“Death through Birth and Birth through Death!”
Romans 5:12-21
October 28, 2007
Dr. Jerry Nelson
Pages 16 through 46 are additional notes and resources on the subjects of
original sin, the imputation of righteousness, the fate of the infants,
“universalism,” etc.
Many of us have
wondered at one time or another: “What do Jesus and an event 2000 years ago
have to do with me and my life today?
Here’s another and
more involved way of asking the same question:
The Bible declares
that all human beings are lacking the one thing they need to have a
relationship with a holy God - righteousness.
The very nature of a holy God, by definition, demands that all unholiness be banished from his presence - or as the Bible says it, “Without holiness, no man will see the Lord”.
The Bible further says that every person has sinned and “falls short of the glory of God” - we lack the righteousness required to be with God.
After making that
“bad news” point over and over again in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul,
finally gets to the “good news”:
Chapter 3:21 “But now a righteousness from God has been made known…this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ.”
He goes on to say
in verse 24 that we are made right with God, through what Jesus Christ did on the
cross - his death makes it possible for us to be credited with God’s
righteousness.
That is well-known
theology to many of you but it does raise that same important question:
“How can the death and resurrection of a man who
lived 2000 years ago personally affect me?”
More specifically, “How can his righteousness be credited to me?”
Please understand that your relationship with God hangs on the answer to
that question!
Look, please, in
your Bible at Romans chapter 5 beginning at v12.
In these next verses Paul is going to respond to those implied
questions.
Romans 5:12-21 “Therefore, just as sin
entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was
given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no
law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,
even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a
pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the
trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more
did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus
Christ, overflow to the many! 16
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The
judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many
trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of
the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who
receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently,
just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the
result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men. 19 For just as through
the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the
obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law
was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace
increased all the more,
21 so that, just as sin reigned in death,
so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
To describe how
Christ’s righteousness can be credited to us, Paul uses an analogy.
The analogy Paul will use is Adam’s relationship to people compared and contrasted with Christ’s relationship to people.
So how can what
Christ did 2000 years ago be relevant to me?
In Romans 5, the Bible declares that all other people stand in relationship to one of two people, either Adam or Christ.
Furthermore the actions of those two people determine the eternal
destiny of everyone who belongs to each of them.
And, as I said, everyone in the history of the world belongs either to
Adam or to Christ.
It is still true
today that what Adam did thousands of years ago determines what his people are.
And it is equally true that what Christ did two thousand years ago still determines what his people are.
·
Those who
belong to Adam are sinners under the sentence of death.
·
Those who
belong to Christ are righteous and have life.
This will be hard
work today. This is a very theologically and logically technical passage.
Not everything about the Christian faith is simple.
I think you have a right to understand some of the more complex issues of our faith as well.
So I want you to look at your Bible and see how Paul has constructed his
comments.
Notice first of all
that what he starts in verse12 he doesn’t finish right away.
Romans 5:12-13 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world
through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men,
because all sinned”
At this point we would have expected a “so also” to complement the “just
as” at the beginning of the sentence.
But instead we have verse 13: “for before the law was given, sin was in
the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Verse 13 doesn’t finish the thought of v12.
Skip with me down
to verse 18 and notice that the thought of verse 12 is repeated:
Romans 5:18 “Consequently, just as the result of one
trespass was condemnation for all men, (but this time the thought is completed) so also the result of one act
of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
And verse 19 is a
rephrasing of the same complete idea.
Here you will see Paul’s use of the analogy of Adam:
Romans 5:19 “For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man (Christ) the many will be made righteous.
We’ll come back to
these verses later, but to understand their significance, we must first
understand the analogy Paul uses.
So in verse 12 Paul starts his analogy with a simple statement of the facts:
First, sin came
into the world through one man - Adam (He is named in verse 14).
Paul is not here dealing with the ultimate origin of sin, how sin was
even possible, he is simply describing how it came into our human
existence.
“Sin came into the world through one man.”
Secondly, the text
says, “Death came through sin.”
We know from the Genesis account that Adam did sin and the penalty of death was introduced into the human experience.
That death was complete, physical corruption and death and spiritual corruption and death.
Thirdly, the passage says, “and in this way death came to all men,
“In this way,” means through Adam – through Adam, death came to all men.
Fourthly, death
came to all, “because all sinned.”
What does Paul mean
when he says, “because all sinned?”
Does Paul simply mean that we all imitate Adam by also sinning and
therefore we all likewise receive the penalty of death?
Now that is certainly true as we saw in Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and as we will see in Romans 6:23 where it says, “The wages of sin is death.”
But that is not Paul’s point here.
In this part of the text Paul is talking about two devastating consequences of Adam’s sin, for Adam and for us.
The first consequence is quite obvious – everyone dies as a result of Adam’s sin; the mortality rate is 100%.
Both physical and spiritual death were thrust on the human race as a result of Adam’s sin.
This consequence is
sometimes called “original sin.”
“Original sin” is not only a reference to the first sin committed by a human being.
Much more importantly it denotes the condition resulting from Adam’s sin; it speaks of the corrupted nature of all human beings because of Adam’s sin.
This corruption of our very human nature
explains what Paul said earlier in Romans 3:10-12 “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one
who seeks God.
12 All have turned
away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not
even one.”
