HaloScan.com - Comments

Well, I haven't read Piper or Edwards, but I have read St Augustine on Romans 5.12, where he says all men are understood to have sinned in the first man [i.e. Adam], because all men were in him when he sinned; and from him sin is derived by birth, and is not remitted save by being born again. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.7) Augustine's teaching is based on the Latin translation of Ro 5.12, which ends in quo omnes peccaverunt "in whom [i.e. in Adam] all have sinned".

But that is a mistranslation of the Greek. The Greek reads eph' ho pantes hemarton "upon which all have sinned," where the relative pronoun ho refers back to the nearest masculine noun, which is thanatos "death". There's no reason to think it refers to "one man" all the way at the beginning of the sentence. So a clearer translation would say "death passed through to all men, and on account of death all have sinned." This is consistent with how Hebrews characterizes our condition, as those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Hb 2.15). It's also consistent with your characterization of original sin as a radical change in human nature [i.e. being mortal rather than immortal] resulting from the fall, rather than a debit on our moral balance-sheet because of Adam's sin.

How does it happen that the ultra-Reformed Dr Heddle sides with the Greeks against the Augustinian notion of "Original Guilt"?
Christopher Jones | Homepage | 05.12.04 - 11:56 am | #

I'm not an expert at all of this, so I will refrain from commenting too much, and instead enjoy following the discussion.
However, let me just point out one way to understand the federal headship of Adam and his probation, even though I'm not sure it is right.

Consider that God put Adam in the garden with the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, as a demonstration. By the fall, God demonstrated that if even he picked the most perfect example of humanity (other than a god/man), namely Adam, that even still, man would fall into sin. How much the worse for the rest of us?!

So perhaps by saying we sinned in Adam, we mean that even if we were in Adam's place, we too (or even more easily) would have sinned. Certainly, it is just of God to pick the only originally sinless one to be our representative... in this way, it is just that we are imputed with Adam's sinfulness.
The Immovable Object | 05.12.04 - 2:44 pm | #

Heya David! I think I understand your position a bit clearer now, but I'm still not certain that it is the traditional Augustinian/Calvinistic position.

For example, this article seems to suggestion the imputation of sin is an "as if" kind of imputation.

Looking forward to everyones thoughts on this. I think Josh is too busy arguing against taxation to worry about the federal headship of Adam at the moment...
Craig (Oz) | Homepage | 05.12.04 - 7:11 pm | #

Damn, forget the link. It was to a Modern Reformation article by SM Baugh. But a relevant quote from it -

We have seen that Adam in Romans 5:12-21 was the federal representative of his race under the covenant of works. Some theologians reject this understanding of Paul's teaching outright, because it "violates all sense of justice."20 But if we are to use our "sense of justice" as an ultimate criterion for judging the truths of Scripture, then shouldn't we deny all covenant imputation as well? If sin cannot be imputed from one to many, conversely it cannot be imputed from many to one. Under this method, how can we maintain that "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree" "the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; cf. Isa. 53)? Shouldn't this violate our sense of justice, too? And if our sins were not imputed to Christ, neither can his righteousness become ours (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21). Then we would all be cut off from Christ and personally obligated (as was Adam), to keep all of God's holy law ourselves (Gal. 5:2-3 again).
Craig (Oz) | Homepage | 05.12.04 - 7:16 pm | #

Christopher,

The Romans translation cannot be decided upon grammar alone, because there is more than one possible antecedent. Relative pronouns can refer to an antecedent near or far - and anyway, the relative clause can come before or after the antecedent.

Not only is the antecedent in question, but the very phrase you quote can be, among other things, conditional.
John | Homepage | 05.14.04 - 3:41 pm | #

"Adam's sin corrupted his posterity horribly."

I don't know about posterity, but my sin of gluttony has corrupted my posterior horribly.
Jeffrey L. Whitledge | Homepage | 05.18.04 - 10:50 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan