History 101- Augustines heresy of original sin, original guilt

[civic]

The early church never taught this doctrine it came through Augustine.

Augustine taught that babies inherit Adam’s guilt even before they sin—but this was based on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12. So does that mean we aren’t born sinful?

The doctrine of original sin was promulgated by Augustine (AD 354–430), who taught that we inherit guilt from Adam via our parents.

He didn’t just say that we were born with a sinful urge (which everyone agrees with), but that we are already sinners when we are born before we have had a chance to sin by ourselves because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.

It is easy to confuse the doctrine of original sin with that of original sinfulness—that is, the teaching that all humans are born with the inclination and natural propensity to sin, so that all humans are sinners because of they all sin.

Therefore, in order to save confusion, I’m going to refer to Augustine’s doctrine as the doctrine of “original guilt.”


ADAM’S SIN

Part of Augustine’s reasoning depended on the rather idea that Adam’s sin is transferred during sexual intercourse! This was the only way he could explain why Jesus didn’t inherit Adam’s guilt.

Augustine regarded sex as inherently sinful, perhaps because of his rather misspent youth—a time during which he uttered his famous prayer, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”

However, the five million babies conceived by in vitro fertilization during the last three decades have proved him wrong in that detail. They sin just like those conceived in the traditional way! So was Augustine also wrong about the rest of the doctrine of original guilt?

He developed this doctrine in order to combat heresy.

• Pelagius, a theologian whom Augustine was combatting, believed that humans could be sinless because Jesus referred to Abel as “righteous” (Matt 23:35), which implied he’d been killed before committing any sin.
• Augustine countered that Abel might not have sinned personally, but he was still guilty because even newborn babies have guilt. To prove this he quoted Romans 5:12 from his Latin translation of the New Testament:

“Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, in whom all sinned.”

Augustine interpreted the rather odd phrase “in whom all sinned” to mean “in Adam all sinned,” so that literally when Adam sinned, every human born from him shared that guilt.

FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED – IN AS MUCH ALL MEN HAVE SINNED

But is Augustine’s proof based on a faulty translation from the original Greek into Latin? The Greek verse has eph hō (“because,” Latin quia or ‘for that all sinned’), but if this was changed just a little to en hō it could be understood as “in whom” (Latin in quo).
No Greek manuscripts say en hō, so it looks as if the Latin translator read it wrongly. The meaning of this verse (as found in all translations made from the Greek) is actually “death came to all people, because all sinned.” That is, humans don’t inherit guilt from Adam, but all humans personally sin, and thereby become guilty.

Before we glibly discard Augustine’s doctrine of original guilt, though, we’d better consider what we would be losing. We may need some concept of original guilt in order to explain Jesus’ uniqueness and why he had to die for all.

After all, if we are born without any inherited guilt, it might be remotely possible for some people to get through life without sinning—which would mean Jesus didn’t need to die for them.

However, I can’t see that this is possible. We know how soon the propensity to sin reveals itself, and I can’t believe that anyone would get even to toddler stage without having done something wrong.

On the other hand, the advantage of rejecting the doctrine is that we don’t have to worry that innocent babies go to hell.

If people aren’t born guilty, God will judge us for our actual sins and not merely for being born human. We must not underestimate the seriousness of sin. Sin is refusing to do what God wants.

The actions themselves may have huge consequences for other people, but perhaps the greatest consequence comes from the fact that we have disobeyed God.

Animals exhibit similar tendencies to the human traits of greed, lust, cruelty, and deceit, and we can often see those faults even in our pets! Animal studies have found tribal warfare among chimps, along with rape, killing, and even eating of enemies.

and or Original Guilt?​

Augustine taught that babies inherit Adam’s guilt even before they sin—but this was based on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12. So does that mean we aren’t born sinful?

The doctrine of original sin was promulgated by Augustine (AD 354–430), who taught that we inherit guilt from Adam via our parents.

