# Did Augustine misunderstand Rom 5:12 because of a Latin mistranslation, and what are the implications?



## pgwolv (Aug 10, 2022)

I have been in a discussion with a Provisionist again; I started the conversation when he posted, on another forum, the following quote:



> Augustine understood ἐφ ᾧ (eph hō, “because”) as meaning “in whom,” since the Latin mistranslated the Greek at this point. Accordingly, his understanding of the final clause in verse 12 was that we were actually “in Adam,” and therefore Adam’s sin was ours as well. But since his interpretation was based upon an inaccurate translation, we must investigate the clause more closely. -Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 579.



Did Augustine truly misunderstand it and base his theology of original sin on this mistranslation? If so, what does that mean for us? 

I saw Rich's post of long ago, quoting Thomas Watson on original sin, also using the terminology "in whom." Thus, it seems this is a vital point in our doctrine of original sin. I need some assistance in thinking through these things.

Blessings to all on this edifying board.

Edit: With the title, I did not mean that Augustine mistranslated it, but that the Latin was a mistranslation and that Augustine derived his doctrine primarily from that mistranslation.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 10, 2022)

The exact meaning of this prepositional phrase has been a subject of debate for (clearly) centuries. Erickson is right to urge caution, at least when it comes to Augustine in particular, as his Greek was notoriously poor.


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 10, 2022)

The Geneva Bible has "in whom", which may show us what Bible Thomas Watson was using. From the KJV onward, virtually every English translation has gone with some version of "because" (KJV "for that"). So even if Augustine based his doctrine on the mistranslation (which may or may not be true), all modern commentators and theologians who hold this doctrine (including most of the Puritans) do so without reference to the mistake.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 10, 2022)

J.H. Heidegger defended the translation of εφ ω as "in whom", pointing to other passages of Scripture where επι is translated as "in". My personal opinion is that it should be translated as "on account of which", a meaning which it frequently carries in Greek literature. I would be interested in seeing any example of it clearly and unequivocally being used to mean "because" in another passage, or an extra biblical source. I think this meaning is probably specious.
The term is used 127 times in the Perseus corpus, which includes all the major classical Greek texts, and some koine ones as well.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 10, 2022)

Regardless of how one translates Romans 5:12, the doctrine of original sin is quite clear in other passages and the Bible as a whole. Augustine did not derive this teaching from a single passage (nor did he come up with it himself, since other fathers before him taught it).
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Cor. 15:22

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 10, 2022)

Thank you for all the input!



Charles Johnson said:


> since other fathers before him taught it


Could you give me some examples?


Charles Johnson said:


> "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
> 1 Cor. 15:22


I believe that the Doctrines of Grace help us best understand salvation according to Scripture. However, the Provisionists (and probably Arminians likewise) believe otherwise. They say that these passages (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15) do not indicate that we have inherited guilt, only a propensity to sin (although I am not sure how one can have the one and not the other). I say we die in Adam because God imputed his guilt to us, and we are made alive in Christ because God imputed His righteousness to us who believe. He says we die in Adam because his sin led to us all sinning (we are condemned to death, but this is "ratified" by our own sin), and we are made alive in Christ in that Christ made the sacrifice for all people, paying for all sin, so that anyone can be saved (but this is "ratified" by our faith). Essentially, we see it as imputed sin/guilt vs. imputed righteousness, whereas they see it as our sin (thanks to Adam) vs. our faith (in Christ's gift). We both have presuppositions, but when I talk to these people I sometimes find it difficult to show why my presupposition is correct.


----------



## De Jager (Aug 10, 2022)

If we have not inherited guilt, then why do any infants die?

The wages of sin is death. If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.

The fact of the matter is that we are estranged from the moment of conception. When two rebels procreate, they produce a rebel, from the moment of fertilization. Even in utero, the person is by nature, a child of wrath and worthy of the punishment of a rebel.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 10, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Thank you for all the input!
> 
> 
> Could you give me some examples?


Spanheim says the fathers used the following terms for original sin:
"By Tertullian, it is called a transmitter of evil; by Cyprian, domestic evil; by Arnobius, the vice of inborn infirmity; by Ambrose, the infused and coagulated contagion of transgressions. By Chrysostom, the first sin."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 10, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If we have not inherited guilt, then why do any infants die?


They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.


De Jager said:


> If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.


Could this not also be said of Christ's death?


De Jager said:


> The fact of the matter is that we are estranged from the moment of conception. When two rebels procreate, they produce a rebel, from the moment of fertilization. Even in utero, the person is by nature, a child of wrath and worthy of the punishment of a rebel.


Amen


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 10, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Could this not also be said of Christ's death?


Yes, and indeed it should. Both infants and Christ die because they have been imputed the guilt of another, without actual sin. Infants are imputed original sin, and Christ is imputed the sins of believers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 10, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Yes, and indeed it should. Both infants and Christ die because they have been imputed the guilt of another, without actual sin. Infants are imputed original sin, and Christ is imputed the sins of believers.


I agree, I was just wondering about the word "unjust"


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 10, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, *but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.*


As far as I know, there is no way to demonstrate this from scripture. The opposite seems abundantly clear though that ALL have fallen short of the glory of God.


----------



## De Jager (Aug 10, 2022)

> They say that death entered the world because Adam sinned. As far as I understand it, they believe that all people die because of Adam's sin, but that infants are not guilty, and thus go to heaven upon their death.


