|
An Essay on Sin and Justification This was in response to someone who read my Baptism Essay and disagreed with some of my premises Dear XXX, I have read your essay. It is well done, but I see some exegetical difficulties, mostly in the area of exegetical assumptions. In your paper, under "Adamic Sin" you state "That is to say, that when Adam sinned and later had children his sin was passed down through all future generations." The doctrine of original sin [OS] does not teach that we have committed Adam's sin (this is a common misconception BTW) but it does teach that because of Adam's sin we are born severed from God, i.e. that we cannot love God by our own strength. You also state "Since the law of birth is from God and for the purpose of perpetuating the human race, how could one possibly believe that God through the birth process bring a baby into this world with a corrupted nature, which leads him to sin, without choice, and then punishes him for sinning, which he could not avoid?" This assumes that nothing from God can be corrupted by sin. For instance, God created our sex drives, but because of sin it is corrupted. By extension, God created free will, free will can be misused. When it is sin results. Also, I do not subscribe to Calvinism, so I will not defend its doctrines. You write "If one says that all actual transgressions proceed from a supposed corruption of nature, then how does he account for the difference of inclination to sin which can be seen manifested by different persons? We see persons in the same family under similar circumstances with different inclinations toward sin." This is a questionable assumption. Just because we all have a sinful nature does not mean that we all do the same things. In any case God does not see our sins as discrete acts, if we break one part of the law we break all of it. What God sees is either that we are perfect or that we "miss the mark", which is what the Greek term for sin is in the NT. So for the purposes of OS it does not make a difference if one person sins differently from another. You wrote "The worst part about this theory is that it damns every infant that dies in infancy. The baby with this corrupt nature when he dies will either go to hell because of it or go to heaven still in it." We say no such thing! While it is possible for an unbaptized infant to go to hell, we have no way of saying whether he does or not. Since God is silent on the matter we remain silent. You quoted a passage thus: "Luke 18:15,16; 'And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them. But when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.' " In your essay you state that this proves that infants are pure because otherwise Jesus was saying that adults should become like depraved infants. But this does not take into account the whole council of Scripture, since we have parallel accounts in other books which show conclusively what Jesus meant by "become as little children." In Mark 18:6 and Matthew 9:42 Jesus says that the little ones believe in Him. We also know that this is the *only* way to please God. In other words, Jesus was *not* speaking of the Children's innate holiness, because that would mean that they get into the Kingdom because of their own merits, not those of Christ. Benjamin Franklin also missed this one, failing to see the faith of the little children, only works. You did not address this point in your essay, i.e. that your doctrine makes infants enter heaven of their own merits, not those of Christ. I would appreciate it if you would clear this point up. Regarding the Lutheran interpretation, you write "The Lutherans argue, however, that Jesus laid His hands on the children and blessed them taking care of the Adamic sin..." But we Lutherans are *not* claiming that Jesus created faith by laying His hands on the children. What we *do* believe is that the word creates faith, and that Jesus was referring to faith when He said "become as little children." You also wrote "In this case they readily overlook the fact that in the great commission Jesus not only commands his disciples to baptized in all nations but to first teach them; Mat. 28:19,20. In connection with the great commission in Mark Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Believing must precede baptism. Notice also that in their quoting of Acts 2:38 they conveniently leave out the first part of the verse which says, "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you..."42 A baby can not be taught, and he can not believe." Jesus does not command us to first teach then baptize. It is simply not in the text. Here is the passage in question Mat. 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.