He didn’t just say that we were born with a sinful urge (which everyone agrees with), but that we are already sinners when we are born before we have had a chance to sin by ourselves because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.
It is easy to confuse the doctrine of original sin with that of original sinfulness—that is, the teaching that all humans are born with the inclination and natural propensity to sin, so that all humans are sinners because of they all sin.
Therefore, in order to save confusion, I’m going to refer to Augustine’s doctrine as the doctrine of “original guilt.”


No Greek manuscripts say en hō, so it looks as if the Latin translator read it wrongly. The meaning of this verse (as found in all translations made from the Greek) is actually “death came to all people, because all sinned.” That is, humans don’t inherit guilt from Adam, but all humans personally sin, and thereby become guilty.
Before we glibly discard Augustine’s doctrine of original guilt, though, we’d better consider what we would be losing. We may need some concept of original guilt in order to explain Jesus’ uniqueness and why he had to die for all.
After all, if we are born without any inherited guilt, it might be remotely possible for some people to get through life without sinning—which would mean Jesus didn’t need to die for them.
However, I can’t see that this is possible. We know how soon the propensity to sin reveals itself, and I can’t believe that anyone would get even to toddler stage without having done something wrong.
On the other hand, the advantage of rejecting the doctrine is that we don’t have to worry that innocent babies go to hell.
If people aren’t born guilty, God will judge us for our actual sins and not merely for being born human. We must not underestimate the seriousness of sin. Sin is refusing to do what God wants.
The actions themselves may have huge consequences for other people, but perhaps the greatest consequence comes from the fact that we have disobeyed God.

Animals exhibit similar tendencies to the human traits of greed, lust, cruelty, and deceit, and we can often see those faults even in our pets! Animal studies have found tribal warfare among chimps, along with rape, killing, and even eating of enemies.

Sadly, one study of motherhood among dolphins came to an abrupt halt when an aunt stole a baby dolphin and thwarted all attempts to reunite it with its true mother. But the fact that these behaviours are similar to human sins does not mean that they are sins.

As James 4:17 puts it, “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”

These acts by animals aren’t sins because they have no knowledge of what they should or shouldn’t do. Our animal instincts became sins when God called Adam to a higher lifestyle.

God gave us a conscience, which increasingly guides us as we mature so that even without God’s written law humans have a knowledge of right and wrong. This law tells us to live differently from animals: we should not mate with whoever happens to be available; we should not snatch food or other things that belong to others and we should not kill those who challenge us.

So when we do sin, it is a personal effrontery to God, who has asked us not to follow these animal instincts. Psalm 51 shows that David realized he had offended God when he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband killed (2 Sam 11:2–14).

These crimes had victims, from whom David needed to ask forgiveness, but David knew he also needed to ask God to forgive him. God had treated David as special—he had given him the Holy Spirit to help him resist temptation (Ps 51:11). David knew that without the Holy Spirit he would follow the evil inclinations he’d felt from birth (v. 5), so he asked God to cleanse him again and create a new heart in him (vv. 7–10).

In the New Testament, David’s special treatment became normal for all Christians. The Holy Spirit creates a new heart in everyone who repents, and Paul said that the Spirit gives Christians the ability to conquer sin (Rom 8:3–6). Yet most of us are gross underachievers in this regard.

Perhaps the doctrine of original guilt removes some of our motivation to conquer sin because being born with guilt makes us feel it isn’t worth trying to overcome it. We regard ourselves as hopeless sinners, so there’s little point in trying to be different. We feel that God is displeased with us anyway, and because his judgment is dealt with by his Son, we don’t worry too much.

Perhaps we would respond differently if, instead of concentrating on God’s judgment, we concentrate instead on his love for us. This may make us more aware of his disappointment when we fail to live up to the wonderful new human nature he has given us in Jesus. Perhaps we would be heartbroken (as God is) when we fall back into our old nature and be motivated to try harder. Personally, I’m coming to the conclusion that the doctrine of original guilt has perverted our view of God, and removing it may make a huge difference to the way we live! Instone-Brewer, D. (2020). Church Doctrine & the Bible: Theology in Ancient Context (pp. 99–103). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

It’s good to read books you might not agree with. Sometimes they help strengthen your current view. Other times they change your view altogether. In either case, they give you something to think about—they put a stone in your shoe.

I recently read through The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal by Adam Harwood. And it’s got me thinking.

The thesis of Harwood’s book directly relates to an important question: What happens to infants when they die? Describing his project, he says, “For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature.”

So, Harwood’s book challenges the notion that infants are guilty before God.

Infants and Guilt​

Harwood makes a distinction between inheriting a sinful nature from Adam and inheriting guilt from Adam. He believes only the former is taught in Scripture.

Harwood agrees that everyone has a sinful nature—including infants (Ps. 51:5). This is different from Pelagianism, which holds that people are born without sin. Pelagius argued that people were not born with an inherited sin nature, and, therefore, could avoid committing sin. Harwood contends that inherited sin makes it impossible not to sin.

Those who believe in inherited guilt usually cite Romans 5 as a key text. Harwood devotes a chapter to how he understands Romans 5:12–21.

For the purpose of this synopsis, let’s look briefly at Romans 5:18–19. Paul writes, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

Many take this passage to mean that Adam’s guilt is immediately inherited to all men—including infants. However, others disagree. For instance, in How Shall They Be Saved? systematic theologian Millard Erickson says, “Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin, just as there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness until there is a conscious acceptance of that work.”

In both cases, Erickson argues, human ratification is necessary. Indeed, this is part of the parallel between the work of Adam and the work of Christ. Harwood states, “Just as it is necessary for humans to ratify the work of Christ by appropriating the salvation offered by Christ, it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.”

Infants and Death​

If Harwood is correct, and there is no inherited guilt, then why do infants die? It’s a great question. For Harwood, infant death is not a judgment for an infant’s guilt; rather, it’s a consequence of Adam’s sin.

There seems to be a biblical principle that people are not held guilty for the sin of another person—even though they may suffer certain consequences from another person’s actions.

Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). God is communicating how justice is supposed to work.

Working from this justice principle, Harwood says,

So a person is not held responsible for the sins of another person, but only for his own transgressions. That means that a person would not be held guilty for the sin of Adam in the same way that he is not held guilty for the sin of his parents or grandparents. Are there consequences of the sins of others that can affect us? Yes. But that is not the same thing as being counted guilty of sin solely because of the actions of another person.

Furthermore, Harwood makes a distinction between those who are able to make moral judgments and those who cannot. He cites Deuteronomy 1:39–40, which states,

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.

Harwood says,

Although not held guilty for the sins of their fathers, the younger generation nevertheless experienced some of the negative consequences or wages of sin. They wandered in the desert, unable to inherit the Promised Land until the last person of the older generation died. In a similar way, infants today are not held responsible for the actions of previous generations, up to and including Adam.

According to Harwood, one of those negative consequences—or wages—of Adam’s sin is death.

Infants and Judgment​

What makes an infant guilty before God? The Bible describes our guilt before God in terms of sinful actions, attitudes, and thoughts. Paul says, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6) and that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, people are accountable to God for their deeds. The book of Revelation says that each will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13).

Salvation is based on God’s grace. Judgment is based on our works. But what works does an infant commit that render him guilty before God?

This seems like a silly question. After all, an infant hasn’t done any sinful actions. As a result, some believe infants are judged according to their sinful nature.

According to Harwood, the Bible never says human beings are judged according to their sinful nature. A sinful nature is not the same as a sinful thought, or sinful actions, or a sinful attitude. The nature leads to actions, thoughts, and attitudes, but it is not identical to them.

Harwood contends that only sinful actions, thoughts, and attitudes make someone guilty. For example, the propensity to murder is not the same as the desire to murder or the act of murder.

Infants and Inclusivism​

Most pastors and theologians believe that some infants—possibly all infants—go to Heaven. As justification for this view, some have cited 2 Samuel 12:23, which seems to indicate that David would go to be with his son (presumably in Heaven).

The question is, how do these infants get to Heaven given that they are not capable of putting their faith in Christ?

There seems to be two options. Either faith in Christ is not necessary for infants because they can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, or faith is not necessary for infants because they are not guilty.

