Romans 5:12-21

DIFFERENT THEORIES OF ORIGINAL SIN AND IMPUTATION.

Excursus on Romans 5:12.

(Comp. Lange, Romans, pp. 191-195; where will be found the fuller statements of Dr. Schaff, here presented in an abridged form.)

The universal dominion of sin and death over the human race is a fact, clearly taught by the Apostle here, and daily confirmed by our religious experience. This dominion extends in an unbroken line to our first parents, as the transgression of Adam stands in a causal relation to the guilt and sin of his posterity. The Apostle assumes this connection, in order to illustrate the blessed truth, that the power and principle of righteousness and life so back to Jesus Christ, the second Adam. However explained, the existence of sin remains a stubborn, terrible reality. Least of all can it be explained by the denial of the parallel, yet contrasted, saving facts which are prominent in the Apostle's mind throughout this section. The leading points which he asserts, and which therefore must enter into any consistent theory respecting his view of original sin, are: (1.) That the sin of Adam was the sin of all his posterity (see Romans 5:12); in what sense this is true, must be determined by the passage as a whole. (2.) That there is a parallel and contrast between the connection of Adam and his posterity, and Christ and His people (see Romans 5:14-19). (3.) That this parallel applies to the point which has been so fully discussed in the previous part of the Epistle, namely, that believers are reckoned righteous (sec Romans 5:12-18). (4.) That the connection with the two representative heads of the race has moral results; that guilt and sin, righteousness and life, are inseparably connected (see Romans 5:17-19).

The various theories may be reviewed in the light of these positions:

I. The PANTHEISTIC and NECESSITARIAN theory, which regards sin as an essential attribute (a limitation) of the finite, destroys the radical antagonism between good and evil, and has nothing in common with Paul's views of sin or grace.

II. The PELAGIAN heresy resolves the fall of Adam into a comparatively trivial childish act of disobedience, which sets a bad example. It holds that every child is born as innocent and perfect, though as fallible, as Adam when created. This view explains nothing, and virtually denies all the assertions made in this section. Its affinities, logically and historically, are with Socinianism and the multifarious forms of Rationalism. It and every other theory which denies the connection with Adam fails to meet the great question respecting the salvation of those dying in infancy. Such theories logically exclude them from the heaven of the redeemed, either by denying their need of salvation, or by rejecting the only principle in accordance with which such salvation, if they need it, is possible, namely, that of imputation.

III. The theory of a PRE-ADAMIC fall of all men, which implies the preexistence of souls, as held by Plato and Origen, is a pure speculation, and inconsistent with Romans 5:12 as well as with Genesis 3. It is incidentally opposed in chap. Romans 9:12.

IV. The AUGUSTINIAN or REALISTIC theory holds that the connection between Adam and his posterity was such, that by his individual transgression he vitiated human nature, and transmitted it in this corrupt and guilty state to his descendants by physical generation, so that there was an impersonal and unconscious participation of the whole human race in the fall of Adam. There is this difference, however: Adam's individual transgression resulted in a sinful nature; while, in the case of his descendants, the sinful nature or depraved will results in individual transgression. This view accords in the main with the grammatical exegesis of Romans 5:12, but Augustine himself incorrectly explained ‘for that,' as ‘in whom,' i.e., Adam. It accepts, but does not explain, the relation between genus and species. Like all other matters pertaining to life, it confronts us with a mystery.

1. In the application of this theory to the positions (3) and (4) named above, different views have arisen, mainly in regard to imputation, whether it is immediate (or antecedent), mediate (or consequent), or both conjoined and inseparable. That is, whether the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin preceded or followed the guilt of man's inherent and hereditary depravity. (‘ Gull ?' is here used in the technical sense of ‘liability to punishment,' not in the ethical sense of sinfulness.) This distinction was not made by Augustine and the Reformers. But examining their views in the light of subsequent discussions, we may say that both kinds of imputation were recognized by them; some laying stress upon one side, some on the other, but not to the exclusion of either. It was only in later times that the two were sharply defined, in order to divide them.

2. Mediate (or consequent) imputation makes inherent depravity derived from Adam, and this alone, the ground of condemnation. This view, however, as a matter of history, passes rapidly into a denial of any imputation.