(NKJ) The King James version uses teach, but the Greek word is matheeteusate, which also means to make disciples. Jesus no where says that we must first teach then baptize. The tense of the verb "baptizing" shows that the baptism is part of the teaching, as well as teaching them to observe His commandments. If we followed the method of interpretation you outlined, we would have to believe that we must first teach, then baptize, then teach obedience, which would be nonsense. The most literal interpretation is that "all nations" refers to everybody, that the Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is also for that very same everyone, including infants, and that this is all part of the teaching. You also mentioned Acts 2:38 and said that the Lutherans "conveniently" leave out the first part of the verse. However, you have left out the next verse which states "For the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call." So in context I would say that the statement from the Lutheran tract that Baptism is for infants too is taking more than one part of one verse into account. If the promise is to the children (and why would they need the promise if they had no sin?) it is perfectly reasonable to attach the passage to Infant Baptism. You wrote regarding our corrupt nature "There are those who teach that the corrupt nature remains in those that are regenerated.43 The scriptures, however, say different, Peter tells us, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth,"44 and "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."45 If the corrupt nature remains how can they be described as pure also? Jesus spoke of "good and honest hearts" receiving the word of God." Paul describes himself as corrupt and prone to sin in Romans 7 Rom 7:15-24 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (NKJ)
St. Paul was obviously beset by sin, and did you notice that he says that it is the sin which dwells in him? This is the same thing as being simultaneously justified and sinner, or that a corrupt nature still exists. I found the following quite interesting. You wrote "Innocence or guilt is not an inborn trait. It comes as a result of our attitude and action as in Cain's reception of sin which led to murder. Sin is not inherited, but the capacity to do good or bad is passed from one generation to the next." Now in several other places you stated that Jesus wants us to be like little children, i.e. to reflect children's' righteousness that we are born into. But if innocence is not an inborn trait of children, are you saying that Jesus does not want us to posses innocence? This is probably just a poor choice of words, but it is essentially the same argument used by Benjamin Franklin which you approvingly quoted in your essay. There the Baptist minister was arguing that the children were corrupt, and Franklin said that therefore Jesus wanted the adults to become corrupt if we are supposed to be as children. This was used to show that children cannot have sin. While Franklin's argument has problems (such as seeing the righteousness of the children instead of their trust in and desire to be near Jesus, or their faith) it will not do to assert that children's' innocence is not inborn and also state that they go to heaven. Now regarding the connection of sin and death, you made some claims which are very difficult to agree with. You wrote "He also declares that without the law he would not have known sin. Seeing that there is no transgression without law and that law is necessary for one to know sin, the only way one can sin is for him to have a law and then transgress that law." The problem arises when we assume that the term "sin" and "law" always have the exact same meaning. In Romans 4:14-15 Paul is speaking of the Mosaic law, but in Romans 2 we read that the doers, not the hearers of the law will be justified. We also see in that verse that the Gentiles do not have the law but by nature do the things in the law. Obviously we are not dealing with the same law as we are in Romans 4:14-15, otherwise we would have to believe that even if the Gentiles did commit murder, rape etc., they would be blameless. A quick examination of the Old Testament will show that God judged the Canaanites for their wickedness, even though they had not received the Mosaic law. Thus Gentile nations are held accountable to a law, though not the entire Mosaic law. What this touches on is your belief that OS means we are guilty of Adam's sin, which it does not. This is because you use only one definition of sin when a more nuanced approach is called for. For instance, sin is referred to as a force, it is not merely the failure to keep the law. In Genesis 6 we read that the world was corrupted by sin. Now if sin was merely the transgression of the law then what is the meaning of "the world was corrupted?" In Romans 1 we read that sinners are not only corrupting the earth, but that because of sin their very minds are dimmed. In other words sin acted upon their minds as a force. In Romans 5:12 we read that sin entered the world through Adam. Again, sin is something more than the failure to keep the law, it is portrayed as an active force which unleashes ungodly forces such as death. In the Bible, the law means more than the Mosaic law, and sin means more than the transgression of the law. Notice that this interpretation does not contradict the statement that sin is the transgression of the law, that interpretation is correct, it just fails to do justice to the whole biblical message. Regarding death, you write "We die a physical death as result or consequence of Adam's sin but we will die of a spiritual death also because of our own sins, if we do not repent." This is not true, because Paul says the wages of sin is death and that death (ROM 6:32) spread to all because all sinned (ROM. 5:12). (Notice, all sinned, not just those who understood the law) Sin and death are intimately intertwined. Also, to quote a passage often