The first option entails some variation of inclusivism. Inclusivism is the belief that Christ’s death is necessary for salvation, but explicit faith in Christ is not necessary. However, the Bible clearly teaches faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The apostle Paul states, “f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16)

So, salvation requires faith. But biblical faith is trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which requires certain cognitive and moral faculties. Since one-week-old babies lack all the faculties necessary to put their trust in Christ, one must adopt inclusivism (or accept the view that all guilty infants go to Hell).

If you reject inclusivism (as unbiblical), Harwood’s thesis provides another option. He writes,

The argument of this book allows you to maintain both an exclusivist view and a consistent doctrine of salvation. God forgives guilty sinners who explicitly call upon him for salvation. God’s condemnation does not come only to people for hearing of and rejecting Christ. Rather, people are condemned when they act out of their inherited, sinful nature after they become responsible moral agents. The result is that an infant who dies apart from hearing the gospel is safe because he was never under God’s condemnation. However the man who has never heard the gospel remains lost because he met the two conditions above for condemnation.”

If you’re interested in the question of infant salvation, you will want to read Harwood’s book. You may not agree with it, but it is guaranteed to put a stone in your shoe. https://www.str.org/w/adam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

The Prince of Preachers below SPURGEON

Spurgeon--No man perishes through Adam’s sin only...​

In a sermon entitled “Good News for the Lost” and based upon Luke 19:10—”For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”—and preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on Lord’s Day morning, March 9, 1873, Spurgeon denies natural depravity alone sends anyone to hell.1
Below is the relevant section:

Let us consider how men are lost. We know first that they are lost by nature. However much men may rebel against the doctrine, it is a truth of inspiration that we are lost even when we are born, and that the word “lost” has to do, not only with those who have gone into sin grossly and wickedly, but even with all mankind.
Did you ever notice the other place where this text occurs? It is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew and the eleventh verse, and it occurs there in a very significant relationship. Let me read you the words. Christ is speaking about little children, and he says, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” The Lord had placed a little child in the midst of the disciples, and had declared that they must be converted and become as little children, and yet he uttered these words in that connection.
From that passage it is clear that, by nature, little children are lost, and they owe their salvation to the Lord Jesus, when God is pleased to carry them to heaven in infancy. Jesus is come to seek and to save those who are lost by nature; and it is most certain that no man now perishes through Adam’s sin only, and no man is cast into hell because of natural depravity alone; his own personal sin and unbelief cast him there.2

1I am very much aware Spurgeon is more than a complex theologian and at times, at least for me, profoundly baffling. One may search his sermons and abundantly discover many places appearing where his explicit allegiance to what many reference as the "Federal Representative View" when speaking of Adam's progeny's relationship to Adam's sin. However, it seems Spurgeon's "Federal" understanding was not of the same brand as Covenant theologians either then or now. In short, whatever "guilt" infants inherited from Adam in "natural depravity" remained an insufficent factor so far as sending the infant to hell.
2C. H. Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Vol. XIX (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1873), 134; the paragraph is broken apart for better readibility, italics added

hope this helps !!!

 

[TomL]

It’s good to read books you might not agree with. Sometimes they help strengthen your current view. Other times they change your view altogether. In either case, they give you something to think about—they put a stone in your shoe.

I recently read through The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal by Adam Harwood. And it’s got me thinking.

The thesis of Harwood’s book directly relates to an important question: What happens to infants when they die? Describing his project, he says, “For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature.”

So, Harwood’s book challenges the notion that infants are guilty before God.

Infants and Guilt​

Harwood makes a distinction between inheriting a sinful nature from Adam and inheriting guilt from Adam. He believes only the former is taught in Scripture.

Harwood agrees that everyone has a sinful nature—including infants (Ps. 51:5). This is different from Pelagianism, which holds that people are born without sin. Pelagius argued that people were not born with an inherited sin nature, and, therefore, could avoid committing sin. Harwood contends that inherited sin makes it impossible not to sin.

Those who believe in inherited guilt usually cite Romans 5 as a key text. Harwood devotes a chapter to how he understands Romans 5:12–21.