If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant _did not deserve to die_ and yet, died. And yet, the scriptures say "the wages of _sin_ is death" and, as pointed out above "all have fallen short of the glory of God". I believe that "all" is a universal "all", i.e. includes all people everywhere, without exception. This means that from the moment of conception, an infant has "fallen short of the glory of God". What is the proper place for such a person? Not heaven. What does a person who falls short of the glory of God deserve? Not life. I do not believe that all infants who die go to heaven. That would make the evil of abortion the single greatest tool in the history of mankind for the population of the kingdom of God. I believe that those who believe that all infants that die go to heaven are mistaken. I do believe that believers ought not to doubt the election of their children whom it pleaseth the Lord to call out of this life in their infancy (C.O.D. 1.17), because God has proven throughout the scriptures that he includes the helpless children of believers in his salvific acts; but for the general salvation of all infants I find no basis whatsoever.



> Could this not also be said of Christ's death?


It would be unjust except we believe that our sins were literally transferred to him and in the sight of God, Jesus was "guilty". My understanding is that in his death Christ was united to all elect throughout all time as their covenant head, and the sins of those united to Christ 'became his' by virtue of that union, in the same way that Adam's sin becomes ours by virtue of that union even though we did not eat of the fruit in the garden. So while Christ himself never committed a sin, he was united to all the elect, with all their sinfulness, so that when Christ received God's wrath he received it for all the elect (in him) and when he died, we died, and when he rose, we rose (Romans 6:3-6).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 10, 2022)

It is important to remember too that the provisionists are heretics by denying original sin. I believe this still falls under pelegianism.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 10, 2022)

The rest of Romans 5 clearly teaches original sin and imputed sin/guilt, regardless of how verse 12 is translated. And I think verse 12 teaches that “all sinned” when the one man sinned, whether or not it’s “in whom” or “upon which” or “for that”. It doesn’t say all will sin, but all did sin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Knight (Aug 10, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant _did not deserve to die_ and yet, died. And yet, the scriptures say "the wages of _sin_ is death" and, as pointed out above "all have fallen short of the glory of God". I believe that "all" is a universal "all", i.e. includes all people everywhere, without exception. This means that from the moment of conception, an infant has "fallen short of the glory of God". What is the proper place for such a person? Not heaven. What does a person who falls short of the glory of God deserve? Not life. I do not believe that all infants who die go to heaven. That would make the evil of abortion the single greatest tool in the history of mankind for the population of the kingdom of God. I believe that those who believe that all infants that die go to heaven are mistaken. I do believe that believers ought not to doubt the election of their children whom it pleaseth the Lord to call out of this life in their infancy (C.O.D. 1.17), because God has proven throughout the scriptures that he includes the helpless children of believers in his salvific acts; but for the general salvation of all infants I find no basis whatsoever.
> 
> 
> It would be unjust except we believe that our sins were literally transferred to him and in the sight of God, Jesus was "guilty". My understanding is that in his death Christ was united to all elect throughout all time as their covenant head, and the sins of those united to Christ 'became his' by virtue of that union, in the same way that Adam's sin becomes ours by virtue of that union even though we did not eat of the fruit in the garden. So while Christ himself never committed a sin, he was united to all the elect, with all their sinfulness, so that when Christ received God's wrath he received it for all the elect (in him) and when he died, we died, and when he rose, we rose (Romans 6:3-6).


"According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be *actually ingrafted into Christ* by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their *actual union* to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally *imputed to their seed,* *by virtue of the union*, *constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other*, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, *the principle of regeneration*…

*If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him*, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, *it follows,* (we will venture the word,)* incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation*, *by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation*. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)

According to Baird (and contrary to Charles Hodge), we are not viewed by God merely *as if* we are righteous - Roman Catholics would have a serious argument against us if this legal fiction were really the case. Rather, we are and are viewed by the Father as really righteous, not because of anything we have done or earned, but because the Spirit has really united us to Christ's person and work.



pgwolv said:


> I agree, I was just wondering about the word "unjust"


There is a significant difference between Christ and infants. Christ *voluntarily* sacrificed Himself as a substitute for us. Infants *involuntarily *die, which would be unjust if not for the fact that they were, being united to Adam, participants in his sin and thus [imputed] guilty for it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## De Jager (Aug 10, 2022)

Knight said:


> "According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be *actually ingrafted into Christ* by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their *actual union* to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally *imputed to their seed,* *by virtue of the union*, *constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other*, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, *the principle of regeneration*…
> 
> *If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him*, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, *it follows,* (we will venture the word,)* incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation*, *by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation*. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)
> 
> ...


I agree with what is posited here by Samuel Baird, this is how I have come to understand it in my own mind.

It is not a matter of God plucking our sin off of us and throwing it on Christ, but keeping us in the periphery. It is about taking us (including our sin) and uniting us to Christ in his death and resurrection - Christ being our covenant head and we being "in him". When he was crucified - I was crucified. When he rose - I rose. Do I understand this? No. But it seems to me that's what the Scriptures teach.


