# Condemned SOLELY for IMPUTED sin; or can ACTUAL sin condemn as well?



## JTB.SDG (Mar 9, 2017)

All,

This is loosely connected with Covenant Theology so I posted it here. I've got some thoughts on this but wanted to glean from the wisdom of other brothers as well, and especially if any of the older writers addressed this question.

First, some background: Romans 5 is the most important passage relating to the doctrine of IMPUTED sin, which is to be differentiated from both IMPARTED sin (our corrupt nature) as well as ACTUAL sins. From what I understand, it is the unquestioned heritage of reformed theologians, based primarily on Romans 5 (especially verse 12, tied in with vv18-19), that we (the human race) are not only condemned on account of Adam's imputed sin--but indeed, condemned SOLELY on account of Adam's imputed sin. Hodge deals with this extensively, and Bavinck and Vos, to mention a few, also echo the same truths. Part of the logic is that according to Rom.5:18, we are justified in Christ in the same way that we were condemned in Adam: namely, through imputation. Something that's been very important for Reformed theologians in the past is this correlation and its implications: if we are condemned because of our actual sins (Pelagianism), then we are justified because of our actual righteousness (heresy). So too, we can't say we're condemned on account of our inherent corruption, because the corollary truth would be that we're justified on account of our inherent/inward righteousness (also heresy). So, Reformed scholars have always, to my knowledge, been very careful with their wording, to say that we are condemned, actually, SOLELY, on account of the imputed sin of Adam, completely apart from any inward corruption or actual sins; because it fits the analogy: if we're condemned in Adam solely because of his imputed sin, then we're justified in Christ solely because of his imputed righteousness. Thanks for hanging with me...

So, the question: what to do with verses such as Romans 2:5-6, which tells us that the unrepentant are storing up for themselves wrath, for God will render to each one according to his deeds? Or in the gospels, where Jesus speaks of "greater condemnation"? IF we are condemned BOTH because of Adam's imputed sin AND because of our own actual sins, the parallel becomes that we are justified BOTH because of Christ's imputed righteousness AND because of our own actual righteousness. Which is obviously not true. OR, IF we say: Well, we can add to our condemnation in Adam by our actual sins, THEN the corollary truth is that we can also add to our justification by our actual righteousness. Not good. 

The Two Questions: #1) Am I on base in my assessment of the Reformed view on this subject? #2) If so, how to deal with those kinds of Scriptures? Any thoughts? Thanks!


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 9, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> we (the human race) are not only condemned on account of Adam's imputed sin--but indeed, condemned SOLELY on account of Adam's imputed sin.



Hi Jon,

I only take exception to your word "SOLELY"

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Before Paul discusses imputation, he sais we were all sinners. That fact has little to nothing to do with the imputed sin and guilt of Adam. He is talking about actual sins of which all who come to Christ are painfully aware.

This is Hodge on verse 8

VERSE 8. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ‘Commendeth,’ συνίστησι, proves, or renders conspicuous; see 3:5. What renders the love of God so peculiarly conspicuous, is his sending his Son to die, not for the good, nor even for the righteous, but for sinners, for those who were deserving of wrath instead of love. The word sinners expresses the idea of moral turpitude, and consequent exposure to the divine displeasure. It was for, or in the place of those who were at once corrupt, and the enemies of God, that Christ died.


Hodge, C. (1882). A commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New Edition, p. 215). Grand Rapids, MI: Louis Kregel.​
Here is Paul again in I Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Nothing here about imputed sin. We have plenty actual sins to condemn us.

BTW - I looked at Hodge and find nothing that teaches we are condemned without consideration of our actual sins. One can easily get from Hodge on Romans 5 that if we had no personal sins we would indeed be condemned by the imputed sin of Adam.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

How did Adam break a command? With is eyes open, on purpose. But that is not necessary because all, even infants, are subject to death. Death which is a penalty for sin. If not your sin then Adams? This is Hodge’s and I think Paul’s reasoning.

Funny, I was planning on using Romans 2:5-7 to answer you but you beat me to it.

I suggest re reading Hodge in more detail.