For the purpose of this synopsis, let’s look briefly at Romans 5:18–19. Paul writes, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

Many take this passage to mean that Adam’s guilt is immediately inherited to all men—including infants. However, others disagree. For instance, in How Shall They Be Saved? systematic theologian Millard Erickson says, “Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin, just as there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness until there is a conscious acceptance of that work.”

In both cases, Erickson argues, human ratification is necessary. Indeed, this is part of the parallel between the work of Adam and the work of Christ. Harwood states, “Just as it is necessary for humans to ratify the work of Christ by appropriating the salvation offered by Christ, it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.”

Infants and Death​

If Harwood is correct, and there is no inherited guilt, then why do infants die? It’s a great question. For Harwood, infant death is not a judgment for an infant’s guilt; rather, it’s a consequence of Adam’s sin.

There seems to be a biblical principle that people are not held guilty for the sin of another person—even though they may suffer certain consequences from another person’s actions.

Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). God is communicating how justice is supposed to work.

Working from this justice principle, Harwood says,


Furthermore, Harwood makes a distinction between those who are able to make moral judgments and those who cannot. He cites Deuteronomy 1:39–40, which states,


Harwood says,


According to Harwood, one of those negative consequences—or wages—of Adam’s sin is death.

Infants and Judgment​

What makes an infant guilty before God? The Bible describes our guilt before God in terms of sinful actions, attitudes, and thoughts. Paul says, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6) and that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, people are accountable to God for their deeds. The book of Revelation says that each will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13).

Salvation is based on God’s grace. Judgment is based on our works. But what works does an infant commit that render him guilty before God?

This seems like a silly question. After all, an infant hasn’t done any sinful actions. As a result, some believe infants are judged according to their sinful nature.

According to Harwood, the Bible never says human beings are judged according to their sinful nature. A sinful nature is not the same as a sinful thought, or sinful actions, or a sinful attitude. The nature leads to actions, thoughts, and attitudes, but it is not identical to them.

Harwood contends that only sinful actions, thoughts, and attitudes make someone guilty. For example, the propensity to murder is not the same as the desire to murder or the act of murder.

Infants and Inclusivism​

Most pastors and theologians believe that some infants—possibly all infants—go to Heaven. As justification for this view, some have cited 2 Samuel 12:23, which seems to indicate that David would go to be with his son (presumably in Heaven).

The question is, how do these infants get to Heaven given that they are not capable of putting their faith in Christ?

There seems to be two options. Either faith in Christ is not necessary for infants because they can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, or faith is not necessary for infants because they are not guilty.

The first option entails some variation of inclusivism. Inclusivism is the belief that Christ’s death is necessary for salvation, but explicit faith in Christ is not necessary. However, the Bible clearly teaches faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The apostle Paul states, “f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16)

So, salvation requires faith. But biblical faith is trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which requires certain cognitive and moral faculties. Since one-week-old babies lack all the faculties necessary to put their trust in Christ, one must adopt inclusivism (or accept the view that all guilty infants go to Hell).

If you reject inclusivism (as unbiblical), Harwood’s thesis provides another option. He writes,


If you’re interested in the question of infant salvation, you will want to read Harwood’s book. You may not agree with it, but it is guaranteed to put a stone in your shoe. https://www.str.org/w/adam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt

hope this helps !!!

Dr Adam Harwood discusses various views concerning the imputation of Adan's sin


Chapter 13: Original Sin: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Analysis > Part III: The Doctrine of Humanity Page 281
4. Conditional Imputation

Varieties of Inherited Guilt Page 369
Varieties include realism, mediate imputation, federalism, and conditional imputation.

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Conditional Imputation

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Conditional imputation is the view that all people are corrupt and ratify the guilt of Adam when they knowingly commit their first sinful act.

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Millard Erickson (b. 1932) advocates this view in his writings.

Conditional Imputation Page 373
Erickson affirms a conditional imputation of Adam’s guilt with “no condemnation until one reaches the age of moral responsibility.”

Key Terms > Chapter 13: Original Sin: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Analysis Page 384
• conditional imputation


Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 281–384.


