ANTHROPOLOGY
B. T HE ARMINIAN T HEORY
Arminius (1560-1609) was a professor in Holland. His interpretation is called Semi-Pelagianism. It is the view that is held by the Greek Church, the Methodist body, and other Arminian bodies. According to this theory, man is sick. As the outcome of Adam’s transgression, men are by nature destitute of original righteousness and, without divine aid, utterly unable to attain it.
Since this inability is physical and intellectual, not voluntary, God, as a matter of justice, bestows upon each individual at the dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to counteract the effect of their inherited depravity and to make obedience possible, if they will cooper- ate with the Spirit. This they are able to do. The evil tendency in man may be called sin, but it does not involve guilt or punishment. Certainly, mankind is not accounted guilty of Adam’s sin. Only when men consciously and volun- tarily appropriate these evil tendencies does God impute them to them as sin.
“Death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5: 12), means that all suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin and that all personally consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgression.
To this we reply that, according to the Scriptures, man sinned in Adam and is, therefore, guilty before he commits personal sin; that man’s sinful nature is due to his sin in Adam; that God is not under obligation to bestow special influences of his Spirit upon man, enabling him to cooperate in his salvation; that men do not consciously appropriate their inborn tendencies to evil at the dawn of consciousness; that ability is not the measure of obliga- tion; and that physical death is not a matter of arbitrary decree, but the just penalty of sin. The so-called New School theory, a departure from the Old Puritan view, is much like the Arminian theory. It, too, holds that men are responsible only for their personal acts; that though all men inherit a con- stitution which predisposes them to sin, and all men do actually sin as soon as they come to moral consciousness, this inability is not itself sin. Since it is so much like the Arminian doctrine, the arguments against it are the same.
C. THE THEORY OF MEDIATE IMPUTATION
This theory recognizes that all men are born physically and morally de- praved, and that this native depravity is the source of all actual sin, and is itself sin. The physical depravity has descended by natural propagation from
188 Anthropology
Adam, and the soul is immediately created by God, but it becomes actively corrupt as soon as it is united to the body. This native depravity is the only thing which God imputes to man, but merely as the consequence, and not the penalty, of Adam’s transgression. In other words, Adam’s sin is imputed mediately, and not immediately. This theory makes depravity the cause of imputation, rather than imputation the cause of depravity. Rom. 5:12 means that all sinned by having a sinful nature.
Several things must be said against this view. Scripture teaches that the reason we are depraved is that we are partakers of Adam’s sin. Depravity is our fault, not mere misfortune. Depravity is a penal consequence of sin.
Further, this view destroys the parallelism between Adam and Christ.
Adam’s sin was imputed to us, as is Christ’s righteousness. It makes salva- tion a subjective justification rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ. This position also does away with the representative idea that one can be justly punished for the sin of another.
D. THE REALISTIC THEORY
On this view the human race was naturally and substantially in Adam when Adam sinned. In this first sin, man became corrupt and guilty, and this state was transmitted to Adam’s descendants. There was an impersonal and un- conscious participation by all of Adam’s progeny in this first sinful act. Thus, because man was numerically one, the common, unindividualized nature committed the first sin. All men are co-sinners with Adam. In this way sin can be justly imputed and man can be justly condemned because he partici- pated in the sin.
Though this view comes closer to the biblical doctrine of imputation than the previous views, there are still some problems which can be raised. Can man be considered guilty for a sin which was not of conscious self- determination? And can a man act before he exists? Further, if man is guilty for his participation in Adam’s first sin, is he also guilty of Adam’s sub- sequent sins? Does Christ, because of his human nature, share in this guilt?
Also, does this view give us the type of parallelism required between Adam and Christ?
Of this view, Murray writes, “If we are condemned and suffer death because we are depraved and inherently sinful the only analogy or parallel to this would be that we are justified because we become inherently holy.“’ We are, however, justified by the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
E. THE FEDERAL THEORY
This view holds that Adam is both the natural and the federal head of the human race. The federal or representative headship is the specific ground of
‘Murray, The Epistle to the Rnmans, I, p. 185.
The Fall of Man: lmputation and Racial Consequences 189 the imputation of Adam’s sin. When Adam sinned, he acted as a representa- tive of the human race. God imputed the guilt of the first sin to all those whom Adam represented, the entire human race. As sin was imputed to us because of Adam’s disobedience, so righteousness can be imputed to us because of Christ’s obedience (Rom. 5:19). Those who hold this view argue that Adam entered into a covenant of works with God and that he spoke and acted for the entire race. There is, however, no mention of a covenant in the Genesis account. In federalism, Adam is the covenant head and his sin is imputed and assigned to his descendants; in realism, the human race actually co-sinned in Adam.
Several objections have been raised against this view. Can man be respon- sible for violating a covenant in which he had no part in ratifying? It is one thing to suffer the effects of someone else’s sin, but can one be considered guilty of another’s sin? Further, the analogy between Christ and Adam is not completely parallel, since “one person may obey in the place of others in order to save them; but one person may not disobey in the place of others in order to ruin them.“2 In other words, there can be vicarious penal sufferings, but not vicarious sinning. Guilt or sin can be imputed meritoriously but not gratuitously.
Both the realistic and the federal theory of the imputation of sin have seemingly insurmountable problems associated with them; yet they also solve certain problems. Perhaps there is a mediating position which contains both the representative concept and the natural relationship to Adam.
F. THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY THEORY
This view stresses the close association of the individual with the group to which he is attached. Any single individual can act as a representative of the group. There are Old Testament examples of this type of representation and association. A family could be destroyed because of the sin of one member (cf. Achan, Josh. 7:24-26). Th e family name was significant; the child could honor or dishonor the parent’s name, and the name could be cast off (1 Sam.
24: 21). Even the unit for religion or morality was primarily the whole, not just the individual. This theory argues on the basis of this corporate personal- ity concept that the sin was imputed. Dodd suggests that “the moral unit was the community. . . , rather than the individual.“3
Paul, in Rom. 5, did not seek to solve the philosophical questions which arise in either the realistic theory or the federal theory. Rather, he was using the Hebrew concept of the solidarity of the race. As Berkouwer writes, “Paul had in mind an undeniable connection and solidarity in death and guilt. At the same time, he nowhere tries to explain this solidarity in theoretical
%hedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 60.
JDodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p. 79
190 Anthropology
terms.“4 There are some problems with this view. It faces the same problems of arbitrary imputation as does the representative or federal theory, and of involuntary or unconscious co-sinning as does the realistic theory. It does, however, contain a degree of the realistic element, and it has a representative factor as well. To quote Berkouwer again, “Paul had a ‘corporate’ idea in mind when he looked at both Adam and Christ; at the same time, that very
‘corporativity’ can never have the character of an explanation.“5
Arguments seem to go back and forth between the realistic theory and the representative theory, or some mediating position. Some have even suggested that the parallel between the imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness should not be considered parallel, but that the imputation of righteousness is judicial and forensic, whereas that of Adam’s disobedience is personal and inherent. The fact remains that because of Adam’s disobedi- ence we were all constituted sinners, and through the obedience of Christ the believer is made righteous. Scripture does not fully explain how this is accomplished but it does declare it to be so.
4Berkouwer, Sin, p. 517.
5Berkouwer, Sin, p. 516.
CHAPTER XX
The Fall of Man:
The Nature and Final Consequences of Sin
The consequences of Adam’s first sin may be considered under the following headings: depravity, guilt, and penalty.
I. DEPRAVITY A. THE MEANING OF DEPRAVITY
Man’s want of original righteousness and of holy affections toward God, and the corruption of his moral nature and his bias toward evil is called depravity.
Its existence is witnessed to by both Scripture and human experience. The teaching of Scripture that all men must be born again shows the universality of its existence.
B . THE EXTENT OF DEPRAVITY
The Scriptures speak of human nature as wholly depraved. Rowever, the doctrine of “total depravity” is easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is important to know both what it does not mean and what it does mean.
From the negative standpoint, it does not mean that every sinner is devoid of all qualities pleasing to men; that he commits, or is prone to, every form of sin; or that he is as bitterly opposed to God as it is possible for him to be.
Jesus recognized the existence of pleasing qualities in some individuals (Mark IO: 21) ; he said that the scribes and Pharisees did some things God demanded (Matt. 23:23) ; Paul asserted that some Gentiles “do instinctively the things of the Law” (Rom. 2:14); God told Abraham that the iniquity of the Amo- rites would grow worse (Gen. 15:16); and Paul says that “evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse” (2 Tim. 3: 13).
From the positive standpoint, it does mean that every sinner is totally destitute of that love to God which is the fundamental requirement of the law (Deut. 6:4f. ; Matt. 22 :37) ; that he is supremely given to a preference of himself to God (2 Tim. 3:24); that he has an aversion to God which on occasion becomes active enmity to him (Rom. 8:7); that his every faculty is disordered and corrupted (Eph. 4:18); that he has no thought, feeling, or
“^ _ 191
192 Anthropology
deed of which G o can fully approve (Rom. 7:lB); and that he has enteredd upon a line of constant progress in depravity from which he can in no wise turn away in his own strength (Rom. 7:lB). Depravity has infected the whole man-mind, emotions, and will.
Depravity has produced a total spiritual inability in the sinner in the sense that he cannot by his own volition change his character and life so as to make them conformable to the law of God, nor change his fundamental preference of self and sin to supreme love for God, yet he has a certain amount of freedom left. He can, for instance, choose not to sin against the Holy Spirit decide to commit the lesser sin rather than the greater, resist certain forms 0;
temptation altogether, do certain outwardly good acts, though with improper and unspiritual motives, and even seek God from entirely selfish motives.
Freedom of choice within these limits is not incompatible with complete bondage of the will in spiritual things. Inability consists not in the loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss of free agency, for the sinner still deter- mines his own acts, nor in mere disinclination to what is good, but in want of spiritual discernment, and therefore of proper affections. He cannot of his free will regenerate himself, repent, nor exercise saving faith (John 1:12f.).
But the grace and Spirit of God are ready to enable him to repent and believe unto salvation.
II. GUILT
The fact that guilt is considered after depravity does not mean that it comes later. Both of these consequences come upon man simultaneously as a result of the fall. In a discussion of guilt, its meaning and the degrees of guilt must be considered.
A. THE MEANING OF GUILT
Guilt means the desert of punishment, or obligation to satisfy God. God’s holiness, as the Scriptures show, reacts against sin, and this is “the wrath of God” (Rom. 1: 18). But guilt is incurred only through self-chosen transgres- sion, either on the part of mankind in Adam or on the part of the individua1 person. Guilt comes from sin in which we have had a part. Sin as pollution is unlikeness to God’s character, but as guilt it is antagonism to his holy will.
Both elements are ever present in the conscience of the sinner. Guilt is also an objective result of sin, for every sin, of whatever nature, is an offense against God and subject to his wrath. It must not be confounded with the subjective consciousness of it. It is primarily a relation to God, and secondar- ily a relation to conscience. In conscience, God’s condemnation partially and
The Fall of Man: The Nature and Final Consequences of Sin 193 prophetically manifests itself (1 John 3~20). Persistence and progress in sin will be marked by a decreased sensitivity of moral discernment and feeling.
B. THE DEGREES OF GUILT
The Scriptures recognize different degrees of guilt growing out of different kinds of sin. The principle is recognized in the Old Testament in a variety of sacrifices required for different transgressions under the Mosaic law (Lev.
4-7). It is also indicated in the variety of judgments in the New Testament (Luke 12:47f.; John 19:ll; Rom. 2:6; Heb. 2:2f.; 10:28f.). The Roman Catholic Church has, however, built up an erroneous distinction between venial and mortal sins; venial sins are those which can be forgiven, and mortal sins are those which are willful and deliberate and involve death to the soul. Over against this, we may note the true differences in guilt as resulting from differences in sin. There are at least four sets of contrasting sins.
1. Sin of nature, and personal transgression. Man is a sinner by nature and by act. There is a guilt of inborn sin and there is a greater guilt when the sinful nature causes man to commit acts of personal transgression. The words of Christ, “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt.
19:14), speak of the relative innocence of childhood, while his words to tk scribes and Pharisees, “fill up then the measure of the guilt of your fathers (Matt. 23:32), refer to personal transgression added to inherited depravity.
2. Sins of ignorance, and sins of knowledge. Here guilt is determined according to the amount of information the individual possesses. The greater the degree of knowledge, the greater the guilt (Matt. lO:lS; Luke 12:47f. ; 23:34; Rom. 1:32; 2:12; 1 Tim, 1:13-16).
3. Sins of weakness, and sins of presumption. The amount of the strength of will involved here indicates the degree of guilt. The Psalmist prayed to be kept from presumptuous sins (Ps. 19: l3), and Isaiah speaks of those who
“drag iniquity with the cords of falsehood, and sin as if with cart ropes” (Isa.
5: 18). These are they who knowingly and determinately indulge in sin. On the other hand, Peter in his denial of Christ illustrates the sin of infirmity.
He was overcome in spite of his determination to stand (Luke 22:31-34, 54-62). It is interesting to note that there was no sacrifice for willful sinning (Num. 15:30; cf. Heb. 10:26).
4. Sins of incomplete, and sins of complete hardheartedness. The degree to which the soul has hardened itself and become unreceptive to multiplied offers of the grace of God here determines the degree of guilt. A soul may
194 Anthropology
turn from the love of the truth and become completely insensitive to the Spirit’s promptings (1 Tim. 4:2; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 John 2:19; 5:16f.).
III. PENALTY
While it is true that to a certain extent the natural consequences of sin are a part of the penalty of sin, we must remember that the full penalty is of a different nature. Depravity and guilt, as consequences of sin, rest upon mankind now, but penalty in its fullness awaits a future day.
A. THE MEANING OF PENALTY
Penalty is that pain or loss which is directly inflicted by the lawgiver in vindication of his justice, which has been outraged by the violation of law.
This implies and includes the natural consequences of sin, but these by no means exhaust that penalty. In all penalty there is a personal element, that is, the holy wrath of the lawgiver, and this is only partially expressed by the natural consequences. In the light of this, it is easy to see that penalty is not essentially intended to bring about the reformation of the offender. There is a difference between discipline and punishment. Discipline proceeds from love and is intended to be corrective (Jer. 10:24; 2 Cor. 2:6-8; 1 Tim. 1:20;
Heb. 12: 6) ; but punishment proceeds from justice and so is not intended to reform the offender (Ezek. 28:22; 36:21f.; Rev. 16:5; 19:2). Neither is it primarily intended as a deterrent and preventive, though this end is some- times secured, for it is never right to punish an individual simply for the good of society, nor will punishment do good unless the person punished deserves punishment. Punishment inflicted by law is not discipline nor rem- edy, but just retribution. It is not a means, but an end. A murderer is not corrected by being put to death; he is receiving a just retribution for his deed.
Capital punishment is a divine mandate (Gen. 9:5f.).
B. THE CHARACTER OF PENALTY
It takes only one word to state the penalty of sin, and thus it is given in the Scriptures: death. It is a threefold death: physical, spiritual, and eternal.
1. Physical death. Physical death is the separation of soul and body. It is represented in the Scriptures as a part of the penalty of sin. This is the most natural meaning of Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Num. 16:29; 27:3. The prayer of Moses (Ps. 90:7-11) and the prayer of Hezekiah (Isa. 38:17f.) recognize the penal character of death. The same thing is true in the New Testament (John
The Fall of Man: The Nature and Final Consequences of Sin 195 8:44; Rom. 4:24f.; 5:12-17; 6:9f.; 8:3,10f.; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 4:6). For the Christian, however, death is no longer a penalty, since Christ has endured death as the penalty of sin (Ps. 17:15; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23; 1 Thess.
4: 13f
.) .
For him the body sleeps, awaiting the glories of the resurrection, and the soul, absent from the body, enters consciously into the presence of the Lord Jesus.2. Spiritual death. Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God.
The penalty proclaimed in Eden which has fallen upon the race is primarily this death of the soul (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:21; Eph. 2:1,5). By it man lost the presence and favor of God as well as the knowledge of and desire for God.
Because of this, he needs to be made alive from death (Luke 15:32 ; John 5:24; 8:51; Eph. 2:5).
3. Eternal death. Eternal death is simply the culmination and completion of spiritual death. It is the eternal separation of the soul from God, together with the accompanying remorse and outward punishment (Matt. 10:28;
25:41; 2 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 10:31; Rev..l4:11). This matter is examined more fully in our study of future things.