Chapter Overview
This study could go many different directions because it involves so much more than just the question, “Am I guilty for Adam’s sin?” We could talk about the nature of sin, regeneration, atonement, and total depravity, and how it is supposedly transferred from Adam to us. However, I want to focus on this particular part of it. If this idea is incorrect, then the rest of the theological structure should collapse with it. (See Appendix 2 for a fuller treatment of the dogma of Original Sin).
We will first look at the false idea that we are born guilty of Adam’s sin and born with a totally depraved nature. I will quote.
- Lewis Sperry Chafer
- John Wesley
- The Moody Handbook of Theology
Next, we will look at the truth. You and I are no more guilty of Adam’s sin than we are of Stalin’s or Hitler’s or our parents’ sins. Neither are we born helpless sinners with a totally depraved nature. I will present both biblical and logical arguments in support of my thesis. For instance, how can it be said that Christ was tempted in all points as we are when most Christians insist that Jesus was born without a sinful or depraved nature? If so, then how is it true Christ knows what it is like to be tempted when the craving for sin is irresistible? Don’t most Christians believe Jesus couldn’t sin? If true, then how could Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are? Do we think that it is impossible for us not to sin and impossible for Christ to sin?
THE ERROR = WE ARE GUILTY FOR ADAM’S SIN
I will give a few examples. Maybe most of the so-called Christian Church believes this false idea or is at least taught this error. The Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations, I suspect, teach this lie as a fundamental doctrine or tenet of faith. I accepted it as accurate for many years.
LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER
Mr. Chafer believes that the consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin was that they died spiritually, and their nature was now totally depraved. And as a result, all their posterity would also be slaves of sin because they inherit a totally depraved nature from Adam and Eve. In addition, he believes the Bible teaches the doctrine of imputation, which means that God charges all of Adam’s descendants with the guilt of Adam’s sin.[1]
Did you read that carefully? Adam’s descendants are charged with the responsibility of Adam’s first sin. That means you and I are accountable for Adam’s first sin. We are just as guilty as Adam. Are we guilty for Cain’s sin as well? What about the sin of your parents? Are you guilty of their sin?
Mr. Chafer goes on to say that a corrupt nature was also handed down to Adam’s posterity. We sin because we are born sinners. “Although men contend, as they do, that they are not responsible for Adam’s sin, the divine revelation stands that because of the far-reaching effect of representation of Adam as the federal head of the race, Adam’s one, initial sin is immediately and directly imputed to each member of the race with the unvarying sentence of death resting upon all (Rom. 5:12-14). Likewise, by the fall of Adam, the effect of the one, initial sin is transmitted in the form of a sinful nature immediately, or by inheritance, from father to son throughout all generations. The effect of the fall is universal; so, also, the offer of divine grace. Men do not now fall by their first sin; they are born fallen sons of Adam. They do not become sinful by sinning, but they sin because, by nature, they are sinful. No child needs to be taught to sin, but every child must be encouraged to be good. It should be observed that, though the fall of Adam rests upon the race, there is evident divine provision for infants and all who are irresponsible.”[2]
The author does not go on to explain this “evident divine provision for infants and all who are irresponsible.” Somehow, these persons are not held responsible for Adam’s sin. How convenient to exclude these persons from his theology so that a thinking person can stomach the implications. Not everyone is so gracious. According to Rome, Augustine, and some, if not most, of the Reformers, as far as I know, believe that a child is born condemned. Some, like Augustine, teach that infant baptism removes the guilt of original sin. However, if the infant is not baptized, it doesn’t go to heaven. If the child doesn’t go to heaven, then where does it go, limbo?
I am amazed that Chafer excludes the “irresponsible” from damnation along with infants. But how can he maintain that you and I are accountable for Adam’s sin and therefore guilty? How can we be held responsible? On what basis does this responsibility rest? Are we not as irresponsible as the “irresponsible” Chafer refers to? Of course, we are. According to him, the irresponsible have divine provision made for them, like infants. Why? Is it because they have no power, control, ability, or prior knowledge with which to avoid sin? Is it because they are not moral beings and agents at the time? What makes a person a moral being and accountable to moral law? There are a few essential things, such as 1) knowledge of the right and wrong way, 2) ability to choose between the right and wrong way, and 3) accountability for one’s choices. Neither the infant, the irresponsible, nor any other person could have caused Adam to choose other than he did. Strictly speaking, only Adam is responsible for his sin, and no one else, because only Adam met these conditions. Yet Chafer wants to make us accountable when we did not know of the prohibition, as we had no existence until well after Adam’s sin. Nor did we have the ability or opportunity to convince or force Adam to obey God. Let us not forget that we did not exist when Adam sinned. Isn’t it ridiculous when you really think about it?