Conditional imputation is the view that all people are corrupt and ratify the guilt of Adam when they knowingly commit their first sinful act. Millard Erickson (b. 1932) advocates this view in his writings. According to Erickson, all of humanity (excluding Jesus Christ) participated in the sin and guilt of Adam in the garden. But, he explains, the Lord excludes from condemnation “infants and those who never reach moral competency.” Erickson points to classic biblical texts for support. First, Jesus held up infants and children as examples of people who would inherit the kingdom (Matt 19:14). Second, David declared that he would one day see his deceased infant (2 Sam 12:23). Erickson writes that people are “not morally responsible before a certain point, which we sometimes call ‘the age of accountability.’ ”
Erickson begins his defense of the age of accountability with Deuteronomy 1:39, a text that explains that the Israelite children were not held responsible for the sinful actions of the older generations. Isaiah 7:15–16 and Jonah 4:11 also refer to this period when people do not yet know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Erickson then notes the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5. Just as one must personally ratify the obedient act of Christ on the cross in order to be saved, one must personally ratify the disobedient work of Adam in the garden in order to be condemned. Erickson affirms a conditional imputation of Adam’s guilt with “no condemnation until one reaches the age of moral responsibility.” At that point, when we become aware of our “tendency toward sin” and then make a decision to commit a sinful action due to our sinful nature, then our “childish innocence” ends. He explains, “We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corruption.”63 At that point, we ratify the work of Adam in our own lives, and the guilt of Adam is imputed to us.


INHERITED CONSEQUENCES

Inherited consequences is the view that all people inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, such as a corrupt nature, mortality, and a fallen world; however, people become guilty and fall under God’s condemnation due to their own sin alone. This was the Christian position before Augustine and has been affirmed by many throughout the history of the church. Significant historical support is provided for this view because, typically, it is not represented as a viable option in most works of systematic theology. These examples of the inherited consequences view also provide a critique of the varieties of the inherited guilt view.


The Early Church

Historical theologians are generally agreed that the concept of original sin as people inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin was virtually unknown in the entire Christian tradition until the later writings of Augustine. Instead, the early church—in both the East and the West—affirmed views consistent with inherited consequences.65 Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Mark the Hermit, Diodore of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus all rejected any concept of inherited sin and guilt. For these and other pastor-theologians, Adam’s sin resulted in a weakened will, physical death, and other noncondemnatory results. J. N. D. Kelly explains, “There is hardly a hint in the Greek fathers that mankind as a whole shares in Adam’s guilt.” The same was true of the Latin, Western church fathers. Though they viewed sin as a “corrupting force,” the guilt of Adam’s sin “attaches to Adam himself, not to us.” Many in the early church rejected Augustine’s later views of predestination and the loss of human free will, though they were subsequently labeled (many of them incorrectly) as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. Most who opposed Augustine held orthodox views, affirming the necessity of God’s grace for salvation and denying that sinners initiate their own salvation.
Tertullian (ca. 160–225) mentions that infant souls are unclean in Adam, which is consistent with the inherited consequences view if the uncleanness refers to a corrupted nature. Tertullian also questions why there is a rush to baptize infants. Those who taught inherited guilt insisted on the practice of infant baptism and wrongly assumed that water baptism cleansed the infants of Adam’s guilt. Tertullian refers to the souls of infants as “innocent,” and he differentiates between infants and children based on their capability to commit sin. In On Infants’ Early Deaths, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–394) addresses the spiritual condition of infants. He considers them to be neither good nor bad. Infants who died would be with God because their souls had never been corrupted by their own sinful actions. John Chrysostom (349–407) writes, “We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” He also commented on Romans 5:19 that a person is not a sinner due to Adam’s sin but only after an individual transgresses the law. Original sin as inherited consequences was affirmed in the early church and continues to be affirmed by many Christians today, including the Orthodox Church.


Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 372–376.

 

[Complete]

'And all things are of God,
Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God did beseech you by us:
we pray you in Christ's stead,
be ye reconciled to God.
For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'
(2 Cor. 5:19-21)

Hello @civic,

Paul's ministry, along with that of his fellow-workers was one of reconciliation, not of condemnation, wasn't it? The call was, 'Be ye reconciled to God'.