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah says the problem goes deeper than
actions. Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is
deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
The Psalmist David touches on this subject
when he writes, Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was
sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
“Original sin”
speaks to our fallen, sinful, condition.
“Total depravity”
is another concept that relates to this idea of original sin.
“Total depravity” does not mean a person is as bad as they could possibly be as when someone says so-and-so is totally depraved.
No, “total depravity” means that every aspect of our human nature is affected by original sin.
I refer you to Paul’s earlier description of the human condition where
in chapter 3 he spoke of our thoughts, our words and our actions all affected
by sin.
There is no part of our nature that is not corrupted by the results of
original sin and hence it affects every motive, thought, word and action.
Death is one way to describe that condition.
From conception, the seeds of death are planted and working in us.
The first
devastating consequence of Adam’s sin is “original sin,” a fallen, corrupted
human nature, “total depravity;” it is death, physical and spiritual.
This is an issue of our character, of our very nature.
God will address this consequence through what we call sanctification.
Over our lifetime, by his Holy Spirit, he will correct the damage done and will restore the image of God, the image of Christ in us.
In chapters 6-8 Paul will deal with this
important issue.
But the second devastating consequence of Adam’s sin is a legal one; it has to do with our standing before God.
We are guilty and condemned before God.
It is this issue that Paul most wishes to point out in his analogy here in Romans 5.
And the point is
that when Adam sinned something changed in us.
We weren’t even born yet but when Adam sinned, we sinned – we became guilty.
I didn’t say that after Adam sinned, we were born and also sinned.
That is true, as we have already seen, one devastating result of Adam’s sin is what we know as “original sin” – we now have that sinful nature.
But this second consequence of Adam’s sin is different:
I said that when Adam sinned, we actually
sinned.
Watch Paul’s logic
here very carefully or you miss a very important point.
And it is this point that Paul will most use later to describe how the righteousness of Jesus becomes ours.
So again look at
verse 12. “Therefore, just as
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way
death came to all men, because all sinned…”
Before going
on with his comparison of Adam and Christ, Paul wishes to drive home his point
that we all sinned in Adam.
So in verses 13-14 he answers an implied question:
“Paul, you just said that
death came into the world as a result of sin but what about those who
haven’t sinned by breaking the law?
First of all, in
verse 13, Paul answers that by saying, we all know sin was in the world before
the Law was given through Moses.
Cain murdered his brother, the rampant sinfulness prior to the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah in the time of Abraham, and so much more illustrate the universality of sin prior to Moses and the Law.
Paul knows that you
might then think that death is simply the result of everyone sinning on his or
her own and not the result of everyone having sinned in Adam .
“Wait a minute,” Paul says, “It is true that even before the Mosaic Law, people sinned against the
“law,” the “law” written on their hearts as he said in chapter 2.
But remember this, “sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”
But wait a minute; the truth of God is revealed in creation (chapter
1), there is also the unwritten law of the conscience (chapter 2)
and there is the written law of God (chapter 3).
Paul has already made it clear that the whole world stands accountable
to God.
So, who
has not broken the law and sinned in one of those ways?
I think Paul has in mind infants and by inference, the mentally
incompetent.
They are the only ones of whom it can be
correctly said that they have no law to which they can be held accountable.
And yet, to prove Paul’s point that we all sinned in Adam, Paul writes, in verse 14, “Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.”
Only of infants can it be said that they did not willfully sin against the laws of God.
“Nevertheless” and watch this carefully, they too received the sentence of death.
How is that possible? How can that be fair?
Only because all, everyone, infants included, were in Adam and so when Adam sinned, we all sinned.
(See the resources at the end
of this sermon for discussion on the salvation of infants)
Romans 5:12 says
that when Adam sinned, death passed to all humans, “because all sinned.”
The only way for that sentence to make sense, as difficult as it is to
comprehend, is that all humanity was somehow in Adam so when he sinned we
sinned.
Everyone suffers death, physical and spiritual, because everyone has
sinned, in Adam – his sin is ours!
It is not just that
Adam sinned and we pay the consequences.
No, death is not a natural consequence- death is a divine
consequence, a punishment.
God does not say “your brother stole something so I’ll cut your hand off.”
The only way we are held accountable for sin is if we sin.
The Bible here teaches that we did sin, everyone did, in Adam.
Let me demonstrate
further that this is what Paul is here teaching:
In the following verses, even though he makes additional points, Paul emphasizes this point.
And again I remind you it is not just that we all eventually sin on our
own but that we all sinned in Adam.
V15 “many died by
the trespass of the one man.”
V16 “the result of
the one man’s sin”
V16 “the judgment
followed one sin and brought condemnation”.
V17 “by the
trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man.”
Think Paul wants to make a point?
V18 “just as the result of one trespass was
condemnation for all men”
V19 “just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
sinners.”
In every verse he
reiterates it.
Death is the result of a single, solitary sin – Adam’s sin.
Adam’s
sin was credited to us; Adam’s sin was imputed to us because we were in
Adam, so when he sinned – WE SINNED.
We find that
difficult to accept because our culture has so emphasized individualism.
We see ourselves as related to other people but not connected.
Asians and Africans, I am told, don't have as much trouble with this
concept.
The Jews didn't either - cf Heb 7:9ff "Levi, who was born 500 years later was in Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek - he was "still in the loins of his ancestor…"
The Israelites were judged for the sin of Achan – when Achan sinned, the Bible says the "Israelites acted unfaithfully".