The author writes, “No child needs to be taught to sin.” Chafer says this is evidence of Adam’s corruption affecting all humanity. Children are born with a sinful nature, an irresistible craving for sin, according to him. But is that really true? Did Adam and Eve need to be taught to sin? Of course not, and neither does anyone else. Did the Angels need to be taught to sin? Were Adam and the Angels born with a sinful nature? “No,” you respond. Then how is it that they sinned? If they were not created with a sinful nature or taught how to sin, then how is it that they sinned? Is it possible that this doctrine of an inherited sinful nature is not true and is a lie? Will you consider that possibility?
When Chafer says this is the profound doctrine of imputation, I feel as though I could scream. Is that too harsh of me? According to Chafer, we are all born with a sinful nature, which causes us to sin without our prior consent. We can only sin. We can do no good. Yet we are accountable. We are responsible not to sin, even though we can’t help but sin. Sin is unavoidable, yet we are guilty. Forgive me, but I don’t find this profound. Can you? I guess it is very possible that my intellect is too shallow to comprehend the profundity of this doctrine.
When I read authors like Chafer, I often wonder at how gullible Christians can be. How can anyone believe they are responsible for another person’s sin when they are in no way involved? Can a right-thinking person hold themselves accountable and therefore guilty for breaking a law they involuntarily break? I repeat, can a right-thinking person hold themselves responsible for Adam’s sin for the same reason? Remember what I said earlier. Only a religious deception would so darken a mind that it could sense condemnation for not performing impossibilities. Why don’t you hold yourself guilty for not preventing your parents’ sin? Is it simply because you have no control over them and their sinful behavior? If you can’t prevent either your parents’ sin or your own sin, why would you hold yourself guilty for your sin and not theirs? Why would you believe that you share in Adam’s guilt but not the guilt of your parents? Aren’t you seminally present in both Adam and your parents? It makes no sense to me. How about you?
JOHN WESLEY
“Although it is unlikely that any evangelical Wesleyan scholar would deny the inheritance of a corrupt nature from the fall of Adam as the federal head of the human race, many would differ on the doctrine of inherited guilt, on both scriptural and ethical grounds. It is not a question as to whether Wesley taught this doctrine, for he obviously did on occasion. In Wesley’s argument with one Dr. Taylor, he says, “God does not look upon infants as innocent, but as involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin; otherwise death, the punishment denounced against that sin, could not be inflicted upon them.” The question is, rather, was Wesley correct, either scripturally or ethically, in this particular teaching? It is obvious that Wesley was influenced by Calvinism to a greater extent than he may have realized in regard to the doctrine of inherited guilt.”[3]
It is refreshing to read that those of a particular theology are not so wedded to it that they can’t reject a teaching that violates ethics, reason, and the Bible. Wesley was a great man. I learned much from him. However, he was not exempt from error. John Wesley was indeed influenced by the doctrines of Calvinism and as a result accepted the idea that we are guilty of Adam’s sin and even infants are born guilty deserving of eternal death.
“To argue that because Adam was the head of the human race and that all humanity was in him and shared the effects of the Fall through inherited depravity is not the same as saying that all participated in Adam’s act of disobedience and consequently incurred the guilt of his fall. This would be no more logical than to conclude that a child or children inherit the guilt of a parent for a heinous sin or crime committed by that parent before the child was born or was even conceived. A child might well inherit a propensity to evil or even a disease from the parent’s sin, but guilt stems from a culpable act traceable to the unethical conduct of a morally responsible person. The logical corollary and consequent of this position, that all actually sinned in Adam and thus inherit his guilt, would be that all are likewise included in the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, and through His atonement are automatically absolved of their guilt. This would lead inevitably to universalism. Wesley himself said, “Nothing is sin strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God” (italics added).”[4]This comment is right on the money. Please read it again.
Is physical death the primary punishment for Adam’s sin, like John Wesley believed? In Genesis, we read, “But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” Genesis 2:17. Did Adam and Eve die physically the day they sinned? No, they did not, for they lived a long time after that. What then does it mean? It means they died eternally on the very day they committed their sin.[5] Physical death may be a consequence of Adam’s sin on all of us, but that in no way means we are guilty for his sin. If I am convicted of grand theft, my family suffers many of the consequences of my sin, but they share in none of the guilt and spend no time in prison. In the same way, physical death may be a consequence that all of us bear as a result of Adam’s sin. With all due respect to Wesley and those who believe in his teachings, physical death doesn’t mean we are guilty of Adam’s sin. But we do know for sure that God doesn’t lie; therefore, Adam and Eve did die on the day they sinned. They died eternally. Eternal life is the quality of life, not the duration of life.
In Chapter One, I discussed Romans 5:12-19. I was defending the idea of our ability to obey God. Romans 5 doesn’t teach the inability of man to obey God and the law any more than it teaches we are guilty for Adam’s sin. The passage says that death spread to all men because “all men sinned.” “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men” Romans 5:18. I admit it, this passage appears to state we are condemned and are just as guilty as Adam as a result of his sin. But let’s read on. The rest of the passage goes like this, “Even so through one act of righteousness there resulted in justification of life to all men.” This verse suggests that through Christ, we are all saved and justified. That leads inevitably to the heresy of universalism. Therefore, if Christ’s (second Adam) one act of righteousness doesn’t mean automatic salvation for all of mankind, why does one sin of Adam (first Adam) mean automatic guilt/damnation for all of mankind?
Wesley found a way around the doctrine of inherited guilt with the doctrine of prevenient grace. This doctrine means that God’s grace precedes or goes before, absolving Adam’s descendants of the guilt of his sin, which is imputed to them by God. The doctrine of “prevenient grace” is a doctrine of “convenient grace,” which is nothing more than inventing a doctrine out of thin air. Wesley is not the only one who has used the doctrine of convenient grace, as I have noted more than a few times, to rescue their horrible doctrines from their inconsistencies and absurdities. For some, this explanation of prevenient grace is satisfactory. For others, like me, it is not. Neither Wesley nor Calvin is correct in my humble opinion. Both men appear to hide behind a manufactured doctrine they think will save their ideas from logical inquiry and reason.
Augustine, Calvin, and other Reformers are addressed in the Moody Handbook of Theology.
Under the heading “Federal View,” we have the following explanation. “Through the one sin of Adam, sin and death are imputed to all humanity because all humanity was represented in Adam. Charles Hodge defines the view: ‘in virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming also upon them.”[6] Then under the Augustinian view we have this explanation. “This view teaches that the statement “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 suggests that all humanity was a participant in the sin. Therefore, the sin of Adam and the resultant death is charged to all humanity because all humanity is guilty. God holds all humanity guilty because all humanity is guilty.”[7] Both of these views regard imputation, as already defined, as the means by which his guilt is transferred.
The author of this book on theology lists four views on how Adam’s sin is imputed to humanity. He cites the two views above, as well as the Arminian and Pelagian views. Regarding Pelagius, he states that Pelagius taught that God created every soul directly and that he despised the traducian theory; therefore, every soul was, in his view, innocent and unstained. He didn’t believe the Bible taught that Adam’s sin was imputed or transferred to humanity. Only acts of sin that the individual commits are imputed to them, not Adam’s. The author believes that the logical consequence of the Pelagian view is that each person must fall personally, as they are born free from sin.[8] I quote this comment only to reveal his bias against Pelagius. The author’s comment suggests that Pelagius believed in some evil, horrible, and outrageous idea —that each of us must “fall” ourselves. What a terrible thing to accept. What a travesty that some people think a command of God implies the ability to obey it or that babies are not born sinful and guilty of Adam’s sin, worthy of eternal torment. How far have we fallen that there could be those who believe such horrible things! But to believe that God elects some to everlasting damnation is evangelical. To believe we are guilty for another person’s sin is orthodox! To think that God requires us to perform impossibilities under pain of eternal torment if we don’t is honoring to the God of love! Never mind that God clearly declares that everyone dies for their own sin, not that of their family, and that the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:3, Deuteronomy 24:16). These theologians have a religious explanation as to why these passages I just referred to don’t apply.
In an earlier chapter, I said that those who insist we must have inherited depravity or imputed guilt to explain sin must think we are better and stronger than Adam and the Angels. Perfect angels and Adam sinned, in an ideal environment, with a perfect parent. How is it they sinned without any of the supposed liabilities we are born with? Why do we need something more than temptation and lust to explain our sin? Do these men think we would have passed the test, unlike Adam? If not, then why must they insist on having an inherited sinful nature to explain why we sin? Are we back to their extreme fear of human pride that drives this unjust doctrine? Arminians are often accused of a theology that breeds pride. Maybe it’s the other way around. Is that possible?
The Augustinian and Federal views argue that Adam’s guilt is passed on to us even though we didn’t commit the act itself. And why not? If a sinner can be imputed not guilty and a righteous man (Christ) can be imputed guilty, why not believe we are guilty of Adam’s sin? There is no limit to this nonsense where reason becomes unreasonable. The Bible says that in the latter days they will call evil good and good evil. This is, in my estimation, a straightforward application of that truth.
THE TRUTH = YOU AND I ARE NO MORE GUILTY OF ADAM’S SIN THAN WE ARE FOR STALIN’S, HITLER’S, OR OUR PARENTS’ SIN.
You are not guilty for Adam’s sin any more than you are for mine. Isn’t it preposterous to think we are condemned for another man’s sin? How could justice abide such an idea? The good news is that you don’t have to believe this dogma to be a part of the family of God.
How can anyone believe a baby is guilty of a capital offence, guilty enough to spend eternity in hell? Does a baby who dies, without baptism, go to hell (or limbo) for Adam’s sin and the supposed guilt they inherit? Do you really believe that? Doesn’t your sense of justice say this is not possible for a holy, loving God?
Adam was created perfect like the Angels. He chose himself over God and sinned. You don’t need inherited spiritual depravity to explain the existence of sin in us any more than it is required to explain why Adam and the angels sinned. We all like Adam choose ourselves over God and sin in precisely the same way. Each of us falls individually and freely. If that alone makes me Pelagian, then so be it. I would rather be called names and rejected by men than believe a blatant lie that robs God of His glory. It makes Him guilty and us innocent. Clearly, it is just the opposite. We are guilty and He is innocent.[9]
It’s apparent, at least to me, that logic, reason, and the Word of God don’t support the notion that we share in Adam’s guilt. Adam alone is ultimately guilty for his sin. Yes, Satan was partially responsible, as was Eve, but in the final analysis, Adam chose to sin, and he was responsible for not sinning. He had the ability not to sin. He had free will. Eve and Satan sinned first. Sinners, and that includes so-called Christians, are never willing to allow another person to remain holy. Sinners always want to corrupt the pure. But this is no excuse for you or me to sin. I must sadly and reluctantly conclude that their doctrine of imputed sin and righteousness is leavened through and through.
I have quoted the meager Biblical support for the notion that we are guilty for Adam’s sin as cited by its proponents. Now, let’s look at the Biblical evidence against this idea. I trust you will find it convincing.
Ezekiel 18
“Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.” Ezekiel 18:2.
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteousness will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” Ezekiel 18:20.
Starting with verse 10 of Chapter 18, the text revolves around a story of a father who may “have a violent son who sheds blood.” The whole intent of this passage is to make it clear that everyone dies for their own sins and not even the father of a violent, bloodshedding son will die for the son’s sin. Someone might argue that this applies only to temporal matters. Eternally speaking, we are guilty of Adam’s sin. Do you really believe such contradictory concepts of justice? On earth, it is wrong to condemn someone for another’s sin, but in heaven, it’s okay? Can you understand why I’m unable to accept that idea?
Ryrie believes that sin is transmitted directly from Adam to each member of the human race. He makes it clear that humanity bears the full punishment for Adam’s sin, including the inability to obey God and do any good before salvation. That means I am just as guilty as Adam for his sin because I suffer all the consequences Adam did for his sin. In his footnote to Ezekiel 18:2, he writes that the Jews believed their children were suffering for the sins of their fathers. Ryrie agrees that there are cumulative effects of sin, but in this passage, the Lord declares that each person is accountable for his own sin, not the sin of his father.[10] Ryrie appears to agree with Pelagius, doesn’t he? Then how can he and others say we are guilty for Adam’s sin? The answer is that they don’t mind adopting and believing in contradictions! Their yes is not just yes. It’s yes and no at the same time. Never mind that Jesus told us, ‘let your yes be yes’ and not yes and no at the same time.