The Scripture assures us that, 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. All are born 'in Adam', and regardless of individual sins committed, we are all born with Adam's fallen nature, so we therefore all suffer the consequence of sin, which is death. It is a matter of identification, either with Adam or with Christ.

God has wonderfully intervened, and provided the means whereby the consequence of sin can be overcome, by taking the believer out of Adam, and placing Him, 'in Christ', with the outcome being life from the dead, for Christ is without sin. (1 Cor. 15:22)

God dealt with the root of sin in Christ Jesus our Lord. Praise His Holy Name!

These are just my thoughts.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

'And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,
but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven.
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:
and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy,
we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.'
(1 Cor.15:45-49)

Praise God!

 

[Complete]

'But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
.. Who of God is made unto us
.... wisdom, and righteousness,
...... and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written,
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'
(1 Cor. 1:30-31/Jeremiah 9:23)

Amen!

 

[civic]

Dr Adam Harwood discusses various views concerning the imputation of Adan's sin


Chapter 13: Original Sin: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Analysis > Part III: The Doctrine of Humanity Page 281
4. Conditional Imputation

Varieties of Inherited Guilt Page 369
Varieties include realism, mediate imputation, federalism, and conditional imputation.

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Conditional Imputation

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Conditional imputation is the view that all people are corrupt and ratify the guilt of Adam when they knowingly commit their first sinful act.

Conditional Imputation Page 372
Millard Erickson (b. 1932) advocates this view in his writings.

Conditional Imputation Page 373
Erickson affirms a conditional imputation of Adam’s guilt with “no condemnation until one reaches the age of moral responsibility.”

Key Terms > Chapter 13: Original Sin: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Analysis Page 384
• conditional imputation


Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 281–384.


Conditional imputation is the view that all people are corrupt and ratify the guilt of Adam when they knowingly commit their first sinful act. Millard Erickson (b. 1932) advocates this view in his writings. According to Erickson, all of humanity (excluding Jesus Christ) participated in the sin and guilt of Adam in the garden. But, he explains, the Lord excludes from condemnation “infants and those who never reach moral competency.” Erickson points to classic biblical texts for support. First, Jesus held up infants and children as examples of people who would inherit the kingdom (Matt 19:14). Second, David declared that he would one day see his deceased infant (2 Sam 12:23). Erickson writes that people are “not morally responsible before a certain point, which we sometimes call ‘the age of accountability.’ ”
Erickson begins his defense of the age of accountability with Deuteronomy 1:39, a text that explains that the Israelite children were not held responsible for the sinful actions of the older generations. Isaiah 7:15–16 and Jonah 4:11 also refer to this period when people do not yet know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Erickson then notes the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5. Just as one must personally ratify the obedient act of Christ on the cross in order to be saved, one must personally ratify the disobedient work of Adam in the garden in order to be condemned. Erickson affirms a conditional imputation of Adam’s guilt with “no condemnation until one reaches the age of moral responsibility.” At that point, when we become aware of our “tendency toward sin” and then make a decision to commit a sinful action due to our sinful nature, then our “childish innocence” ends. He explains, “We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corruption.”63 At that point, we ratify the work of Adam in our own lives, and the guilt of Adam is imputed to us.


INHERITED CONSEQUENCES

Inherited consequences is the view that all people inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, such as a corrupt nature, mortality, and a fallen world; however, people become guilty and fall under God’s condemnation due to their own sin alone. This was the Christian position before Augustine and has been affirmed by many throughout the history of the church. Significant historical support is provided for this view because, typically, it is not represented as a viable option in most works of systematic theology. These examples of the inherited consequences view also provide a critique of the varieties of the inherited guilt view.


