# Imputation of Adam's Sin vs Sinning With Adam



## Michael (Dec 14, 2009)

I've been reading more Edersheim lately (great stuff btw) and it caught my interest that he is of the view that we actually "sinned _with_ Adam". The Confession articulates our guilt as clearly imputed as descendants. This is also my personal understanding of both Gen 3 and Rom 5. I especially have a difficult time reconciling the parallel with Christ's imputation if Edersheim is correct. But surely this has been dealt with before...

Would someone please elaborate for me the historical nature of this discussion? And what, if any, are the theological ramifications on both sides of the fence?

Many thanks in advance...


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> I've been reading more Edersheim lately (great stuff btw) and it caught my interest that he is of the view that we actually "sinned _with_ Adam". The Confession articulates our guilt as clearly imputed as descendants. This is also my personal understanding of both Gen 3 and Rom 5. I especially have a difficult time reconciling the parallel with Christ's imputation if Edersheim is correct. But surely this has been dealt with before...
> 
> Would someone please elaborate for me the historical nature of this discussion? And what, if any, are the theological ramifications on both sides of the fence?
> 
> Many thanks in advance...



We are doubly sinners; by imputation and transmission.

“because all have sinned” *εφ ω παντες ημαρτον* (aorist active indicative)

Sin entered into the world, etc. “Observe the order which he keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring, from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked. Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the Pelagians endeavored to elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin descended by imitation from Adam to the whole human race; for Christ would in this case become only the exemplar and not the cause of righteousness. Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to.”-Calvin


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with the way Edersheim articulates it. The WLC in question and answer 22 says much the same: 



> Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?
> A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.



We all sinned in him and fell with him. That sin is TRULY ours. WE sinned it - WE willed it - WE did it. Adam was not a 'private person' as the early Reformed covenant theologians wrote, but a 'public person' - his actions were and are our actions. This is a CORE belief of covenantal theology.

The good news - the gospel - is that Christ's righteousness is ALSO truly ours. 

Both are ours - truly, really and actually - our possession.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

I am all for being charitable towards Edersheim. And perhaps this is not an either/or scenario. But I wouldn't imagine imputation or transmission to delete sinning "in Adam" in the slightest. Maybe the question should be narrowed:
_
Were we, as individual beings, present and active with Adam when he sinned? _ I don't mean symbolically, collectively as a race, or in the general sense of posterity, but was there an actual individual presence and personal agenda?

This is how Edersheim comes across at first glance. That may or may not be his theology but it is how it appears.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 15, 2009)

Is there a seminal aspect as well as an imputation-federal aspect? Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek by virtue of the fact that he was in Abraham's loins at the time.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> I am all for being charitable towards Edersheim. And perhaps this is not an either/or scenario. But I wouldn't imagine imputation or transmission to delete sinning "in Adam" in the slightest. Maybe the question should be narrowed:
> _
> Were we, as individual beings, present and active with Adam when he sinned? _ I don't mean symbolically, collectively as a race, or in the general sense of posterity, but was there an actual individual presence and personal agenda?
> 
> This is how Edersheim comes across at first glance. That may or may not be his theology but it is how it appears.



We personally sinned with Adam. This is what it means to be connected to Adam and in covenant with him. 

Of course there can be no "personal agenda" since when Adam sinned we were not personally, volitionally there to act on our own personal agenda - but I can't see how you get that kind of an implication from what Edersheim says (at least what I've read of him). 

Where, also, do you get the phrase "sinned with Adam" in Edersheim. I have all four of his best known works electronically and cannot find that combination of words anywhere.

T


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Todd, I'm glad you brought that up. I'm dealing with my notes here and have misquoted. Looking back, I see it comes from Edersheim's phrase, "through which all mankind were involved in his sin and fall" (Bible History- Old Testamet: Vol 1, Ch 1). I took this to mean that we actually presently sinned with him. A stretch perhaps, but still well within the realm of the OP.

He does speak in a more general terms here than I originally noticed. However, he is still very clear that we were _involved_ in Adam's sin. What is the nature of this involvement? Does this include an actual present, individual involvement or a general one by sense of posterity, followed by individual imputation? 

I understand that Adam's sin is truly ours, as is Christ's righteousness. My question is based upon the exact nature of our relationship to the original sin and subsequent atonement. Are they really mirror images of each other or do they simply share the same verbage? I've always been comfortable and familiar with the confessional statement on imputation. Yet does this imply more than I have assumed? Does it imply a personal, individual, space/time accountability in our presence at the moment of each?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 15, 2009)

*Quote from Michael*


> I understand that Adam's sin is truly ours, as is Christ's righteousness. My question is based upon the exact nature of our relationship to the original sin and subsequent atonement. Are they really mirror images of each other or do they simply share the same verbage? I've always been comfortable and familiar with the confessional statement on imputation. Yet does this imply more than I have assumed? Does it imply a personal, individual, space/time accountability in our presence at the moment of each?