It was not just Achan's sin but also Israel's sin.
Our connectedness
to Adam and to all other human beings is a concept difficult for us but
nonetheless biblical and true.
The poet John Donne spoke to the concept when he wrote:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a (house) of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Regarding human solidarity "in Adam," one author writes,
"Perhaps...we should …be content with the conclusion that Paul
affirms the reality of a solidarity of all humanity with Adam in his sin
without (our) being able to explain the exact nature of that union." (Moo,
Romans, 328 footnotes)
Paul’s point is
that by our connection to Adam we are not born neutral.
We are not just born with a propensity to sin, which is also true.
But more devastating is the fact that we have already sinned in Adam.
His sin is imputed or credited to us so that his sin is also ours.
But remember that Adam’s sin credited to us is the analogy.
And so having made his point that we are
condemningly connected to Adam, Paul turns to the positive side - our
connection to Jesus.
Both Adam and Christ bring something to the people connected to them.
In verses 15-17
Paul contrasts that connection.
First of all in verse15 we read, “The gift is not like the trespass”
In other words: “Jesus gracious act yields a very different result than our sin in Adam does.”
Adam’s sin (and our sin in him) resulted in the death of many.
Yes, the text says “many”.
“Many” simply means a great number and so the context must determine how
many “many” means.
And if we look at v12 we see it means “all people.”
Adam’s sin resulted in the death of everyone BUT Jesus brought the gift of life.
His point?
Connection to Adam means death.
But just as surely, connection to Jesus means life.
Next, look at verse
16: Again the gift from Jesus is not like the result of Adam’s sin.
Adam’s sin resulted in condemnation, everlasting separation from God,
BUT Jesus brought justification, no longer guilty for our sin in Adam or the
sins committed on our own.
But notice also in
verse 16, the work of Christ is far more powerful than Adam’s.
Adam’s one sin brought death BUT Christ’s death covered not only one sin
but also many sins – our sin in Adam and our every other sin.
If one sin brings condemnation, what should many sins bring?
Of course, it should bring greater condemnation.
But grace has a different arithmetic! (Stott, Romans,
155)
CEB Cranfield wrote, "That one single misdeed should
be answered by judgment is perfectly understandable: that the accumulated sins
and guilt of all the ages should be answered by God's free gift, this is
miracle of miracles, utterly beyond human comprehension." (Cranfield,
Romans, Vol 1, p286)
And in verse 17
Paul declares another contrast between what happens to those connected to Adam
compared with those connected to Jesus:
Through Adam, death reigns - how true that is!
BUT through Christ, those connected to him will reign in life.
What reigns, what
controls in your experience - Death or life?
Do you live as one under death's sentence and control or do you live as one who is alive and knows that even if you suffer the temporary consequence of physical death, you will reign in life following the resurrection?
If your perspective
truly covers only the here and now, then death reigns, death controls
you.
We look around and
see death everywhere.
Death seems so final.
You see pictures of
people who lived hundreds of years ago and you wonder about their thoughts -
what did they imagine about their future? - Did they see themselves as
important, just as we do?
Look at them now - we don't even know their names.
They are the nobodies of history.
Are we the future nobodies of history?
Is death all there is?
If there is no life after this life then one person grabs at life, another lives depressed, and another just passes time but all are living under the shadow of death - dominated by it - death reigns!
But oh,
miraculous reality, this is not all there is!
Look again at v17:
“Those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and the gift of
righteousness reign in life through Jesus Christ.”
I think John Stott
of Great Britain sums it up marvelously with these words:
“Grace forgives sins through the cross, and bestows on the sinner both
righteousness and eternal life. Grace satisfies the thirsty soul and fills the
hungry with good things. Grace sanctifies sinners, shaping them into the image
of Christ. Grace perseveres even with the recalcitrant, determining to complete
what it has begun. And one-day grace will destroy death and consummate the
kingdom. So when we are convinced that grace reigns, we will remember that
god’s throne is the throne of grace, and (we) will come to it boldly to receive
mercy and to find grace for every need. And all this is through Jesus Christ
our Lord.” (Stott, Romans, 158)
And so coming back to where he left off at
the end of verse 12, Paul sums it up in Romans 5:18-19
“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that
brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the
disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the
obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Now to what I believe is the major point of the passage:
Back in chapter 4 Paul wrote, 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was credited
to him as righteousness.”
And again in verse 5 he wrote, “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who
justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”
At the beginning of this message I asked the questions I think this
text is answering, “How can the death and resurrection of a man who
lived 2000 years ago personally affect me?”
More specifically, “How can his righteousness be credited to me?”
And here’s the answer:
Just as Adam’s sin was credited to us, because we sinned in Adam, so Christ’s righteousness is credited to us, because we were in Him when he died and rose again.
The first verses of chapter 6 will specifically say that we were united with Christ in his death and resurrection.
Romans
6:4 “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order
that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father,
we too may live a new life.
Yes, in Adam we all sinned and the
consequences are devastating – we are born in sin and we continue to sin.
But now, by amazing grace, in
Christ we are justified, the guilt and penalty of sin are removed, and
we are credited with Jesus’ righteousness.
Remember this, you were not in trouble with
God merely because you have sinned since you were born.
No, you were in trouble with God before you were born, because you sinned in Adam, before you did one other thing wrong on your own.