----------



## Knight (Aug 10, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I agree with what is posited here by Samuel Baird, this is how I have come to understand it in my own mind.
> 
> It is not a matter of God plucking our sin off of us and throwing it on Christ, but keeping us in the periphery. It is about taking us (including our sin) and uniting us to Christ in his death and resurrection - Christ being our covenant head and we being "in him". When he was crucified - I was crucified. When he rose - I rose. Do I understand this? No. But it seems to me that's what the Scriptures teach.


As Paul says, "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him" (1 Corthians 6:17). We were born out of the first Adam and are born into the last Adam. Following Baird, I think a Reformed anthropology view should be worked out along these lines, but the ontology of our synthetic identity as being persons in Christ after regeneration and conversion is either underdeveloped or a discussion of which I am ignorant. I have a hard enough time convincing my friends that Hodge's and Murray's views have problems.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 10, 2022)

This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 11, 2022)

JTB.SDG said:


> This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf


I second this resource


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

Knight said:


> "According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be *actually ingrafted into Christ* by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their *actual union* to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally *imputed to their seed,* *by virtue of the union*, *constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other*, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, *the principle of regeneration*…
> 
> *If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him*, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, *it follows,* (we will venture the word,)* incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation*, *by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation*. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification." (Samuel Baird, link)
> 
> ...


Thank you, this is really helpful (I am going to read the rejoinder)

EDIT: The rejoinder was excellent! Now I wonder whether I should read his entire thesis...


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

JTB.SDG said:


> This may be a helpful resource on Romans 5; it deals a good bit with that verse in 5:12 if you're interested: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_45d48f7adb2b44e4a5004f32814b21ab.pdf


Thank you so much


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

Knight said:


> I have a hard enough time convincing my friends that Hodge's and Murray's views have problems.


Elsewhere on the board, I saw an endorsement for Murray's book "Imputation of Adam's Sin." What are the main "problems" with Murray's views?

EDIT: I want to read more on this subject, but I don't want to start of with a mixture of the views espoused by Baird and those by Hodge and Murray. I am nearly done with the rebuttal by Baird of the review of his work. Should I read the entire work? It seems the study of Rom 5:12-21 at Ruin and Redemption, as recommended by some here, will lead me to Hodge's and Murray's view?


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If infants are not guilty, then they should not die, according to the logic of "the wages of sin is death". These people are saying, in the case of an infant who died, that the infant _did not deserve to die_ and yet, died.


As a follow-up, I have asked this question, and received the following answer (paraphrased): This earthly physical death is not an eternal spiritual death. God allows the innocent to die because of sin in the world, and he works all things for his own glory, and Christ's salvation of the innocent is glorious.

EDIT: He also refers to David's son, whom David expected to see again after death. I'm wondering whether that text refers to David who will follow his son in physical death, or whether it is an expectation of seeing his son in heaven.

EDIT 2: Also, regarding the phrase "Christ's salvation of the innocent," this refers to their belief that Adam's sin brought a separation between God and man (but not an inherited guilt in Adam's progeny), and that Christ's salvation restored God and innocent man (innocent by not sinning or innocent by faith in Christ).


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

De Jager said:


> If an infant has not yet the capacity to sin, and has no inherited guilt, then God would be unjust to cause that person to die before the person has actually committed an actual personal sin.



The person agrees that the innocent infant's death is unjust because this is the result of sin. They contrast sin and God: Sin is so evil that it causes unjust death, whereas God is so good that he rescues the infant with resurrection life. To me, this looks like adding the part of their doctrine that God's sovereignty does not mean He ordains all things; hence the injustice is accounted to sin rather than to God. However, it is God who condemns us to death, so this does not make sense. I suspect they may also attempt to explain this as "death is corporate condemnation to humanity for sin" or something. It is a house of cards


----------



## De Jager (Aug 11, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> As a follow-up, I have asked this question, and received the following answer (paraphrased): This earthly physical death is not an eternal spiritual death. God allows the innocent to die because of sin in the world, and he works all things for his own glory, and Christ's salvation of the innocent is glorious.
> 
> EDIT: He also refers to David's son, whom David expected to see again after death. I'm wondering whether that text refers to David who will follow his son in physical death, or whether it is an expectation of seeing his son in heaven.
> 
> EDIT 2: Also, regarding the phrase "Christ's salvation of the innocent," this refers to their belief that Adam's sin brought a separation between God and man (but not an inherited guilt in Adam's progeny), and that Christ's salvation restored God and innocent man (innocent by not sinning or innocent by faith in Christ).



"Christ's salvation of the innocent"? An innocent person does not need to be saved from anything. If a person is innocent, they have the same state as pre-fall Adam. Again, they are simply denying the truth of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Reformed bible interpretation interprets the less clear with the clear. The clear teaching of the scriptures is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The clear teaching of scripture is that there have only ever been three "innocent" people in the history of mankind - Adam, Eve (and that didn't last) and Jesus. The scriptures nowhere suggest, or give the slightest indication that infants are born in a state of innocence. That is a foreign idea that is simply being inserted in God's word, and which can only be defended by "explaining away" the clearer teachings. It does not hold up.

Secondly, human beings are a union of body and spirit. I do not believe that you can simply separate physical death from spiritual death and act as though they are unrelated. They are 100% correlated except in the case of the elect, whereby our death is not a punishment for sin, but rather an entrance into eternal life. (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 42). "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live". For all other persons - they die physically AND spiritually. Only in the elect is this correlation broken.