----------



## Cymro (Mar 9, 2017)

I hesitated to respond as there greater theological minds on the board, but your post was looking so lonely that I tentatively send my thoughts about your question. Could it be that Adam's fall as a public figure and representative, that his original sin and offence is of such criminal magnitude as to be the source of the myriad forms of sin that now plague mankind. So that his transgression was the viper that spawned every sin common to man. A single sin, containing all latent sins which entered the world, even into those who did not sin after the similitude of his transgression. By his sin being imputed to us there was also the inclusiveness of it breeding multiple transgressions and corruption, which also is bound up in the awful condemnation upon sinners. So that actual sins that we commit are part and parcel of the imputation.
Likewise, Christ's righteousness charged to our account, not only is the basis for our justification and sanctification ( Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption), but is the seed that produces our progress in sanctification and good works. So that we are predestinated and ordained thereto, conforming us into his image. Though we are deserving of the first Adam's condemnation, we are undeserving of the last Adam,s righteousness. 
It is an interesting question and I would welcome further enlightenment on it. Ah I see Ed has contributed so it is not so lonely!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2017)

People quite readily accept imputation, and often, when considering other forms of representation. They often accept it, even if they conceal private reservations.

Consider the case of a nation-state going to war. A man or a congress takes the nation to war. It is his, or the collection of representative's, decision. And just like that, those who confess to be members of the nation are at war. They don't have to know anything at all about the situation that engendered the conflict; they don't have to be personally harmed (to their knowledge) by the cause of the war. So, unless they repudiate the connection with their government or head-of-state, they as the body are summoned to war.

If the leaders and the army lose the war, what of the population? They did not repudiate the connection when it seemed they might win. They went on with their lives quite in isolation from the big decisions and noise of battle. Did _they _lose? Do _they _bear consequences of their connection to the leaders and the army? For a lot of minds analyzing the situation, the answer seems clear: yes, they bear the cost of losing; just as much as they would have been happy to enjoy the benefits of winning.

Christians--who frequently have no problems whatsoever accepting the imputation of Christ's righteousness on their behalf, who understand that their acceptance with God is 100% on the basis of their union with Christ as their Head--still balk, still hesitate to affirm their solidarity with the guilt of Adam, their first head. They are perfectly fine with "socialized" benefits, but they hate the idea of "socialized" condemnation. How natural.

What is truly perverse are those efforts at privatizing benefits, while at the same time socializing penalties. Big shots do that all the time. And, just as contrary to the perversion is the wonderful good Christ did in the opposite direction for our sake. He privatized our penalty unto himself; and socialized all his benefits to us, his people.

Our actual sins are the fruit of our corruption. They are not _separate _from the source, Original Sin. But it is correct to reason--as our forbears have--that these particulars are not the ground of condemnation. The condemnation is the condition in which we are born: condemned already. We don't get _more condemned _because of our actual sins. But, those actual sins "store up" the strokes (Lk.12:47) due as penalty for such evil deeds.

Original sin consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature. The actual transgressions proceeding from this nature are the fruit of this nature (see WSC 18). These _prove _our guilt and _desert _of condemnation; just as our post-justification good works, done imperfectly (hence without merit) but sincerely and in the Spirt, serve as proof of the divine work of inward renovation.

Paul can speak of the due reward of a man's work, 1Cor.3:8,14; 1Tim.5:18, or John of a "full reward" 2Jn.1:8. And in those comments one finds room for degrees of divine acknowledgement. But there is nothing to the words concerning acceptance with God, or the lack thereof.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## KeithW (Mar 9, 2017)

Here are some thoughts about _original sin_ by various councils and confessions.

*529 AD - Council of Orange (Early Christian Church)*
"... it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was 'changed for the worse' through the offense of Adam's sin..."

"...also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race..."​
*1530 - Augsburg Confession (Lutheran Church)*
"...since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, ...and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again..."​
*1537 - The Smalcald Articles (Lutheran Church)*
"... sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin."

"This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures..."​
*1618 - The Canons of Dordt (Reformed Church)*
"Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God's just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants – except for Christ alone – not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature."

"Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin;..."

"... original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race..."

"... unregenerate man is... totally dead in his sins... [and is] deprived of all capacity for spiritual good..."​
*1618 - Belgic Confession (Reformed Church)*
"... by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race."