But hear this, and this is the truth Paul has been trying to drive home since the middle of chapter 3:
You are God’s friend now, not because you have straightened up and are trying to do it right.
No, you are God’s friend now because, by God’s grace, you were “in” Christ when he
died and rose again and you are credited with his righteousness.
If you are trusting
in Jesus, then of what can you be certain?
You are “in him” and being “in him,” his righteousness has been credited to you.
And if you are here
this morning questioning whether you have received God’s free gift of
forgiveness, justification, righteousness and life - please hear me carefully.
As a part of Adam’s helpless race you are sinful and condemned to death
- eternal separation from God;
God sees you as his enemy.
But God in Christ
offers you forgiveness on the basis of Christ’s death for your sin AND he
offers you his righteousness, his very life.
Just as surely as you are now “in Adam,” so by trusting Jesus, you prove that you are “in Christ.”
PRAYER
Issues have been
raised here today that I have not had time to speak to.
Issues such as:
the fate of infants who die;
does this text teach that everyone “all” will be eventually saved;
was their physical death before Adam sinned;
These and other relevant subjects are addressed in additional notes which will be made available on-line, at SoundLiving.org, tomorrow.
Following are
nearly 35 pages of additional notes on:
Physical death before Adam;
Does the “all” of verse 18 mean universalism (all will be saved)?
What about infants who die?
The subject of “imputed/credited” righteousness;
The subject of “original sin;”
There is another emphasis
in these verses. It is on the power and scope of the Gospel.
If the consequence of sin is powerful, and
it is, look at verses 15 and 17: “How
much more” will grace bring powerful results.
Again from verse 15, see the word,
“overflow” – sin flows but grace overflows.
Again from verse 17, if sin brought one
result, “God’s abundant provision” brought more.
Look at verse 20, “where sin increased, grace increased all
the more.”
We sometimes get and give the impression that Christianity and God are
barely hanging on in the world and that evil is winning.
I also think we have the idea that in the
end, in the judgment, most people will go to hell and only a few will be with
God.
That’s not what these verses sound like and when you read the book of
Revelation, it definitely is not the case.
God promised to
Abraham offspring as great in number as the stars in the sky and sand on the
seashore.
In Revelation 7:9
we read, “After this I
looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from
every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in
front of the Lamb…”
John Calvin wrote, “(For) if the fall of Adam had the effect of
producing the ruin of many, the grace of God is much more efficacious in
benefiting many, since it is granted that Christ is much more powerful to save
than Adam was to destroy.” (in Stott, 161).
Grace overwhelms
our sin and the death it deserves.
For a
discussion of physical death before Adam’s sin see:
Douglas Moo in Romans,
188ff. Biblical evidence suggests that at least plant “death” occurred before
Adam’s sin (cf “seed bearing plants” of Genesis 1:11ff), but what about
animals? Many animal fossils have been
found with other animal fossils within, obviously having been eaten. Then what about humans? This raises the
issue of the origin and dating of human beings? The Bible clearly presents Adam as the first human. (Genesis 1-3,
Matthew 19:4, Acts 17:26, etc).
See also John Stott,
Romans, 164ff.
No less a scholar
than John Stott suggests that homo sapiens may have existed for millennia but
not until later did God create man in the image of God, breathing into him a
living soul. So while death may have been part of the experience of plants and
animals, it was not part of man created in the image of God until Adam’s sin.
Does the “all” in verse 18 mean that all will
eventually be saved (Universalism)?
The two uses of “all” of verse 18 must be
explained. Does “all” mean every person
without exception? Everything Paul has
said thus far in Romans and emphasized here in Romans 5 demands that “all men”
of 18a must be every person without exception. Does that then mean that the
“all men” of 18b must likewise include every person without exception? Do these
verses teach a universalism, that every person will eventually be saved? The Bible is very clear that some will spend
eternity separated from God. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey
the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and
shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.” Matthew 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the
righteous to eternal life.” It is also true that the word “all” must be
interpreted in its context. In Acts
2:17 “I will pour out my Spirit on all people” does not mean
every person without exception. In Acts
19:10 “all the Jews and
Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord”
clearly does not mean every person without exception. So here the “all” of “life for all men,” must be interpreted in
its context. Our relationship to Adam
is by birth; the “all” includes all who are physical descendants of Adam. Since
we are all born, the “all” means every person without exception. But our
relationship to Christ is by faith (5:17 “receive”); the “all” includes those
who belong to Christ.
To avoid a
complete contradiction with the rest of the Bible, it must be that we interpret
“all” in light of the context. Specifically we must define “all” in each case
with the person who is the head – Adam or Christ. See 1 Corinthians 15 – each “Adam” delimits the “all.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 “So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living
being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46 The spiritual
did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust
of the earth, the second man from heaven.
48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth;
and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the
likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from
heaven.
First Adam, last Adam; first man, second man, etc. Christ was not the second person who ever lived (that was Eve). Each clearly implies a unique relationship to other humanity - each as the head of those who follow. Adam is the first, the head the source of all who follow him, to those who are physically born (hence, every human being). Christ is the head, the source, to all who follow him, to all who are spiritually born (hence, all those who are born again).
In verse Romans 5:19 Paul changes words using “many” instead of “all.”
It seems reasonable to assume that Paul uses the two words as synonyms and the
same rules apply to their interpretation – “context is king.”