His reference to David's son (2 Samuel 12:23) is commonly cited in these debates. As a Reformed person, I will point out that his son was not just any person, but the son of a believer. It is one thing to believe that God elects and saves the (sinful) children of believers who die in infancy, and quite another to extrapolate that to all infants who die. This ignores all in the scriptures about the benefits of God's covenant and also the inverse - the hopeless state of all outside of God's covenant. I do personally believe that David was speaking about seeing his son in heaven, and not simply in some obscure "sheol" or grave-like place for a couple reasons: 1) before making the pronouncement that he would see his son again, David washed, _worshipped_ and ate, while before he was grief-stricken and would not eat. Why the change? I believe it is because he realized that his son was with the Lord, and that one day he would be too. 2) Throughout the Psalms we see that David had a thorough understanding of his eternal destiny, and it was not in some obscure watery "sheol" but it was with God. See: Psalm 16:11, 17:14-15, others. I do also believe that David's son _did not deserve to go to heaven_, but only is there because of God's electing grace, which presupposes that the child was a sinner.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Again, they are simply denying the truth of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Reformed bible interpretation interprets the less clear with the clear. The clear teaching of the scriptures is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.


Thank you, this is helpful to keep in mind.


De Jager said:


> Secondly, human beings are a union of body and spirit. I do not believe that you can simply separate physical death from spiritual death and act as though they are unrelated. They are 100% correlated except in the case of the elect, whereby our death is not a punishment for sin, but rather an entrance into eternal life. (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 42). "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live". For all other persons - they die physically AND spiritually. Only in the elect is this correlation broken.


I guess the onus of proof would be on those who state that one can separate the physical and spiritual death in general?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 11, 2022)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 11, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> I guess the onus of proof would be on those who state that one can separate the physical and spiritual death in general?


I would ask when did death begin? Did it start a thousand years later or did death begin when they disobeyed? Spiritual death began when they immediately needed a mediator and a promise for sin. Just a thought.


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 11, 2022)

Knight said:


> Following Baird, I think a Reformed anthropology view should be worked out along these lines, but the ontology of our synthetic identity as being persons in Christ after regeneration and conversion is either underdeveloped or a discussion of which I am ignorant.


This seems important; surely in the 160-odd years since the thesis and rejoinder, someone took this up?


----------



## Knight (Aug 11, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Elsewhere on the board, I saw an endorsement for Murray's book "Imputation of Adam's Sin." What are the main "problems" with Murray's views?



I'll try to address this more over the weekend. In short, I think he is only able to push back the problem with Charles Hodge's view one extra step:

"*The members of posterity cannot be conceived of as existing when Adam trespassed.* To posit any such supposition is to contradict the meaning of conception and generation as the divinely constituted means for the origin of all members of the race except the first pair. *Yet all the members of the race were *_*contemplated *_*by God as destined to exist*; they were foreordained to be and the certainty of their existence was thus guaranteed. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that _*as thus contemplated by God*_ they were *contemplated *no otherwise than as members of the race in solidaric union with Adam and therefore as having sinned in him. In other words, they are not _*conceived of in the mind and purpose of God*_ except as one with Adam; they are not _*contemplated*_ as potentially but as actually one with Adam in his sin. And this proposition is basic to all further thought on the question" (Murray, _The Imputation of Adam's Sin_, pgs. 90ff.)

The key here is that Murray rejects a real participation and affirms nominalism: there is no correspondence between reality and what God contemplates about reality. According to Murray, we do not really participate in Adam's sin because we did not _in any sense_ exist. Whereas Hodge nominalistically imputed guilt to Adam's progeny _without even allowing that they participated *at all *in Adam's sin_, Murray merely pushes the problem back one step by nominalistically imputing culpability to Adam's progeny _without even allowing that they _*really*_ existed to _*really*_ participate in the culpable Adamic act_.



pgwolv said:


> This seems important; surely in the 160-odd years since the thesis and rejoinder, someone took this up?



While I am no expert, I'll venture a few comments since you were looking for a recommendation. George Hutchinson's book on "The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology" (link) is a _*great*_ book (acknowledged by everyone on all sides of this discussion) that overviews different views and discussions on original sin between ~1830-1960. This is where I learned of Baird, his work (link), and his dispute with Charles Hodge. The book also covers John Murray and others.

Baird wrote "The Elohim Revealed," wherein he defended what Hutchinson calls a "realist" view of original sin (similar to but distinct from that of W. G. T. Shedd; a more defensible view, in my opinion). Charles Hodge responded to Baird's book with a review, and after Baird wrote a rejoinder to Hodge (i.e. the link in the earlier post), Hodge seemingly gave up further response. Baird and other authors (like Robert Landis, link) pretty much level Hodge's views on original sin, which can be summarized in Hodge's statement that "*Imputation does not imply a participation of the criminality of the sin imputed*" (Hodge, _Theology_, Vol. II, p. 194). Baird, Landis, and the Reformed tradition (to this point in history) are against Hodge on this point, to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist.