Yes, Todd. We can pick your brain on this. 

Isn't it the case that we sinned with Adam in one sense, and yet did not sin with him in another sense; that we lived and died with Christ in one sense, and yet we didn't in another?

What are the senses, or am I wrong on this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 15, 2009)

I recommend this book: Amazon.com: The Imputation of Adam's Sin (9780875523415): John Murray: Books

It is relatively brief and lays out the prevailing views very well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> Todd, I'm glad you brought that up. I'm dealing with my notes here and have misquoted. Looking back, I see it comes from Edersheim's phrase, "through which all mankind were involved in his sin and fall" (Bible History- Old Testamet: Vol 1, Ch 1). I took this to mean that we actually presently sinned with him. A stretch perhaps, but still well within the realm of the OP.
> 
> He does speak in a more general terms here than I originally noticed. However, he is still very clear that we were _involved_ in Adam's sin. What is the nature of this involvement? Does this include an actual present, individual involvement or a general one by sense of posterity, followed by individual imputation?
> 
> I understand that Adam's sin is truly ours, as is Christ's righteousness. My question is based upon the exact nature of our relationship to the original sin and subsequent atonement. Are they really mirror images of each other or do they simply share the same verbage? I've always been comfortable and familiar with the confessional statement on imputation. Yet does this imply more than I have assumed? Does it imply a personal, individual, space/time accountability in our presence at the moment of each?



The nature of involvement is imputation. The sin and guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity. This is based upon the fact that there is a comparison of the guilt of Adam's Sin with the righteousness we have in Christ.

All are constituted sinners by Adam's act of disobedience. It's not that they share in his substance and that their individual being is a subdivision of Adam's substance so that we sinned with Adam because we have "a bit of Adam" in each of us. In a simple way of understanding it, when God creates a soul, the guilt and sin of Adam is imputed to the person. Imputation goes along with a Creationist view of the soul.

Also, the imputation of Adam's Sin is immediate. That is to say, that God imputes the sin and guilt of Adam's sin to every soul created. He doesn't wait until we commit sin and then impute the guilt of sin upon us after we sin but we are born in sin and bear the guilt of Adam's sin.

This is certainly never going to be viewed as "fair" by anyone but when I first studied this I realized that people don't accept Christ's imputation for righteousness any more than they accept the fact that God has imputed the sin and guilt of Adam's sin to all his posterity.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 15, 2009)

Presumably one of the very hypothetical alternatives to federal probation would have been individual probation by each child as it is born, with the reward of original righteousness being confirmed by obedience?

No doubt each individual would have found this a "fair" system given by God, until they sinned.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> I am all for being charitable towards Edersheim. And perhaps this is not an either/or scenario. But I wouldn't imagine imputation or transmission to delete sinning "in Adam" in the slightest. Maybe the question should be narrowed:
> _
> Were we, as individual beings, present and active with Adam when he sinned? _ I don't mean symbolically, collectively as a race, or in the general sense of posterity, but was there an actual individual presence and personal agenda?
> 
> This is how Edersheim comes across at first glance. That may or may not be his theology but it is how it appears.



Michael:

The difference is between the 'Realist' view and 'Federal view.' Edersheim is the former.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Rich, I think I'm right there with you. Let me just take it to the next notch....

Is the imputation, on our part, passive or active?

The notion that we are sinless until we actually sin after birth is thoroughly unbiblical. That's a given. Yes, the imputation is immediate. But what part do we actually, *initially* play in it outside of _simply existing_ "in Adam" or "in Christ"?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> Todd, I'm glad you brought that up. I'm dealing with my notes here and have misquoted. Looking back, I see it comes from Edersheim's phrase, "through which all mankind were involved in his sin and fall" (Bible History- Old Testamet: Vol 1, Ch 1). I took this to mean that we actually presently sinned with him. A stretch perhaps, but still well within the realm of the OP.




Edersheim, though, is saying exactly what WLC 22 says about Adam's sin, though, as I noted before: 



> Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?
> A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.





Michael Turner said:


> He does speak in a more general terms here than I originally noticed. However, he is still very clear that we were _involved_ in Adam's sin. What is the nature of this involvement?
> Does this include an actual present, individual involvement or a general one by sense of posterity, followed by individual imputation?



We all sinned in him. That means each and every individual has a personal connection to that sin, and it is our possession, our sin, our doing. I am really guilty of that sin. It's mine. That's what imputation means. Christ's righteousness, likewise is ALSO mine, by a similar act of imputation. I am really righteous, constituted as such (to use John Murray's language) by God's will. 

I'm not sure we need to go into it any further than that, in part because Scripture doesn't go any further than that. Speculation on this point, I don't think, is helpful.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> Rich, I think I'm right there with you. Let me just take it to the next notch....
> 
> Is the imputation, on our part, passive or active?
> 
> The notion that we are sinless until we actually sin after birth is thoroughly unbiblical. That's a given. Yes, the imputation is immediate. But what part do we actually, *initially* play in it outside of _simply existing_ "in Adam" or "in Christ"?