For a discussion of the fate of infants who die
see:
Douglas Moo, Romans,
191.
From an epitaph on
a gravestone in the cemetery at St. Andrews in Scotland, believing that
children who die in infancy are saved by God's grace:
"Bold (unbelief), turn pale and die.
Beneath this stone four sleeping infants
lie"
Say, are they lost or saved?
If death's by sin, they sinned, for they are here.
If heaven's by works, in heaven they can't appear.
Reason, ah, how depraved!
Turn to the Bible's sacred page- the knots untied:
They died, for Adam sinned;
They live, for Jesus died."
Ironside, Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans
1928 p71
See also “Are Those Who
Died in Infancy Saved?” by Sam Storms
Nov 6, 2006
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/are-those-who-die-in-infancy-saved
“If human nature
is corrupt and guilty from conception, the consequence of Adam's transgression,
are those who die in infancy lost? The same question would apply to those who
live beyond infancy but because of mental retardation or some other handicap
are incapable of moral discernment, deliberation, or volition.
This is more than
a theoretical issue designed for our speculation and curiosity. It touches one
of the most emotionally and spiritually unsettling experiences in all of life:
the loss of a young child.
I was first
confronted with this issue on a personal level in the late 1970s. I received a
phone call from a family in our church which had just experienced the premature
birth of twin girls. Upon arriving at the hospital I was informed that one of
the girls had died. I never anticipated the question that came my way as I
walked into the room of the grieving mother: "Sam, is my baby in
heaven?" A few years later the young child of a good friend was killed in
a car accident. The parents asked me to perform the funeral, once again putting
me in the position of having to think through and articulate in a biblical and
compassionate way what I believed about the eternal destiny of their child. So,
what conclusion did I reach? Let's take a look at the variety of options that
have been suggested.
(1)
The sinlessness of infants - One view insists that those dying in
infancy are saved for the simple reason that there is nothing in them or done
by them that merits condemnation. In other words, they are born in a state of
moral neutrality or moral equilibrium. They do not possess a sin nature nor are
they corrupt. They are, in a word, characterless. They lack moral standing.
There is nothing in their souls that is properly the object of divine judgment.
Hence all dying in that state are saved for no other reason than that they are
not condemnable. Several texts would seem to contradict this view, among them
Pss. 51:5; 58:3; Prov. 22:15; Gen. 8:21; Job 15:14-16; Eph. 2:3.
(2)
Universalism - Another viewpoint simply asserts that all will be saved,
inclusive of those dying in infancy. None will suffer eternal condemnation.
God's saving grace extends effectually to the entire human race. Again,
countless texts could be cited to disprove this idea, among them Mt. 7:13-14,
21-23; 8:11-12; 10:28; 13:37-42; Luke 16:23-28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 6; Rev.
14:10-11; 20:11-15.
(3)
Post-Mortem Salvation - Based on a certain interpretation of 1 Peter
3:18-19 and 4:6, it is asserted that those who die without having the
opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ and make a cognitively and morally
informed decision will be granted a "second chance" (it is, in fact,
a "first" chance if they never had a legitimate opportunity in this
life). As for infants in particular, it is said that God will bring them to a
state in which they are sufficiently mature to understand and choose
responsibly.
There are several
problems with this view.
First, how can
they be brought into a state of maturity by God without the influence of
parents, education, peers, experience, etc. which contribute to our own
intellectual and spiritual framework and on the basis of which we ourselves
make an informed choice? Would they be brought into a state of moral
equilibrium, having had no history of personal sin that has so decisively
shaped who we are? If God is the one who somehow directly educates and nurtures
them, has he not then prejudiced their minds/wills in a way that is altogether
different from the way we are educated and nurtured? The problems associated
with this are innumerable.
Second, the two
texts on which they base their view say nothing about post-mortem evangelism
for either those dying in infancy or pagans who never hear the name of Jesus. I
will address both these texts in a future installment of Deciphering Difficult
Texts.
Third, from a
pastoral point of view, this theory does nothing to ease the anxieties of
parents who want to know if their baby is in heaven. For there is no guarantee,
on this view, that even if given an opportunity after death that they will
respond in faith.
(4)
Infant Salvation via Infant Baptism - Certain traditions within
Christianity have affirmed baptismal regeneration, according to which the
waters of baptism are used by God to effect the regeneration, spiritual
cleansing, and forgiveness of the infant. Needless to say, this view is only as
cogent as is the case for baptismal regeneration, and the case for the latter
is poor. In addition, it fails to address the question of what happens to the
vast majority of infants in the history of the world who died without the
benefit of Christian baptism.
(5)
The Roman Catholic Concept of "Limbo" - The Roman Catholic
Church has acknowledged the possibility of a state of natural blessedness or
happiness in which unbaptized infants experience a form of eternal peace but
not the consummate joy of heaven itself. Rome has neither formally affirmed nor
denied this teaching.
(6)
Salvation of the Infants of Believing Parents - Others have appealed to
1 Cor. 7:14-16 to argue that the infants or children of a believing parent or
parents are, for that reason, granted special salvific privilege in the kingdom
of God. Again, this view is only as cogent as is that particular interpretation
of 1 Cor. 7.
(7)
Elect Infants are Saved - Another view advocated by some Reformed
theologians is that some who die in infancy are elect, and therefore saved,
while others are non-elect, and therefore condemned.
