses was not promulgated for many ages, there was certainly some law in place for its visible effects were in place. And the obvious law-giving and disobedience and consequence is all the way back at the beginning. All men are condemned, because all die--all (humanity) are in Adam, Adam condemned all his offspring (by ordinary generation).

Calvin prefers to understand Paul v14 simply to make reference to positive law mainly absent from the period of time prior to Sinai (the law-giving), because that fits with the statement of the previous v13. But while he resists the notion that this verse exclusively refers to infants, and expands the category of the condemned to whom Paul refers as wide as possible; nevertheless he is at pains to affirm, "Infants are at the same time included in their number."


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 1, 2011)

> Firstly, what is the chain of reasoning used to prove that people are imputed guilt in Adam in Romans 5? I bet Murray's book works, but is there any quick way of showing it in Romans 5 so that I could show it to someone I was trying to prove it to?



Dabney holds that guilt and corruption are immediately imputed to the offspring of Adam, unlike some - like Murray - who hold to immediate imputation of guilt and corruption arising from that.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 2, 2011)

Thanks again Rev. Buchanan, that helps a lot!


I'm having trouble seeing it though, which means it will be hard for me to show it to others; that is, I'm having trouble seeing where the text speaks of imputed guilt because of that one sin and that we sinned when Adam sinned (I've looked through all the threads here too, and I'm still having trouble seeing it for some reason.). Right now, the best I can see is that because Adam sinned, those in him became corrupt and then sin because of that--instead of seeing them having sinned in Adam when Adam sinned. Unless corruption isn't enough for God to punish someone so they need to be guilty too (and how would we infer that?)? Perhaps I just need to see the argument more explicitly? Or maybe I'm asking for too much from this one passage (I was trying to find us being imputed guilt, sinning with Adam in his sin, and all that before we are born; only later when we are born then inheriting corruption)? I feel like I have all the pieces, but I'm having trouble putting them all together.

I'm also still not sure what to say to people who agree that our corruption is from Adam, but that we do not have the guilt of his sin imputed to us. For example, some might say that even infants are put to death because their corrupt nature caused them to sin against God in their thoughts (after all, don't we accept infants are saved by some sort of faith in Christ? The objector could say that infants could sin by some sort of hate against God.), and that the infant was not seen as guilty because of imputed guilt.


Edit: Just as a note, no one has actually objected that to me. I'm merely anticipating objections so that I can be prepared to talk with people about this.




Richard Tallach said:


> Dabney holds that guilt and corruption are immediately imputed to the offspring of Adam, unlike some - like Murray - who hold to immediate imputation of guilt and corruption arising from that.


Odd. It seems like Scripture speaks of corruption being passed down by ordinary generation. It also seems like the Standards say the same.

WCF:
"III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."

WSC:
"*Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?*
A. 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."

WLC:
"*Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?*
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called _original sin_, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

*Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?*
A. 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."

Imputed guilt and then inherited corruption is the way Thomas Watson explained it, and it is also the way Fisher explained it in his catechism. I just thought that was the norm among reformed theologians? However, I don't think they said the inherited corruption was a punishment for the imputed guilt, but I thought that was a standard belief too.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 4, 2011)

Any more help with this? I suppose one way to say we must have imputed guilt along with corruption is that otherwise, our righteousness must come by an act of righteousness of our own, but how would we show that from this passage? Does this passage speak explicitly (and how do we show it) of imputed guilt anyway?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 4, 2011)

Even Dabney calls the doctrine of original sin mysterious, or that there are things about it that are mysterious.

There must be something about our natural relation to Adam i.e. our relationship to him outwith the covenant of works that makes such a covenantal arrangement just.

There's no danger of the Lord being unjust in imputing Adam's sin to his offspring. These were the terms of the covenant. It was much better than each individual human being going through probation for themselves, and Adam's task was easy. He had to do nothing except continue living in original righteousness which was natural to him.

We would have acknowledged God's bountiful goodness to the human race in the CoW if Adam had fulfilled the condition, so how can anyone complain about the covenant and its inclusion of Adam's children when he failed? From a human perspective the task was so easy and straightforward that he shouldn't have failed. It was probably the most deliberate wickedness there has been.

Dabney's "Systematic Theology" is online.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------




Afterthought said:


> Any more help with this? I suppose one way to say we must have imputed guilt along with corruption is that otherwise, our righteousness must come by an act of righteousness of our own, but how would we show that from this passage? Does this passage speak explicitly (and how do we show it) of imputed guilt anyway?



Hodge, Murray and others were trying to clarify the doctrine and saying that we should use the parallel case of Christ and His people to understand it. 

In the case of Christ and His people, imputed righteousness (justification) is the basis of sanctification, so they would say that in the case of Adam and his offspring guilt is imputed and corruption results from that.

Dabney would say that Hodge was pushing the parallel between Adam and the human race, and Christ and His people in a way that it was not meant to be pushed.

I hope I got the above correct as it is just a brief summary from memory.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 7, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> I hope I got the above correct as it is just a brief summary from memory.


I moderately read Dabney on Original Sin. I think I see where the confusion lies concerning Dabney in an earlier post. Dabney does not deny that corruption is passed on by "natural generation." What he does deny is that corruption can be separated from imputed guilt. Thus, to paraphrase him, a person is born guilty and corrupt, and he is born corrupt and guilty; he is not considered guilty before he was born, because, for one thing, he had not existed yet. He says that corruption cannot be separated from guilt. Dabney sees attempting to refine this doctrine further as an over-refinement of doctrine that leads to problems (the over-refinement being what he calls "immediate imputation"--the scheme of Hodge and apparently Murray and Turretin), so he believes the doctrine should remain like that. He sees it as problematic as supra vs infra, which he also sees as an over-refinement of doctrine.

I think you remembered Dabney correctly in the above post.


----------