I agree with Ryrie that there are “cumulative effects of sin.” And he doesn’t confuse that with being guilty for another person’s sin. At least not here, he doesn’t confound being guilty with suffering the consequences of another person’s sin. Only when we consider Adam does Ryrie contradict this statement.
Deuteronomy 24:16
This is not a new principle in scripture for long before the Ezekiel passage was written the following passage in Deuteronomy was written, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” Deuteronomy 24:16. The Bible expressly affirms that everyone dies for his or her own sin. Then how can so many religious teachers say we are guilty of Adam’s sin, our first father? Isn’t that a direct denial of this truth?
A STORY
Emily, an only child living in a distant land, was sitting at home one evening when she heard a knock at the door. She hurried to the door only to find the police on her front porch. The police were looking for her father as he had been accused of a crime. New DNA research provided irrefutable proof of his guilt. She explained that her father had recently passed away. Undeterred, the police arrested her and booked her for the crime. In the eyes of the law of her country, children are held accountable for the crimes of their parents or grandparents. The crime was a capital offense, so Emily faced the death penalty if found guilty.
Does this not give rise to righteous indignation? What manner of justice would allow a child to be killed for her parents’ sin? Isn’t this precisely what these theologians want us to accept? Of course, it is, and it’s wrong. But it’s worse than this story of imminent physical death. These theologians say we are guilty enough to be sent to hell for everlasting punishment. Obviously, that is much worse than a simple physical death. That pain would last for but a moment, unlike hell, which will last forever and ever. Logic, reason, and the Word of God declare that everyone dies for their own sins. You are not guilty of my sin, and I am not guilty of your sin. In the final analysis, only Adam is guilty for his sin and no one else. The devil and Eve share responsibility for corrupting Adam, but Adam alone made the sinful decision.
In conclusion
When lies become accepted as truth, the concept of personal responsibility becomes obscured. Accountability is effectively denied. What happens when the line between guilt and innocence vanishes? What happens to personal responsibility when we are held guilty for another person’s sin? Couple the idea that we are guilty for Adam’s sin with the dogma of total depravity, and the concept of personal responsibility will inevitably be destroyed. We live in such a day when very few people will admit their responsibility for their sins. Most often, we play the blame game. Someone or something else is at fault, not us. No wonder we have so many excuses for sin, which typically go unchallenged.
How many people will reject my writings because they are unwilling to give up their sins? They will not admit their responsibility. Rather, they will criticize my style, poor writing, absurd stories, and my direct approach. Or they will blame someone or something else. But all this is a diversion from the truth. I fear most people, especially so-called Christians, are unwilling to give up their first love, which is self. I pray for these lost souls. Also, pray that we never succumb to the lie that we believers can live deliberately and presumptuously in sin and still go to heaven.
[1] Major Bible Themes Revised Edition, Chafer/Walvoord, Zondervan Publishing House, 1974. p.175. Not a quote, reference only.
[2] Ibid. pp.175,176.
[3] A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology, Volume One, Charles W. Carter, General Editor, Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing House,1983. p. 267.
[4] Ibid. p. 267.
[5] We are immortal souls. Physical death is only the end of our physical body. Our souls live on forever. Eternal Life is that existence in the presence of God in heaven. Eternal death is that existence separated from the presence of God in hell. Some think that eternal death is annihilation, but I am not yet convinced.
[6] The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns, Moody Press,1989. p. 312.
[7] Ibid. p. 312. We are guilty because we had the misfortune of being born!
[8] Ibid. p. 311. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[9] As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems I have with the idea of an inherited spiritual depravity is, how can it be said that Christ was tempted in all points as we are when most Christians insist that He was born without a sinful nature? If so, then how is it true Christ knows what it is like to be tempted when the craving for sin is irresistible because of a sinful nature? It can’t be true that Christ has been tempted as we are. He may have been tempted to the lust of the flesh, eyes and boastful pride of life but that isn’t the point, is it? When the Bible declares that with every temptation God provides a way of escape then how can it be said our sinful nature doesn’t contradict this truth? If I want to have a few supporters I could adopt a Wesleyan Arminian view that we inherit a “bent” toward sin. But again, did Christ have a bent toward sin? If not, then He doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are tempted.
[10] Ryrie Study Bible, Ibid. p.1249. Not a quote, reference only.