(8)
All those dying in Infancy are Elect - The view that I embrace is that
all those dying in infancy, as well as those so mentally incapacitated that
they are incapable of making an informed choice, are among the elect of God
chosen by him for salvation before the world began. The evidence for this view
is scant, but significant.
First, in Romans
1:20 Paul describes people who are recipients of general revelation as being 'without
excuse.' Does this imply that those who are not recipients of
general revelation (i.e., infants) are therefore not accountable to God
or subject to wrath? In other words, those who die in infancy have an "excuse"
in that they neither receive general revelation nor have the capacity to
respond to it.
Second, there are
texts which appear to assert or imply that infants do not know good or evil and
hence lack the capacity to make morally informed and thus responsible choices.
According to Deut. 1:39 they are said to 'have no knowledge of good or evil.'
This in itself, however, would not prove infant salvation, for they may still
be held liable for the sin of Adam.
Third, is the
story of David's son in 2 Sam. 12:15-23 (esp. v. 23). The first-born child of
David and Bathsheba was struck by the Lord and died. In the seven days before
his death, David fasted and prayed, hoping that "the Lord may be gracious
to me, that the child may live" (v. 22). Following his death, David washed
himself, ate food, and worshipped (v. 20). When asked why he responded in this way,
he said that the child "has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back
again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (v. 23). What does
it mean when David says "I shall go to him?" If this is merely a
reference to the grave or death, in the sense that David, too, shall one day
die and be buried, one wonders why he would say something so patently obvious!
Also, it appears that David draws some measure of comfort from knowing
that he will "go to him." It is the reason why David resumes the
normal routine of life. It appears to be the reason David ceases from
the outward display of grief. It appears to be a truth from which David
derives comfort and encouragement. How could any of this be true if David will
simply die like his son. It would, therefore, appear that David believed
he would be reunited with his deceased infant. Does this imply that at least this
one particular infant was saved? Perhaps. But if so, are we justified in
constructing a doctrine in which we affirm the salvation of all who die
in infancy?
Fourth, there is
consistent testimony of Scripture that people are judged on the basis of sins
voluntary and consciously committed in the body. See 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor.
6:9-10; Rev. 20:11-12. In other words, eternal judgment is always based on conscious
rejection of divine revelation (whether in creation, conscience, or Christ) and
willful disobedience. Are infants capable of either? There is no explicit
account in Scripture of any other judgment based on any other grounds. Thus,
those dying in infancy are saved because they do not (cannot) satisfy the
conditions for divine judgment.
Fifth, and
related to the above point, is what R. A. Webb states. If a deceased infant
"were sent
to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good
reason to the divine mind for the judgment, but the child's mind would be a
perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it
would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its
suffering. It could not tell its neighbor - it could not tell itself - why it
was so awfully smitten; and consequently the whole meaning and significance of
its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of penalty
would be absent, and justice would be disappointed of its vindication. Such an
infant could feel that it was in hell, but it could not explain, to its own
conscience, why it was there" (The Theology of Infant Salvation
[Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1981], 288-89).
Sixth, we have what
would appear to be clear biblical evidence that at least some infants
are regenerate in the womb, such that if they had died in their infancy they
would be saved. This at least provides a theoretical basis for considering
whether the same may be true of all who die in infancy. That is to say,
"if this sort of thing happens even once, it can certainly happen in other
cases" (Ronald Nash, When a Baby Dies [Zondervan, 1999], 65). These
texts include Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15.
Seventh, some
have appealed to Matthew 19:13-15 (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17) where Jesus
declares, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the
kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' Is Jesus simply saying that if one
wishes to be saved he/she must be as trusting as children, i.e., devoid of
skepticism and arrogance? In other words, is Jesus merely describing the kind
of people who enter the kingdom? Or is he saying that these very children were
recipients of saving grace? But if the latter were true, it would seem to imply
that Jesus knew that the children whom he was then receiving would all die in
their infancy. Is that credible?
Eighth, Millard
Erickson argues for the salvation of deceased infants in an unusual way. He
argues that notwithstanding Adam's sin, there must be a conscious and voluntary
decision on our part to embrace or ratify it. Until such is the case, the
imputation of Adam's sin to his physical posterity, as is also true of the
imputation of Christ's righteousness to his spiritual posterity, is conditional.
Thus, prior to reaching the "age of accountability" all infants are
innocent. When and in what way does this ratification of Adam's sin come about?
Erickson explains:
"We become
responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There
is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own
tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been
there all the time. We would in that case repent of it and might even, if there
is an awareness of the gospel, ask God for forgiveness and cleansing. . . . But
if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good.
In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or
concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of
that sin without having to commit a sin of our own" (Christian Theology,
2:639).
But there are at
least two problems with this. First, if we are born with a corrupt and sinful
nature, as Erickson concedes we are, our willing ratification of Adam's
transgression and the guilt and corruption of nature which are its effects is itself
an inevitable effect of the corrupt nature to which we are now ostensibly
giving our approval. In other words, how else could a person who is born
corrupt and wicked respond but in a corrupt and wicked way, namely, by
ratifying Adam's sin? If Erickson should suggest that such a response is not
inevitable, one can only wonder why it is that every single human being who
ever lived (except Jesus) ratifies and embraces the sin of Adam and its
resultant corruption of nature. Surely someone, somewhere would have said No.