Now, another person Hutchinson mentions in his book is Henry Thornwell, a theologian Hutchinson also puts in the "Realist School" (which includes Shedd and Baird). Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, his former views (link), a critique which probably was written later than Hutchinson seems to think (cf. pages 531-534 here). To answer your question, then, *if I had to point to one resource that seems to face up to Baird* and the implications of his realism as written in "The Elohim Revealed" and his rejoinder to Hodge I linked earlier, *it would probably be Thornwell's critique. *That said, I myself still lean towards Baird's view and believe modifications can be made to them to avoid some of Thornwell's criticisms (some of which seem just). But the Reformed, realist view of original sin does seem to have fallen out of favor. I haven't read many try to improve on Baird, Shedd, etc.

I'm trying to make some headway towards this in a slow way. Oliver Crisp discusses Shedd in a book I'm currently reading (link). I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland, which engages Augustinian differences from, say, Maximus (and as I've been reading on Easter Orthodoxy, I realize how little engagement with them I've seen from a Reformed perspective). Lastly, the one person I have talked to about many of these issues is a SBC guy called Ken Hamrick, who used to have a website but I haven't been able to contact for a while. You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> I'll try to address this more over the weekend.


Thank you, I would appreciate it.


Knight said:


> George Hutchinson's book on "The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology" (link) is a _*great*_ book (acknowledged by everyone on all sides of this discussion) that overviews different views and discussions on original sin between ~1830-1960. This is where I learned of Baird, his work (link), and his dispute with Charles Hodge.


Thank you for the book recommendation and the link, I downloaded "The Elohim Revealed" for further reading.


Knight said:


> (similar to but distinct from that of W. G. T. Shedd; a more defensible view, in my opinion).


Do you perhaps have a link to Shedd's work? And are you saying that Shedd's view is more defensible, or Baird's?


Knight said:


> Charles Hodge responded to Baird's book with a review, and after Baird wrote a rejoinder to Hodge (i.e. the link in the earlier post), Hodge seemingly gave up further response.


I did not realize the reviewer to whom Baird was responding was Hodge himself! I had thought it was a proponent of Hodge's views. With "gave up," I assume you mean that one hears no more from him in response, but that he did not change his views.


Knight said:


> Robert Landis, link


Thanks, I got a copy here.


Knight said:


> to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist.


What do you mean by this?


Knight said:


> Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, his former views (link),


Thank you, I will be reading this as well. Are his "former views" encapsulated in "The Elohim Revealed," or are there later views of Baird available for me to read?


Knight said:


> That said, I myself still lean towards Baird's view and believe modifications can be made to them to avoid some of Thornwell's criticisms (some of which seem just).


I would be interested to discuss this with you after I have read his criticisms, perhaps on here.


Knight said:


> But the Reformed, realist view of original sin does seem to have fallen out of favor. I haven't read many try to improve on Baird, Shedd, etc.


What, in your opinion, is the reason for it falling out of favour? Now I am interested in knowing what the general view on the PB is regarding this issue.


Knight said:


> Oliver Crisp discusses Shedd in a book I'm currently reading (link).


Have you perhaps read Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views? I see Crisp provides one of the views. My church's bookshop sells this title, and I think it will help me get a more rounded view of this issue.


Knight said:


> I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland


This one?


Knight said:


> I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.


Please do let me know if you see his work is published.

EDIT: Is the work you are referring to the following he mentions in a comment on his blog?


> I have thoroughly addressed the traducianism issue from every angle, in a separate, lengthy, ongoing work (of which you have read some—I’ll send it to you for review when I’m done with it).


Thank you for your engagement, you have also pointed me to work that I can read.

Blessings


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 12, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Thank you, I would appreciate it.


PG, I thought you were going to spend this weekend watching the All Blacks defeat South Africa. I could not resist


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 12, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> PG, I thought you were going to spend this weekend watching the All Blacks defeat South Africa. I could not resist


Haha! Perhaps if I liked rugby... I know, sacrilegious for a South African!


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> Lastly, the one person I have talked to about many of these issues is a SBC guy called Ken Hamrick, who used to have a website but I haven't been able to contact for a while. You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.


Is the following quote from him something that you would like to see further developed, from a Calvinist perspective?


> If both sides could agree with the older Augustinian principle that the moral nature of all men was in Adam and participated in his sin, then their disagreement would be limited to *whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate (the race as a whole in Adam) and not personally or individually committed by men*.


EDITED to add: I see in Part 1 of Hamrick's article, one comment that states the following:


> John Cassian, in his dialog with Augustine, plainly states the Eastern concept of original sin.


You stated


> I'm reading this book on original sin by Ian McFarland, which engages Augustinian differences from, say, Maximus (and as I've been reading on Easter Orthodoxy, I realize how little engagement with them I've seen from a Reformed perspective


So I guess understanding the EO view on original sin will help my understanding. Do you have recommended reading for this as well? The book by McFarland?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 12, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> I know, sacrilegious for a South African!


That is sacrilegious for a South African  I must confess the All Blacks lost the last game to your country. My brother lived in East London for a number of years, he backslid and wore a 'Bokies cap one day. Must not distract your insightful thread though

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> You can read some of his old posts on SBC Voices, but I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he pointed me in the right direction on several of the points I mention above. I've seen something of a manuscript he's worked on, and I hope he is able to publish it at some point.


Sorry for asking so many questions, but since you have read more on the topic, you are now my go-to source for understanding it

Another interaction on that blog post led to the following comment:


> Corporate guilt of Adam’s sin is a theory based on speculation.
> It sounds good to the ear and you write very well but it isn’t in the Bible.