"It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race,..."​
*1644 - First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)*
"... first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death,..."​
*1646 - The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church)*
"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit."

"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."

"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."

"Every sin, both original and actual,... bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death..."​
*1689 - Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)*
"Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

"... and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death,..."​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 9, 2017)

In Romans 5 Paul is not speaking about _man's actual sin_ after Adam. Paul is not saying we become sinners by sinning. Rather, we sin because we are sinners from birth. *For if every person contracts his own guilt by becoming a sinner by sinning, then one wonders why Paul in Romans 5 bothers to form a comparison between Adam and Christ*. After all, if the claim is that we contract our own guilt by sinning, then the same logic must lead one to claim that we contract our own righteousness by being righteous! Paul is certainly not teaching such a terrible Pelagian scheme.

Rather, in Romans 5 the symmetry of Paul's comparison between fallen Adam's innate corruption and Our Lord's innate righteousness, and the respective imputations of our sin upon Christ and Christ's righteousness upon man, is inescapable. Given what Paul has actually written, comparing Adam and Our Lord, it follows that our innate and hereditary depravity and our Lord's innate and hereditary righteousness, imputed to us, is what is being referred to in Romans 5.


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> The Two Questions: #1) Am I on base in my assessment of the Reformed view on this subject? #2) If so, how to deal with those kinds of Scriptures? Any thoughts? Thanks!



1) I take it that Hodge et al meant that Adam's sin is the "judicial ground" of condemnation, not that the final sentence of condemnation will exclude the personal state and act of sin. That "judicial ground" is part of a constitution in which the posterity of Adam are united to him by covenant appointment, and the covenant appointment includes "ordinary generation" as the uniting factor. So there are what may be called "real factors" which are tied in with the "judicial ground" of condemnation.

2) Romans 2 might be seen as providing the moral order of creation on which the administration of the covenant of works proceeded. Men are created as moral agents under divine government, and this government required personal righteousness as a condition of personal reward. This moral foundation is seen to be at work even in those who do not have the law of Moses, so it must be natural with men.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 9, 2017)

Guys,

Thanks for the replies so far. Would welcome any others. Thanks especially Bruce, for these words: "Our actual sins are the fruit of our corruption. They are not _separate _from the source, Original Sin. But it is correct to reason--as our forbears have--that these particulars are not the ground of condemnation. The condemnation is the condition in which we are born: condemned already. We don't get _more condemned _because of our actual sins. But, those actual sins "store up" the strokes (Lk.12:47) due as penalty for such evil deeds." So, actual sins don't make us more condemned.

Here are my thoughts, what do you guys think: We have to say that imputed sin is SOLE GROUND of our condemnation in Adam, because of the parallel with imputed righteousness in Christ. We are justified SOLELY on the BASIS of Christ's righteousness, imputed to us; thus, it must be true that we are condemned SOLELY on the BASIS of Adam's sin, imputed to us. But what then to do with Scriptures, like Romans 2:5-6, that seem to say we will be judged by degrees according to our works? Here are my tentative thoughts--tentative especially because I don't think I've read this explicitly from any of the older writers. I think some have alluded to this kind of thinking, but I want to tread very carefully here. 

So a possible way to see these things: All men are CONDEMNED solely on account of Adam's sin—but the specific degree of PUNISHMENT that men experience varies based on actual sins they commit (their deeds). Robert Haldane seems to allude to this when he says of Romans 2:5-6, “there will be a diversity of punishment, according to the number or greatness of the sins of each individual, not only as to the nature, but also the degree, of their works, good or bad; for the punishment of all will not be equal” _(Romans,_ p83). This understanding lines up well with the corollary truth in justification. Are there rewards in glory? Yes, rewards of grace. Are there degrees of glory? We would say yes—everyone's cup will be full but the size of the cup will differ—whether a shot-glass, a big-gulp, a barrel, a swimming pool, an ocean—the size will differ. Just as it's Adam's sin alone that CONDEMNS us, but there are degrees of PUNISHMENT hereafter (cf. Jesus' words in Matt.11:22; Lk.10:14), which are based on the way we live our life; so too it's Christ's righteousness alone that JUSTIFIES us, but there are degrees of GLORY and rewards of grace hereafter, which are based on the way we live our life. So then, our ACTUAL, personal sins don't ADD to our CONDEMNATION—we're already condemned—but they DO ADD to the DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT we'll experience in the next life. So it is with rewards of grace: Our actual, personal, deeds wrought in love, by the Spirit, for the glory of God in no way add to our justification; but they DO add to the degree and weight of glory we'll experience hereafter. What do you guys think?