We play NO part, ever, in either. Imputation is an act by God, not by us, not having anything whatsoever to do with us. I'm not sure what you mean by what part do we actually, *initially* play...


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Todd, thank you for your patient explanations. It's difficult for me because I'm in seemingly in agreement, yet seeking clarification and having some trouble with the wordings.

I've been trying to differentiate between views of how our sin is connected to Adam and our righteousness to Christ. At points there seems to be hair-splitting, but these are crucial hairs. When I got to the point of asking about passive and active, here is what I was getting at: Adam was very much active in bringing judgment upon his own head. Christ was very much active in establishing himself as a perfect and righteous sacrifice. I would like to know if our relationships to both are indeed mirrors or, again, if the verbiage is only similar.

Let us just focus on Christ for a moment. No one here is going to stand up and say that they worked and merited his favor. Yet his righteousness is imputed upon us and we are counted righteous *in him*. It [justification] is a passive relationship _even though we truly own his righteousness_.

Now back to Adam. Do we say essentially the same thing [about the initial condemnation]? Is his guilt and sin imputed upon us as Christ's righteousness is? Or do we actually somehow do more in this regard? 

I'm not wrestling with those who view our fall in Adam to be effectual once we ourselves start sinning. We are born in sin. We are born with Adam's guilt. 

I hope this clarifies my question at least a little. My apologies for any inadequacies on my part to articulate it properly.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Going back to Edersheim for a minute. Again his quote: "through which all mankind were involved in his sin and fall".

I'm assuming that an equivalent of this statement could be plugged for Christ. Something like this: "through which all the elect were involved in justification".

However, again, if we say 'involved' do we mean the same thing in both cases?

An interesting twist: Though born guilty and sinful in Adam, we live our lives committing an avalanche of further sins. Are these sins of Adam, or only original sin? We would say no, they belong to ourselves. However, that is not exactly the case with Christ and imputed righteousness. We are counted just in him and all subsequent goodness is still attributed to God and God alone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael,

Time this week is limited with a full work schedule and 3 take home exams.

I think a lot of your questions are answered by Murray's work.

In short, the _guilt_ and _corruption_ of Adam's first Sin are imputed to his posterity without the person ever having acted. A child is born in Sin. Guilt implies that the person is culpable for Sin and stands under wrath and, as Paul notes, all die. Corruption implies that a person is born a Sinner. A person is conceived in Sin. He is at enmity with God and all actual sin flows out of this corruption that is imputed. 

Both the guilt and corruption of each individual created are immediate as opposed to mediate views that see guilt and corruption as resulting from a first act of volitional sin on the part of the person.

The symmetry of Adam and Christ in Romans 5 forms much of the reasoning here. If we believe that a person is not actually guilty and corrupt until they sin then it would correspond to a view of Christ's righteousness that would require some mediate action on the part of the person responding to the Gospel. There is a lengthy discussion of this in Murray's book and he handles it much better than I can.

He also deals well with the Realist view that sees the person in a sense participating in Adam's Sin at the Fall in a way that places the person's substance there. One way of seeing this is that Adam has a substance this is subdivided to all his posterity and we are all a "bit of Adam" and were "there" when He fell. Again, I find this inadequate as a way to express Christ's federal work as our redeemer. We didn't participate in His obedience or death or resurrection by being of His substance but all are by way of imputation and vital union.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Thanks Rich. I look forward to reading Murray's work.

And thank you as well, Todd. Again, feel a sense of agreement here but have been digging for further clarity. The only thing you posted that I am still toggling over is:



toddpedlar said:


> WE sinned it - WE willed it - WE did it.
> 
> ...This is a CORE belief of covenantal theology.



I'm not trying to take you out of context. I get the rest, just sorting this part out.

What is wrong with: Adam sinned. Adam willed it. Adam did it. Adam was the head of mankind. His sin was conveyed to his posterity and we receive it through imputation and are thereby born guilty and sinful before God.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Just found this helpful essay. 

Sproul: Adam's Fall and Mine

I do believe I have a Federal View of the Fall. Apparently I just didn't know it...  I'll take this as a lesson on how to articulate things better.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 15, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> Just found this helpful essay.
> 
> Sproul: Adam's Fall and Mine
> 
> I do believe I have a Federal View of the Fall. Apparently I just didn't know it...  I'll take this as a lesson on how to articulate things better.



Michael: perhaps you missed my earlier post. Do a study between the Realist View and Federal View.


----------



## Michael (Dec 15, 2009)

Amazing Grace said:


> Michael: perhaps you missed my earlier post. Do a study between the Realist View and Federal View.


Yep. Don't know how but I completely missed it. 

I've got a feeling I'll be reading up on this for a while. Thanks for the input!


----------