cited by those who believe infants are innocent, Ezekiel says that the soul which sins, it shall die. (Keep in mind that the Hebrews did not make a radical distinction between soul and body as we do.) For the Hebrews, sin and death were intertwined. So if we all die for our own sins, how does one explain the death of a sinless infant? It is not explainable unless we believe that we are all born under that powerful force caused by Adam's sin, which corrupted God's world and the universe itself (ROM. 8:22). Because of this sin, which entered the world (ROM. 5:12, take note that sin, a dynamic force, entered the world) all sin and all die. We die because of our very own sins, not those of Adam and our other ancestors. Now usually the objection is raised that Jesus died, and He had no sin. This is of course true, but Jesus is not a good analogy for the whole human race because He did not have a human father. The same is true of Adam, and he was without sin until he willfully chose to reject his Creator. Interestingly, your doctrine would mean that innocent people die because of Adam's transgression. In a further vein you wrote "The fact of the matter is death is a blessing to those who have sinned and are redeemed." However, God is the Lord of life, not death. Death is the negation of life, since God is life He cannot embrace death which would make Him deny Himself. Death is not a blessing, what is the blessing is the promise of our reunification with our bodies to be with God forever. We have to die because like Paul, we sin even though we belong to Christ. You also mentioned that God creates our souls. You prove this by quoting Heb. 12:9 and Zech. 12:1. Hebrews does not state that God creates our souls, it merely states that God is the Father of spirits. This could mean life or could be referring to the Angels. Zecheriah comes a little closer, but all this means is that God is the Author of life. In Hebrew the word for breath and spirit are the same, so we should be careful when we draw conclusions based on English Translations. Next you challenged some traditional interpretations of certain passages. I will go into great depth here since here is where all the loose ends are tied together. You write "Psalm 51:5 reads, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.' From this it is concluded that David was born in sin, as an infant, totally depraved. This is a false conclusion. There are two parts to David's statement; (1) He speaks of the condition of his mother; not himself; 'In sin did my mother conceive me;' (2) David speaks of himself; 'I was brought forth in iniquity.' He does not say that he was born with a corrupt, sinful nature, The Bible says that people were born in a language (Acts 2:8), but this obviously does not mean that they were born speaking a certain language." I see two difficulties here. In the first place, what we have here is a Hebrew couplet or doublet. In Hebrew poetry it is common to say the same thing twice in a slightly different way. Examples of this follow: [chosen at random] Ps 10:1 1 Why do You stand afar off, O LORD? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble? The same thought, namely the Psalmist's feeling that God is somehow absent, is stated in different ways. The connection is provided by the theme of God's "invisibility" which would be accomplished either by His hiding Himself or His being out of sight. Ps 15:1 1 LORD, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill? Here the connection is even more pronounced. The Tabernacle and the Holy Hill mean the same thing. Ps 33:2 2 Praise the LORD with the harp; make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings. The Psalmist said "play the harp" in two different ways. This poetic method is common in Hebrew literature. What this boils down to is that we are not free to make the division offered, when David said that "Behold I was brought forth in inequity, in sin my mother conceived me." The second clause is merely restating the theme that David's sin was from the beginning of his existence. The solution you offered makes very little sense, because David would have had his mother's sin just dangling there unconnected with the rest of his composition. You also gave the example of people being born into a language from Acts 2. What we have here is obviously an idiomatic expression (which makes it more likely to be a quote!). A similar thing is "Lead us not into temptation..." This does not mean that God leads into temptation, rather it is Hebrew idiom for "Protect me from being tempted." An example in English is the expression "I am so hungry I could eat a horse." If we do not understand that this is an idiomatic expression we will be led astray in our understanding. Then you said "David is simply saying that he was brought into a world of iniquity." However, these are not his words. He did not say "I was brought forth into an evil/sinful/world of inequity" but "I was brought forth in inequity." The world is not present in the text, the only objects are David, his mother, sin and inequity. If you want to say that the world is meant you should provide some textual evidence for this. You also offered an explanation for David's words which is a little more in depth. You wrote "According to Deut. 23:2 a child born illegitimate could not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation. In I Chron. 