----------



## earl40 (Mar 10, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Guys,
> 
> Thanks for the replies so far. Would welcome any others. Thanks especially Bruce, for these words: "Our actual sins are the fruit of our corruption. They are not _separate _from the source, Original Sin. But it is correct to reason--as our forbears have--that these particulars are not the ground of condemnation. The condemnation is the condition in which we are born: condemned already. We don't get _more condemned _because of our actual sins. But, those actual sins "store up" the strokes (Lk.12:47) due as penalty for such evil deeds." So, actual sins don't make us more condemned.
> 
> ...



As usual Rev. Buchanan has summed up how we are to think about the grounds of our justification, or condemnation. When I read Romans 2 I presupposes that it is speaking of the "they" in Romans 1. In saying this I realize the "they", in Romans 1, can apply to myself IF I do not have faith in Jesus. So in a sense it is speaking to me if I do not have faith, or can be used as a warning if I teeter on doing what is spoken of in Romans 2.


----------



## KeithW (Mar 10, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Here are some thoughts about <I>original sin</I> by various councils and confessions.


Two of the councils I quoted dealt with Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. These councils re-established that man is born corrupt, with inability toward God. Stop and think about that. Man is born with a problem more than simply His legal standing before God.



JTB.SDG said:


> Here are my thoughts, what do you guys think: We have to say that imputed sin is SOLE GROUND of our condemnation in Adam, because of the parallel with imputed righteousness in Christ.


This starts with the assumption that what Adam and Jesus did are exactly parallel. When I first learned about federal headship I spent a lot of time thinking through the ramifications of the federal headship of Adam -- the imputed sin of Adam, the application of Adam's legal guilt to our record. I realized this idea did not address the corruption of the sin nature inherited from Adam.

Take another look at the councils and confessions in post #5 and consider them without using the lens of _imputed_ sin and consider what they say.


----------



## MW (Mar 10, 2017)

KeithW said:


> Take another look at the councils and confessions in post #5 and consider them without using the lens of _imputed_ sin and consider what they say.



If you remove imputation you are left with no judicial sentence to explain why original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity. The Bible teaches, "in Adam all die," 1 Corinthians 15:22. Death is a judicial sentence; it is not a natural occurrence. If it were not for the purpose of grace Adam and Eve would have died the day they disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit, and that would have been the end of that.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 11, 2017)

Just for some clarification,

Keith: I'm not denying inherent corruption. I'm just saying that historically, Reformed theologians have made very specific distinctions on how to understand the relationship between imputed sin and inherent corruption. These distinctions were not as clear-cut in the writings of the first reformers, because there were more foundational issues to deal with, but they came to be outlined in Reformed thought later (IE, with the Westminster Confession, Puritans).

Aside from Pelagianism (which denied both imputed sin and inherent corruption), there are two main views on how it is that imputed sin fits together with inherent corruption: Mediate and Immediate Imputation. Immediate is the view that is accepted by the vast majority of reformed churches; mediate imputation was the view created by Amyraut, Cappel and La Place at Saumur (mid 1600's), and it is rejected by the great majority of reformed churches. The two views go like this:

Mediate View: Adam sinned --> Adam's nature corrupted --> we inherit this corrupt nature --> we are thus punished.

Immediate View: Adam sinned --> Adam's sin reckoned to us --> we are punished with Adam --> we are thus corrupted.

Immediate Imputation never denied inherent corruption, just further clarified its rightful place in the scheme of things; namely, inherent corruption is not the BASIS of our condemnation; rather, it is the PROOF that we've been condemned with Adam because of his sin. Adam sinned, and he died spiritually as a punishment for his sin. So too, Adam sinned, and WE died spiritually (IE, inherent corruption) as a punishment for his sin. So, inherent corruption was imparted to us BECAUSE Adam's guilt was imputed to us. Inherent corruption is the PROOF we've been punished with Adam; and our actual sins are the FRUIT. This is the historical Reformed position, as I understand it.