Erickson would have to argue that at the point when each soul becomes morally
accountable it enters a state of complete moral and spiritual equilibrium, in
no way biased by the corruption of nature and wicked disposition with which it
was born. But that leads to the second problem, for it would mean that each of
us experiences our own Garden of Eden, as it were. Each human soul stands its
own probation at the moment the age of moral accountability is reached. But if
that is so, what is the point of trying to retain any connection at all between
what Adam did and who/what we are? If ultimately I become corrupt by my own
first choice, what need is there of Adam? And if I am corrupt antecedent
to that first choice, we are back to square one: my guilt and corruption
inherited from Adam, the penal consequence of his choice as the head and
representative of the race.
Ninth, an
argument that is entirely subjective in nature (and therefore of questionable
evidential value) may be noted. We must ask the question: Given our
understanding of the character of God as presented in Scripture, does He appear
as the kind of God who would eternally condemn infants on no other ground than
that of Adam's transgression? Admittedly, this is a subjective (and perhaps
sentimental) question. But it deserves an answer, nonetheless.
Personally
speaking, I find the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth points convincing.
Therefore, I do believe in the salvation of those dying in infancy. I affirm
their salvation, however, neither because they are innocent nor because they
have merited God's forgiveness but solely because God has sovereignly chosen
them for eternal life, regenerated their souls, and applied the saving benefits
of the blood of Christ to them apart from conscious faith.
For
an excellent discussion of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us see
John Piper, "Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part IV See also parts I-III. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/2/24_Adam_Christ_and_Justification_Part_4/
I. Original Sin - The Treatise
Jonathan Edward’s The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1758) was written in response to Dr. John Taylor’s Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to a Free and Candid Examination (1741), which presents the Arminian arguments for actual sins rather original sin. Being a thoroughbred Calvinist and “the last Puritan” (as J. I. Packer calls him), Edwards was solidly committed to the Augustinian/ Reformation doctrine of original sin, which in his day as it is in our’s is a major offense to many, if not most, people. Pascal once observed that the doctrine seems an offense to reason but once one accepted it it makes total sense of the entire human condition. John Gertsner comments that Edwards’ work, Original Sin , “may be the most profound articulation and defense of that Reformed doctrine ever written.” Edwards’ reason for going after Taylor was his deep, abiding concern that Taylor’s Arminian theology would destroy the Scriptural basis of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone:
“I look on the doctrine [of original sin] as of
great importance, which every body will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For
if the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total
ruin, both with respect to the moral evil of which they are subjects, and the
afflictive evil to which they are exposed, the one as the consequence and
punishment of the other; then doubtless, the great salvation by Christ stands
in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole
Gospel, or doctrine of salvation, must suppose it; and all real belief, or true
notion of that gospel, must be built upon it.”
In this paper I will give particular focus on Edwards’ unique and, I think, helpful philosophical and theological insights on the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to us.
II. Original Sin - the Doctrine
The doctrine of original sin (first coined by Augustine) doesn’t so much refer to the first or original sin committed by Adam as it does to the result of the first sin i. e. the corruption of the human race and the fallen condition into which we are all born and in which makes natural men “enemies of God”. In short, the classic doctrine, while maintaining that God made Man upright (Eccles. 7:29), holds the entire race is corrupt and culpable. Edwards also viewed the Fall as the loss of the spiritual nature (original holiness and righteousness) that belonged to the human race as the created imago dei. Therefore, Man has a twisted heart prior to any actual sin. This inner sinful disposition or motivation is the root of all sin and it derives to everyone of the human race in a mysterious but real way through our first parent, who was our representative before God.
The doctrine is therefore the basis for the familiar formulation: we are not sinners because we sin but rather we sin because we are sinners. (“Surely I was sinful at # birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Ps. Ps. 51:5). The Westminster Confession brilliantly captures the results of the Fall:
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. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly
disposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to evil,
do proceed all actual transgressions.
Edwards subscribed to this Reformed understanding but he perhaps moved into the doctrine more deeply and with a more unique, fresh perspective than perhaps anyone save Augustine. He writes of two principles God implanted in Man. One, the “natural” (or call the flesh) is self love, passions, natural appetites etc. The other refers to as “divine” (or Spirit) which is the image of God and is the superior principle that is to dominate the heart or affections. When Man sinned, the divine principle left the heart and the “Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house.” When that happened, Man was given over to his inward, private affections. Consequently, the “natural principle”, not the “divine”, now reigned, cosmic treason occurred, God is forsaken and the imago dei is shattered. Thus , it is God’s absence from us i. e. the withdraw of His Spirit, not His presence, which explains sin.
By original sin, Edwards meant that “innate sinful depravity of the heart” Consistent with classic doctrine, Edwards believed, not that we tend always to sin, but we always have a disposition to sin. Evidence for this innate tendency of corruption as the prevalent, universal condition of man, Edwards contended, is readily found in observation, experience and Scripture. On the other hand, Taylor to support his moralism supposedly looked at the same evidence and saw a preponderance of good and virtue in the tendencies of the race to support. Taylor’s conclusion, like that of other Arminians, suggests that it is not necessarily the evidence about the twisted heart of man that is want but either the sufficient strength of the lens through which it is examined or the absence of spiritual lens at all.