2:4-5 we find that David was the tenth generation from the incestual union of Judah and Tamar. In the eyes of God under the Mosaic law the union of each generation was considered unclean. It is no wonder that David said, "I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord." This interpretation seems initially strong. However, the union of Tamar and Judah was before the Mosaic Law was given, so it was not in effect, as Paul said "without the law (Mosaic Law) there is no transgression." Thus David was not forbidden from entering the congregation. But even if we allow that you are correct, this would mean that a large part of the tribe of Judah would be forbidden from worshipping God. There is no evidence for this in Scripture. What this means is that there is no reason to believe that David was speaking about anything other than his sinfulness from the beginning of his existence. The words are plain and simple "I was brought forth in inequity, in sin my mother conceived me." You wrote "Sin is something you do and not something you inherit, (I John 3:34). Ezekiel tells us that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father..." As I pointed out above, we do not believe that we inherit the particular sins of our ancestors, but that we are by nature born estranged from God. Ezekiel is totally in tune with this concept. We all die because of our own inequity, but we inherit our "bias" toward sin because after the fall the environment changed.. I would like to point out something. You quoted Romans 5: "In Romans 5:l2ff it is pointed out to us that because of Adam we must all die a physical death, 'Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.'" You then go on to say that "We all go astray, we are not born astray." A couple of issues again. In the Romans passage it is explicitly stated that there is a cause and effect relationship between sin and death. That death is caused by sin is shown by the fact that we read "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." It does not say that some die without sin, but the reason all die is because all sin. As I pointed out above, the wages of sin is death, infants die, therefore infants sin. Infants are obviously included in the "all" because they are among those who die. This also means that they need a Savior, just like the adults. This conclusion is inescapable in my view because of the Apostle's strong connection of sin and death in this and other passages. You also wrote "If one were restored to his original state, using the theory of total depravity, he would return to state of wickedness and defilement. This is false. The truth is that every infant is born without sin." The "original state" meant is not the state we are born into, but the state which existed when God created Adam. Paul says as much when he writes "For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (ROM 8:19-21) The creation will be restored to its original uncorrupted state it had before Adam's sin corrupted it. So just like the universe, when we are judged on the last day we will be fully restored to the relationship with God and the universe which Adam had. And now I will speak about the doctrine of Justification, which is what is really at stake. You write "Every responsible person must choose his own destiny. Joshua declared, 'Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the god of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.' (Josh. 24:15)." The problem is that we cannot choose God, which is shown by quite a few explicit passages. We cannot believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit, period. The above passage is often cited to refute this, but what is missed is that the Israelites had already been in the presence of the Holy Spirit for quite some time, so they could choose. Now how do I know that we cannot choose Christ without the Holy Spirit? Here are a few examples: Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Notice that faith is given to us by His grace. It does not arise out of our understanding, because many have understanding yet have no faith (James 2:19). And why is this? Because God does not want us to boast, we are His creations in Christ to do His will. If our faith was our accomplishment, if we "chose" to follow Christ, it is no longer God's grace which saves us but our choice. As Paul said, if things work by our works grace is finished (ROM. 11:6) And if this was not enough, in Hebrews we read that Christ is the Author and finisher of our faith, NOT US! Heb 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Thus our faith is created (authored) by God Himself. These are pretty plain words! John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." We are unable to come to Jesus unless the Father draws us. But you may object "After we are drawn, we can make a choice!" But Peter says that only those God calls will repent and believe, not those who "choose" Christ after weighing the options. (Act 2:39, notice that the promise is to the children as well, they are among those called) Paul says we cannot say Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit, in Acts 13:48 we read that those appointed to life believed. It does not say that those who made a choice believed.
Home Doctrine and Practice E-Mail Author
|