3. Immediate (or antecedent) imputation, as opposed to mediate imputation, makes the sin of Adam, as the sin of the federal head of the race, the exclusive ground of condemnation, independently of, and prior to, native depravity and personal transgressions. Hereditary guilt precedes hereditary sin. From this view the transition was easy to the next theory.

V. The FEDERAL theory of a vicarious representation of mankind by Adam, in virtue of a covenant (foedus, hence ‘federal') made with him. It supposes a (one-sided) covenant, called the covenant of works (in distinction from the covenant of grace), to the effect that Adam should stand a moral probation on behalf of all his descendants, so that his act of obedience or disobedience, with all its consequences, should be accounted theirs, just as the righteousness of the second Adam is reckoned as that of His people. This transaction, because unilateral (one-sided), finds its ultimate ground in the sovereign pleasure of God. It is a part of the theological system developed in Holland, and largely incorporated in the standards of the Westminster Assembly. Yet here, too, a distinction has been made.

1. The founders and chief advocates of the federal scheme combined with it the Augustinian view of an unconscious and impersonal participation of the whole human race in the fall of Adam, and thus made imputation to rest on ethical as well as legal grounds. The supporters of this view, which differs very slightly from IV., hold that it accords best with the four leading points of this section, since it recognizes Adam as both federal and natural head of the race. It is preferred by Professor Riddle.

2. The purely federal school holds, that by virtue of the federal headship of Adam, on the ground of a sovereign arrangement, his sin and guilt are justly, directly, and immediately imputed to his posterity. It makes the parallel between Adam and Christ exact, in the matter of the imputation of sin and of righteousness. ‘In virtue of the union between him and his descendants, his sin is the judicial ground of the condemnation of the race, precisely as the righteousness of Christ is the judicial ground of the justification of His people.' This view does not deny that Adam is the natural head of the race, but asserts that ‘over and beyond this natural relation which exists between a man and his posterity, there was a special divine constitution by which he was appointed the head and representative of his whole race' (C. Hodge, Theology, it, pp. 195, 197).

VI. In sharp antagonism to the last view, most of the recent New England theologians have virtually rejected imputation altogether. They ‘maintain that the sinfulness of the descendants of Adam results with infallible certainty (though not with necessity) from his transgression; the one class holding to hereditary depravity prior to sinful choice, the other class teaching that the first moral choice of all is universally sinful, yet with the power of contrary choice.' In this view a nice distinction is made between natural ability and moral inability. When consistently held, it denies that ‘all sinned' (Romans 5:12) refers to the sin of Adam, taking it as equivalent to the perfect, ‘all have sinned,' namely, personally with the first responsible act.

VII. The SEMI-PELAGIAN and kindred ARMINIAN theories, though differing from each other, agree in admitting the Adamic unity, and the disastrous effects of Adam's transgression, but regard hereditary corruption as an evil or misfortune, not properly as sin and guilt, of itself exposing us to punishment. Arminianism, however, on this point, inclines toward Augustinianism more than Semi-Pelagianism does. The latter fails to give full force to the language of the Apostle in this section, and to sympathize with his profound sense of the guilt and sinfulness of sin. The advocates of each theory fail to present explicit and uniform statements on this doctrinal point.

Those views which seem to keep most closely to the grammatical sense of the Apostle's words involve mysteries of physiology, psychology, ethics, and theology. Outside the revelation there confronts us the undeniable, stubborn, terrible fact, of the universal dominion of sin and death over the entire race, infants as well as adults. No system of philosophy explains this; outside the Christian redemption, the mystery is entirely one of darkness, unillumined by the greater mystery of love. Hence the wisdom of following as closely as possible the words which reveal the cure, as we attempt to penetrate the gloom that envelops the origin of the disease. The more so when the obvious purpose of the Apostle here is to bring into proper prominence the Person and Work of the Second Adam. Here alone can we find any practical solution of the problem respecting the first head of the race; only herein do we perceive the triumphant vindication of Divine justice and mercy. The best help to unity in the doctrine of Original Sin will be by larger experiences of the ‘much more' which is our portion in Christ Jesus. Only when we are assured of righteousness and life in Him, can we fearlessly face the fact of sin and death in Adam.