The Early Church

Historical theologians are generally agreed that the concept of original sin as people inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin was virtually unknown in the entire Christian tradition until the later writings of Augustine. Instead, the early church—in both the East and the West—affirmed views consistent with inherited consequences.65 Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Mark the Hermit, Diodore of Tarsus, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus all rejected any concept of inherited sin and guilt. For these and other pastor-theologians, Adam’s sin resulted in a weakened will, physical death, and other noncondemnatory results. J. N. D. Kelly explains, “There is hardly a hint in the Greek fathers that mankind as a whole shares in Adam’s guilt.” The same was true of the Latin, Western church fathers. Though they viewed sin as a “corrupting force,” the guilt of Adam’s sin “attaches to Adam himself, not to us.” Many in the early church rejected Augustine’s later views of predestination and the loss of human free will, though they were subsequently labeled (many of them incorrectly) as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. Most who opposed Augustine held orthodox views, affirming the necessity of God’s grace for salvation and denying that sinners initiate their own salvation.
Tertullian (ca. 160–225) mentions that infant souls are unclean in Adam, which is consistent with the inherited consequences view if the uncleanness refers to a corrupted nature. Tertullian also questions why there is a rush to baptize infants. Those who taught inherited guilt insisted on the practice of infant baptism and wrongly assumed that water baptism cleansed the infants of Adam’s guilt. Tertullian refers to the souls of infants as “innocent,” and he differentiates between infants and children based on their capability to commit sin. In On Infants’ Early Deaths, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–394) addresses the spiritual condition of infants. He considers them to be neither good nor bad. Infants who died would be with God because their souls had never been corrupted by their own sinful actions. John Chrysostom (349–407) writes, “We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” He also commented on Romans 5:19 that a person is not a sinner due to Adam’s sin but only after an individual transgresses the law. Original sin as inherited consequences was affirmed in the early church and continues to be affirmed by many Christians today, including the Orthodox Church.


Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 372–376.

Thanks for sharing the history of the doctrine from hawrood

 

[civic]

'But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
.. Who of God is made unto us
.... wisdom, and righteousness,
...... and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written,
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'
(1 Cor. 1:30-31/Jeremiah 9:23)

Amen!

Amen in right !!!

 

[civic]

'And all things are of God,
Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ,
as though God did beseech you by us:
we pray you in Christ's stead,
be ye reconciled to God.
For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.'
(2 Cor. 5:19-21)

Hello @civic,

Paul's ministry, along with that of his fellow-workers was one of reconciliation, not of condemnation, wasn't it? The call was, 'Be ye reconciled to God'.

The Scripture assures us that, 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. All are born 'in Adam', and regardless of individual sins committed, we are all born with Adam's fallen nature, so we therefore all suffer the consequence of sin, which is death. It is a matter of identification, either with Adam or with Christ.

God has wonderfully intervened, and provided the means whereby the consequence of sin can be overcome, by taking the believer out of Adam, and placing Him, 'in Christ', with the outcome being life from the dead, for Christ is without sin. (1 Cor. 15:22)

God dealt with the root of sin in Christ Jesus our Lord. Praise His Holy Name!

These are just my thoughts.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

yes the curse and consequence from the fall was death

 

[TomL]

Thanks for sharing the history of the doctrine from hawrood

You are welcome

 

[Presby02]

Infants are born with a sinful urge? Chapter and verse.

What state are infants born in?

Since whatever is not of faith is sin, is a sinful urge from faith?

 

[TomL]

Infants are born with a sinful urge? Chapter and verse.

What state are infants born in?

Since whatever is not of faith is sin, is a sinful urge from faith?

Are you denying the Calvinist view?

 

[Presby02]

Are you denying the Calvinist view?

Infants are born with a sinful urge? Chapter and verse

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Is a sinful urge of faith?

My question which are being ignored

 

[TomL]

Infants are born with a sinful urge? Chapter and verse

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Is a sinful urge of faith?

My question which are being ignored

I'm not affirming it. But your Calvinistic peers are

Hello

 

[Presby02]

I'm not affirming it. But your Calvinistic peers are

Hello

Who are my Calvinistic peers?

 

[civic]

Who are my Calvinistic peers?

Calvin and Luther for starters

 

[Presby02]

Calvin and Luther for starters

I have never met them

 

[civic]

I have never met them

Ever read them ?

Have you met Jesus in person ?

 

[Presby02]

Ever read them ?

Have you met Jesus in person ?

Yup, that does not make them my peers. Define peers.