Do you hold to corporate guilty of Adam's sin? If so, can it be supported from the Bible?


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Replies to pgwolv:

Shedd's work: link

McFarland's work (free pdf, save yourself $100): In Adam's Fall

To answer your questions: yes, I think Baird's view is more defensible than Shedd's. The link to Baird's works I provided are nearly comprehensive, I think. His latest, relevant work in this area would be The Gratuitous Imputation of Sin (link), Baird's seeming final word on the subject of original sin and yet another response to Hodge's views. I don't think his view changed much, if at all.

But I think you read me wrong. When I said, "Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, *his* former views," I meant _*Thornwell's*_ former views_._ Hutchinson essentially claims, in his book, that Thornwell started his life by critiquing Baird and "in the end was driven to the Realistic explanation... more in the direction of Baird than of Shedd" (pgs. 62-63 of Hutchinson's book). I, on the other hand, am suggesting the opposite is the case. I think Thornwell held views that had some alignment with the Realist School but then came to criticize Baird when he saw where some of the perceived implications led. I could be wrong about this - it has been a while since I read on the subject - but pages 531-534 in one of the links I mentioned do, if I recall, make this case.

Yes, so far as I am aware, there is no indication that Hodge changed his views.

I have not read Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views. I'll take a look, thanks.

When I said, "to say nothing of who in the Reformed tradition would also count as a realist," I meant that Landis, Baird, etc. make a good case that the Reformed tradition held - until Hodge - that Adam's progeny participated in Adam's sin, on which account guilt is imputed. Landis has a whole chapter in his book in which he quotes the Reformers on this point. However, that this is true would not imply that everyone in the Reformed tradition falls into what Hutchinson calls the Realist School. That is, not everyone will explain what _participation in Adam's sin_ involves in the same way a "realist" would. Thus, your following question is pertinent: 



> What, in your opinion, is the reason for it (i.e. the realist school) falling out of favour? Now I am interested in knowing what the general view on the PB is regarding this issue.



I can't be certain, but there is a nominalist, voluntarist streak in some Reformed authors. See Calvin or Gordon Clark on ethics, for example. Or see the widespread rejection of traducianism.

Yes, Ken does allude to his manuscript when he writes in one of the comments, "I have thoroughly addressed the traducianism issue from every angle, in a separate, lengthy, ongoing work..."

You asked:



> So I guess understanding the EO view on original sin will help my understanding. Do you have recommended reading for this as well? The book by McFarland?



You can hear and read about that view from sources themselves (highly advised that you do so with caution): link, link. For excellent engagement with them, read Steve Hays' stuff on Triablogue, particularly any of his posts responding to Perry Robinson, Daniel Jones, Jay Dyer, etc. McFarland's book (linked above) covers Maximus the Confessor in chapter 4. You might have a hard time understanding the Eastern Orthodox perspective until you read this, as many EO apologists reference it (again, caution advised).

Frankly, I would not read anything by or about EO until I read Hutchinson's book. That book is one of the most dense (but awesome) ~125 pages of reading you can find. But it's up to you.



> Do you hold to corporate guilty of Adam's sin? If so, can it be supported from the Bible?



Yes - of course, your second question is the million dollar one, and Baird et al. were much more capable of defending it than I presently am.

You asked, "Is the following quote from him something that you would like to see further developed, from a Calvinist perspective?"



> If both sides could agree with the older Augustinian principle that the moral nature of all men was in Adam and participated in his sin, then their disagreement would be limited to *whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate (the race as a whole in Adam) and not personally or individually committed by men*.



You are getting into deep waters. I have corresponded with him about this. I understand his reason for holding this, for according to the realist position, Adam's progeny did not *personally* exist at the time of Adam's sin. Some have misunderstood the realist school as thinking that, whereas the realist would actually argue that the mode of existence of Adam's progeny at the time of Adam's sin was not as *persons*. See, for example, Baird's reference to Odo of Tournay (an 11th century bishop) in "The Elohim Revealed," emphases mine:



> "Sin is spoken of in two modes - as natural and personal (_naturale et personale_). That is natural with which we are born, which we derive from Adam, in whom we all sinned. For in him was my soul - *generically, and not personally *(specie non persona); *not individually, but in the common nature.* For the common nature of all human souls was, in Adam, involved in sin. And* therefore every human is criminal, as to its nature; although not so personally.* Thus the sin which we sinned in Adam, to me indeed is a sin of nature, but in him a personal sin. In Adam it is more criminal, in me less so; for in him, it was not I who now am, but that which I am (_non qui_ _sum sed quad sum_), that I sinned. There sinned in him, not I, but this which is I (_non ego, sed hoc; quad sum ego_). I sinned as (generically) man, and not as Odo (_Peccavi homo non Odo_). My substance sinned, but not my person (_Peccavi substantia non persona_); and *since the substance does not exist otherwise than in a person, the sin of my substance (peccatum substantiae) attaches to my person, although not a personal sin.* For a person sin is such as - not that which I am - but I who now am, commit - in which Odo, and not humanity (_Odo non homo_), sins - in which I a person, and not a nature, sin. But inasmuch as there is no person without a nature, the sin of a person is also the sin of *a* nature, although it is not a sin of nature (_peccatum personae est etiam naturae, sed non naturale_)."