My question has to do, not with these things per se, but again, 1) if indeed the historical reformed position is that we are condemned SOLELY because of Adam's sin (rather than, say, PARTLY); and 2) if so, how to understand what Scriptures such as Romans 2:5-6 say in light of these things. 

So, any thoughts on these things? Thanks guys.

JB


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2017)

Are those guilty ones in prison liable to commit crimes and do other evil while under the essential judgment of whatever cost them their freedom? Happens all the time. They can't become "more locked up;" they already are locked up. But their behavior can be judged in their persons as meet.

You can take a passage like Rom.2:5-6 in that sense quite easily. All sins are committed by someone; SIN is punished in persons. Those sins of themselves are blameworthy, and have a just recompense. But there's a deeper issue than these "fruits" which we see. And yet, the fruits are just what we might point to in order to demonstrate the justice of the condemnation.

You also owe Paul (or another writer) the consideration of the intent of the passage. So, Rom.2 is an address to sinners of different kinds. Rom.1 especially condemns the wanton person, the Gentile-by-nature. The first half of Rom.2 condemns the Gentile-moralist; the latter end the Jewish legalist. Everyone ends up caught in the net. vv5-6 are part of an argument meant to convict the moralistic (not necessarily religious) figure of his own guilt.

Paul is saying, "You know you're guilty. Look at you! Look at what you still do, all your moralism notwithstanding. What makes you a condemned man at base, condemns you even if you never got any of that evil out in the open (say, you perished as a child). You sin _because _you are a sinner, and are condemned. And with every evil thing you do, the wrath laid up for you just heats up another degree."

Condemnation should be distinguished from wrath and punishment. The judge condemns, by judging guilty. The punishment is laid on in the sentence. I'm not sure if I can state matters more plainly for you. Rev.Winzer has said the same thing.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 11, 2017)

This may be of help in terms of degrees. Edwards on God's Wrath and Sin.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KeithW (Mar 11, 2017)

MW said:


> If you remove imputation you are left with no judicial sentence to explain why original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity.


More will be explained in my response to Jon.


----------



## KeithW (Mar 11, 2017)

Jon, my previous response was in relation to the original question asked.

"Condemned SOLELY for IMPUTED sin; or can ACTUAL sin condemn as well?"​
The question leaves out the possibility that men can be condemned because of the corruption of original sin. More below.

In response to saying that inherant depravity is dependent on imputed sin, consider these thoughts by B. B. Warfield on the history of the idea of imputation in Christian doctrine.

"Later Pelagianizers found this out; and it became not uncommon (especially after Duns Scotus' strong assertion of the doctrine of "immediate imputation") for the imputation of Adam's sin to be exploited precisely in the interest of denial or weakening of the idea of the derivation of inherent corruption from Adam."​
"The Protestants, who, as convinced Augustinians, were free from the Pelagianizing bias of Rome, were naturally even more strenuous in asserting the evil and guilt of native depravity. *Accordingly they constantly remark that men's native guilt in the sight of God rests not merely upon the imputation to them of Adam's first sin, but also upon the corruption which they derive from him*..."​
"*What was important was to make it clear that native depravity was along with it the ground of our guilt before God*."​
"Imputation by B. B. Warfield"
https://www.monergism.com/imputation-b-b-warfield

In Warfield's view, it is not a matter that imputed sin and inherant corruption are an either-or for the grounds of our condemnation. It is also not a matter that one is dependent on the other, but that both run in parallel to each other as means of our condemnation. This is what can be seen when reading the counsels and confessions.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## MW (Mar 12, 2017)

KeithW said:


> More will be explained in my response to Jon.



Nothing is really explained by that post. Warfield's Encyclopedia article is descriptive, as one would expect in that context, but it does not give the reason why corruption of nature is conveyed. One either holds that it was natural or judicial. There is no question that the corruption of nature is a condition of guilt, but this does not tell us anything in relation to its cause. The real question is, What is the reason that corruption of nature is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity? And the only real answer is that it is the just judgment of God against the sin of our first parents.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