Edwards argues that we humans are born into and retain only a physical nature which is completely “bereft” of the “things of religion”. We are by nature totally depraved, that is every part of our being is permeated with sin - it is at our core - and we are alienated from God. Our will (which Edwards defines as the mind choosing) is so corrupted that we cannot by nature choose God apart from His affecting grace. Although we have a rational capacity, it is corrupted in spiritual things and cannot see sin for what it is.
In his Freedom of the Will, Edwards argued that we are free to always choose according to our strongest desire at the moment of choosing. The problem is that in our fallen state we cannot choose God because we do not desire Him. We have freedom to choose what we would have but we will not have God in our lives. We do not have liberty to choose God because our nature lacks Edwards’ divine principle.
III. Adam As Federal Head
Edwards saw Adam as a representative through whom God covenanted with the entire human race, not only in a parental sense but more particularly in a federal sense. Adam as the federal head of the race was tested and when he sinned as the public person, he thus sinned for all of us. His fall, as well as his guilt, is ours. When God punished Adam by withdrawing His grace and communion and by giving him over to his own affections and desires, Adam lost or forfeited his original righteousness and the same consequences attend all his posterity. We follow after Adam willingly and like Adam hide ourselves from God, cover ourselves with our own works of righteousness and seek peace, as Edwards said, with false gods. Therefore no infusion of evil was necessary for us to sin in Adam. Edwards contended that it is privation of God’s divine love that explains man’s wickedness and therefore, its cause is internal, not external or environmental. No external act belongs to a person “otherwise...than as his heart was in it.” Yet because the human race’s heart is inclined to Adam’s act, his act is the race’s act as well. For Edwards all it takes is for God in response to Adam’s sin to withdraw special grace from him and create his posterity without it.
Edwards thought the most excruciating of all theological problems was how, in the case of Adam who was created fresh from the hand of God with holiness and righteousness, can a good tree can bear bad fruit. From whence did Adam’s disposition or inclination come? As much as this challenged Edwards’ acute intellect and as much as he labored with it, it is even more of an unfathomable mystery to us. But Edwards waded into its depths concluding based on Scripture that a perfectly righteous person, which Adam was, may will that which he knows to be unrighteous. Yet Edwards held fast to Scripture that God could not be and is not the author of the # sinner but the sinner is himself morally responsible for his choices. John Gertsner at this point helps place this gordian knot into some perspective at least by suggesting that “God intends the question of the origin of sin as an academic thorn in the flesh. There must be an answer to the question but no one has yet discovered it. Edwards mistakenly believed he had.” Edwards did, however, succinctly capture the essence of the pattern of sin and guilt in the following brilliant explanation:
“The depraved disposition of Adam’s heart is to
be considered two ways. (1) As the first rising of an evil inclination in his
heart, exerted in his first act of sin, and the ground of the complete
transgression. (2) An evil disposition of heart continuing afterwards, as a
confirmed principle, that came by God’s forsaking him; which was a punishment
of his first transgression. This confirmed corruption, by its remaining and
continued operation, brought additional guilt on his soul.
And in like manner, depravity of heart is to be considered two in Adams’s posterity. The first existing of a corrupt disposition in their hearts is not to be looked upon as sin belonging to them, distinct from their participation of Adam’s first sin; it is as it were the extended pollution of that sin, through the whole tree, by virtue of the constituted union of the branches with the root; or the inheritance of the sin of that head of the species in the members, in the consent and concurrence of the hearts of the members with the head in that first act...But the depravity of nature, remaining an established principle in the heart of a child of Adam, and as exhibited in after-operation, is a consequence and punishment of the first apostasy thus participated, and brings new guilt. The first being of an evil disposition in the heart of the child of Adam,, whereby he is disposed to approve of the sin of his first father, as fully as he himself approved of it when he committed it, or so far as to imply a full and perfect consent of heart to it, I think, is not be looked upon as a consequence of the imputation of that first sin, any more than the full consent of Adam’s own heart in the act of sinning; which was not consequent on the imputation of his sin to himself, but rather prior to it in the order of nature. indeed the derivation of the evil disposition to the hearts of Adam’s posterity, or rather the coexistence of the evil disposition, implied in Adam’s first rebellion, in the root and branches, is a consequence of the union, that the wise Author of the world has established between Adam and his posterity: but not properly a consequence of the imputation of his sin; nay, rather antecedent to it, as it was in Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and the imputation of that sin, are both the consequences of that established union: but yet in such order, that the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent; as it was in the case of Adam himself.
In addition to the antipathy Arminians and others have toward to the doctrine of original sin and total depravity, there is their persistent objection to what they see as the inherent unfairness of judging anyone in another. The imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity is a real issue for them, although they do not seem to rail against the imputation of sinners’ guilt to an innocent Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to guilty sinners. How Edwards dealt with the problem of Adam’s imputation was one of his most unique and original philosophical insights.
IV. Objections Answered - A Doctrine Deepened
In answering Taylor on imputation, Edwards framed the concept of personal identity whereby Adam and his posterity are constitutionally united in the divine order of things. The issue of why human should bear responsibility for Adam’s sin is no more of a philosophical problem for Edwards than why humans should bear responsibility for their own past deeds. He said that God sovereignly orders and sustains unity and continuity of all created substances (and their effects) - in nature, in a person and in the race.
Edwards’ central point about imputation was that God in his dealings with Adam under the covenant of works (Gen 2: 16-17) “looked on his posterity as being one with him.” He fu