Thus, I see why Ken would say what he did. But as to whether I would like to see the bold quote you highlight further developed - particularly the statement as to "*whether or not God personally condemns individuals for a sin that was only corporate" *- I would need to think about that more. I have corresponded with Ken about this and pushed back against this. I'll only convey a few of my thoughts in the below quote from one of my email. While much could be missed without the larger context of what else we had been discussing (which presuppose a realist theory of imputation), I do think this might answer why I would not necessarily wish to see the strict sense of his quoted statement further developed:



> *My current thought is that we are indeed “personally” guilty. *The mode of existence at the time of “our” participation was indeed different than “our” mode of existence is now, true...
> 
> If we’re saying that human nature is the soul, and that this soul was numerically one “in” Adam (since it is not itself absolutely identical to Adam), then at least in terms of the human race, if no one had propagated from Adam, only Adam would be punished (leaving aside Eve for the sake of simplicity). Adam’s mode of existence was indeed as a person, and hence *I can see why one might argue that the punishment [of his] person is just, whereas our mode of existence was not [yet] as persons…
> 
> But this argument, I think, is open to being responded to as follows:* his sin was due to or stemmed from [the exercise of] his nature [which he propagates to us, his progeny]. The person of Adam was penalized in virtue of the fact he exercised his natural powers – his will – towards sinful ends. Likewise, a change in our mode of being does not change that in virtue of which we participated in Adam’s sin (in a different mode of being, our being now as being of the very nature that sinned). In both Adam and us (in our current mode of being), the ground of the imputation of sin to us is the same as to Adam: the [shared] agency in rebellion to God’s precept by our nature or natural powers. *If the person Adam was condemned just because of the exercise of his natural powers, and if his nature is the same as ours such that we really participated, the ground of our condemnation now that our mode of being is that of persons is the same as that of Adam. The change in mode of existence such that the nature has been individualized or personalized in us requires us being condemned on the same grounds as Adam was.*



When I responded in this way, Ken responded amicably that this might be possible, and we followed up with light discussion along these lines. Perhaps he was just being nice. He is not Reformed, but as we have been corresponding about issues that neither of us have seen many others write about, we tend to keep the talks friendly.


----------



## pgwolv (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> To answer your questions: yes, I think Baird's view is more defensible than Shedd's.
> 
> I can't be certain, but there is a nominalist, voluntarist streak in some Reformed authors. See Calvin or Gordon Clark on ethics, for example. Or see the widespread rejection of traducianism.


Thanks for all the links and feedback.

Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Thanks for all the links and feedback.
> 
> Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.



Biology pertains to the material world. A consistent traducianism pertains to the spirit of man, not the material of man. One easy way to understand this is that it is not as though we are accounted guilty because of biological material that has been passed down through Adam. We are not like gnostics, who thought the material world is evil.

Rather, it is Adam's spirit was propagated out of him, the same spirit by which the first sin occurred, on account of which we participated in said sin, and on account of which we are imputed guilty of said sin. Biology is irrelevant to this issue.

EDIT: I will add that I am skeptical about the extent to which "biology" (i.e. biologists) are able to "show" (i.e. prove) anything to be the case. I hold that scientific conclusions are always tentative and open to revision. So even if it were the case that this issue did relate to biology, I would have no problem simply going by what God's word says on the matter. I hold to a revelational epistemology along the lines of Gordon Clark (with modifications).


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

pgwolv said:


> Thanks for all the links and feedback.
> 
> Regarding realism and traducianism: what do you make of the critique that modern biology teaches us that a person is not contained in "seed form" in their male ancestors? The Biblical writers believed that the male contained the seed, literally a tiny version of the full person, which was implanted in the womb. Biology shows that this is not literally the case, so it seems contrary to these views. Perhaps I will get a better answer in understanding Baird's view more fully.


Biology cannot explain the origin of the soul, which is immediately created by God.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
Eccl. 12:7


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Biology cannot explain the origin of the soul, which is immediately created by God.
> "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
> Eccl. 12:7


That verse no more proves that the soul is _immediately _created than James 1:17 proves that every good gift is given _immediately_ by God.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> That verse no more proves that the soul is _immediately _created than James 1:17 proves that every good gift is given _immediately_ by God.


The verse clearly posits a natural origin for the body as to its material cause, and a supernatural one for the soul. What other distinction is being made?


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The verse clearly posits a natural origin for the body as to its material cause, and a supernatural one for the soul. What other distinction is being made?



As Gordon Clark points out:



> Berkhof then argues for Creationism, first on an exegetical basis. _Ecclesiastes_ 12:7, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it,” indicates “different origins” for soul and body. This is not surprising: _Genesis_ 2:7 says so. But *neither verse specifies the* *mode of propagation*. God immediately formed earth into a body for Adam; does that mean that God immediately does the same for every individual? How _Isaiah_ 42:5 fits into Berkhof’s theory is difficult to say.



You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> As Gordon Clark points out:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.


As it concerns the individual, where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist. I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> As Gordon Clark points out:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating the "origin" of the soul with the "mode of propagation." Traducianism has to do with the latter, not the former.


Polanus defends the creation of the soul on p. 2081, if you wish to consider one of the fuller treatments of the matter in the reformed tradition.


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> As it concerns the individual, *where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist.* I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.



You can't be serious. Traducianism and immediate creationism are contraries precisely on the matter of human propagation and the soul:



> In Christian theology, traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings. That is, human propagation is of the whole being, both material and immaterial aspects: an individual's soul is derived from the soul of one or both parents. This implies that *only the soul of Adam was created directly by God* (with Eve's substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam), _*in contrast with the idea of creationism of the soul*_*, which holds that all souls are created directly by God.*


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> You can't be serious. Traducianism and immediate creationism are contraries precisely on the matter of human propagation and the soul:


You misunderstood what I said.


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> You misunderstood what I said.


I'm sorry, then. Can you explain in different words your original point?


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Was the only point of post 41 that *Adam's* soul was immediately created?


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> As it concerns the individual, where he received his soul from and how it is propagated are identical, for both the traducian and the creationist. I am not conflating; rather, you are making an improper distinction.


I am saying that, for the traducian, the soul has its proximate origin with the parents, and its mode of propagation through them. Thus, their is an identity between proximate origin and mode. For the creationist, both are from God. Thus, against, there is an identity.
Eccl. 12:7 is saying that, for the individual man, his soul is from God, and it will return to God. His body is from matter, and it will decompose into matter. At the level of the individual, everything returns to where he received it from upon his death and the dissolution of his body. That is the analogy. It does not say that his soul will return to his parents, but to God.


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> *I am saying that, for the traducian, the soul has its proximate origin with the parents, and its mode of propagation through them. Thus, their is an identity between proximate origin and mode.* For the creationist, both are from God. Thus, against, there is an identity.
> Eccl. 12:7 is saying that, for the individual man, his soul is from God, and it will return to God. His body is from matter, and it will decompose into matter. At the level of the individual, everything returns to where he received it from upon his death and the dissolution of his body. That is the analogy. It does not say that his soul will return to his parents, but to God.



Okay. So for starters, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I already pointed out that the traducian affirms that only _Adam's_ soul was immediately created by God. Again, according to traducianism, this is not the case for his progeny. So like I said, you have conflated the origin of the soul (God) with its mode of propagation.

To see this more clearly, to apply what you are saying to Adam: "I am saying that, for the traducian, *[Adam's]* soul has its proximate origin with the parents..." Wrong. For the traducian, Adam's soul was *immediately* *created* by God. Therefore, for the traducian, the origin of the/Adam's soul is clearly *not* the same as its mode of propagation to Adam's progeny. 

Now, regarding Ecclesiastes, what I said before still holds true. Proximately, while we receive our souls from our fathers, *ultimately, since there is not an infinite regress of fathers, our souls trace back to the immediate creation of Adam's soul by God*. So it is entirely intelligible, on traducianism, to affirm that the soul returns to its _*ultimate*_ creator: God. 

Finally, reread Clark's _reductio_ in the form of a parallelism: "*God immediately formed earth into a body for Adam; does that mean that God immediately does the same for every individual?*" You did not respond to this. If the soul's return to God is meant to suggest an _*immediate* _creation of the soul, would not the bodies return to dust suggest its _*immediate*_ creation from the dust? But this is absurd.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> Okay. So for starters, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I already pointed out that the traducian affirms that only _Adam's_ soul was immediately created by God. Again, according to traducianism, this is not the case for his progeny. So like I said, you have conflated the origin of the soul (God) with its mode of propagation.


Except I was not at any point referring to Adam's soul. It's not a valid refutation to apply my words to a completely different context that I was not referring to and show that they are not plausible there. Any refutation must deal with the original sense and scope of one's words.
I'm not interesting in debating this any more here though, because it's not actually particularly relevant to the thread, which is on Rom. 5:12.


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Except I was not at any point referring to Adam's soul. It's not a valid refutation to apply my words to a completely different context that I was not referring to and show that they are not plausible there. Any refutation must deal with the original sense and scope of one's words.
> I'm not interesting in debating this any more here though, because it's not actually particularly relevant to the thread, which is on Rom. 5:12.



It is your choice to not respond further. I will only repeat that it is relevant to the traducian position that the origin of Adam's soul is *not* the same as the mode of the soul's propagation to his progeny which, at face value, a literal reading of your words imply. If you agree with my statement and only disagree that your words imply such, feel free to consider the matter closed.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 12, 2022)

Knight said:


> It is your choice to not respond further. I will only repeat that it is relevant to the traducian position that the origin of Adam's soul is *not* the same as the mode of the soul's propagation to his progeny which, at face value, a literal reading of your words imply. If you agree with my statement and only disagree that your words imply such, feel free to consider the matter closed.


It's not what my words imply, because I distinguished the _proximate origin _of the soul for traducians, and for a man alive today, from a traducian perspective, his soul has the impartation of a soul to Adam as its _remote origin/cause, _not _proximate._


----------



## Knight (Aug 12, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> It's not what my words imply, because I distinguished the _proximate origin _of the soul for traducians, and *for a man alive today*, from a traducian perspective, his soul has the impartation of a soul to Adam as its _remote origin/cause, _not _proximate._


Which is fine, now that you have clarified yourself. My main point is that Ecclesiastes 12:7 has nothing to do with whether traducianism or immediate creationism is true. If that was never something you intended to suggest and I have been talking past you, then my bad and I have no other comment.


----------

