John Mark Karr has been cleared in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey. Clearly a sick and disturbed individual, Karr claimed responsibility for a crime he did not commit. Only a monstrously sick individual would claim responsibility for the rape and murder of a 6-year-old knowing full well that the crime was not his. Some are suggesting that his claim to this murder is a well-constructed plan to ensure that he will not be convicted for child pornography charges brought against him in California. Steve Janke says, “He won’t pay for any crimes he might have committed for the simple reason that it will be impossible for Karr to get a fair trial. Any jury pool is irredeemably tainted by the publicity. And Karr’s lawyer would be right.”
Frankly, this entire case makes me sick. I can barely bring myself to look at pictures of JonBenet Ramsey, the little girl whose parents dressed her like a sultry and seductive teenager and then marvelled that anyone would respond to her in that way. I am sickened by the sexual violence committed against her. Surely this crime is a stark display of the depravity of mankind. But as I continued to see headlines about the case a strange thought entered my mind. It quickly became obvious that Karr was not the murderer and was somehow using his confession as a means to a selfish end. But still I thought, what would be wrong with having him serve the sentence for this crime? If the state of Colorado charged him with the murder and put him in prison for the rest of his days, would the demands of justice be satisfied? Can justice be satisfied if one man serves a sentence on behalf of another, even if this is done voluntarily? The answer is obvious. The demands of justice could not and cannot be satisfied by the wrong man suffering on behalf of the one who has committed the crime. We do not need to look to the laws of our nations to determine this, for our hearts tell us this is so. God has imprinted the demand for justice into the human conscience.
And yet this is just what happened with Jesus Christ, is it not? Jesus committed no sin, and yet He suffered for my sin so that I can be declared righteous. Was this a grave miscarriage of justice or was this, as the Bible indicates, a perfect expression of both mercy and justice? And if John Mark Karr cannot satisfy justice’s demands on behalf of the man who really killed JonBenet Ramsey, why is it that Jesus can satisfy justice’s demands on behalf of the man who actually did?
I thought about this for some time and asked some friends for advice. I shuffled through five or six systematic theologies as well. All the while I felt stupid for not arriving at an easy and obvious answer. But in the end, my first instincts seemed to offer the best answer. It all comes down to imputation.
There are three times we encounter imputation in the doctrines of Scripture. The first deals with the sin of Adam. In Romans 5 we read, “One trespass led to condemnation for all men…by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” Paul declares that through the sin of Adam, all men were counted guilty. When faced with the choice to disobey God, Adam served as the representative of all mankind. When he sinned, he sinned on our behalf. Wayne Grudem says, “God counted Adam’s guilt as belonging to us, and since God is the ultimate judge of all things in the universe, and since his thoughts are always true, Adam’s guilt does in fact belong to us. God rightly imputed Adam’s guilt to us.” This word impute is critically important. Grudem defines it as “to think of as belonging to someone, and therefore to cause it to belong to that person.” As the righteous judge, God imputed Adam’s sin to all who would come from the line of Adam. From that moment, all who are born of Adam, all who are sons and daughters of Adam, are conceived and born in sin. We sin because we are sinners.
Imputation is found again in the suffering and death of Jesus. The Second Adam, Jesus Christ was appointed to be the second and greatest representative of the human race. Conceived of the Holy Spirit, Jesus did not have Adam’s sin imputed to him. He was born blameless and perfect in every way. But then, on the cross, sin was imputed to him. He bore our sin. Isaiah 53:6 says, “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Galatians 3:13 tells us that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” Christ bore our sin and even became sin. In the very same way that Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race, our sin was imputed to Christ. God thought of our sin as being on Christ’s account rather than our own, and so actually caused our sin to belong to Christ. Christ bore this sin perfectly and so satisfied God’s demands for justice.
But, thanks be to God, this is not all, for we soon encounter imputation once more. God does more than allow Christ to suffer on our behalf. While Christ died for us and bore our sin, the fact remains that we are guilty of committing countless sins. And so God also imputes to us the righteousness of Christ. Paul says in Philippians 3:9 that he does not have, “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” The righteousness he enjoys is not his own, but is a gift of God. Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to him and to all who believe. We are now thought of by God as righteous and therefore are now righteous. Praise God.
Based on plenty of thought and reading, I’ve concluded there are several reasons that John Mark Karr could not satisfy the demands of justice on behalf of another. First, God is ultimately the offended party any time a sin is committed. While a sin may hurt, bother, or even kill me, ultimately all sin is committed against God. And since God is the one who is offended, He is the one who determines how justice can be satisfied. Scripture gives no hint that one person may suffer for another, except in the case of Christ. Second, in order for Karr to suffer on behalf of another person, he would first need to have that person’s sin imputed to him. Without imputation, payment for the crime would be little more than a valueless legal fiction. Only God is able to impute sin, for, as we have seen, all sin is committed against God. Karr might be able to pretend that the sin of another person is actually his, but this would be nothing more than make-believe. Only God could actually impute that sin to him. Third, even if God were to do that, Karr could never suffer perfectly and justly for that sin. The demands of justice could not be met in one who was himself a sinner. And finally, even if Karr did have the murderer’s sin imputed to him, and even if he did bear it perfectly, the murderer would still be counted guilty, for Karr has no righteousness to offer him. Where there is sin, there is guilt. Karr is a sinner, just like you and me. He has no righteousness of his own. If he is to be ushered into heaven, he must first, by faith, believe in Christ and have Christ’s righteousness imputed to him.
We depend on Christ always, fully and finally. Only He is able to bear our sin. Only He is able to offer us His righteousness. Only He, if only we believe.
Comments (37) »
1. julie
August 29, 2006
11:08 AM
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2. Blake
August 29, 2006
11:35 AM
he gives his righteousness in exchange for our sin!
3. Richard
August 29, 2006
12:28 PM
Wow! Great insight You have been blessed with a keen intelect as well as a love for God’s truth.
4. Brian Thornton
August 29, 2006
2:33 PM
…Karr could never suffer perfectly and justly for that sin. The demands of justice could not be met in one who was himself a sinner.
Jesus first had to live a life of obedience and service before suffering the painful and shameful death of the cross.
I think this is one of the most crucial aspects to what you are getting at. I think the technical terms are active and passive obedience. If ALL Christ had to do was to die for our sin, then He would have descended from heaven straight to the cross, and then ascended back after His death.
But, it was also necessary for Him to fulfill all righteousness, which is where the active obedience comes in, resulting in His righteousness being credited to our account. Without it, His death on the cross would have only wiped the slate clean for us up to that point…putting us at square one…rather than us being declared righteousess for all of eternity.
5. Scott D. Andersen
August 29, 2006
4:14 PM
An additional thought on this is the Suretyship of Jesus Christ on our behalf before the Father:
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
John Gill writes in his commentary:
Christ is the “surety”; the word signifies one that draws nigh: Christ drew nigh to his Father in the council of peace, and undertook to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people he substituted himself in their place and stead; he interposed between the creditor and the debtor, and became surety for the payment of the debts of the latter, and so stood engaged for them, and in their room: Christ is not the surety for the Father to his people, but for them to the Father; as to satisfy for their sins, to work out a righteousness for them, to preserve and keep them, and make them happy; which is an instance of matchless love.
E-Sword:
Surety Defined:
G1450
ἔγγυος
egguos
eng’-goo-os
From G1722 and γυῖον guion (a limb); pledged (as if articulated by a member), that is, a bondsman: - surety.
…. that which takes place by the intervention of a new debtor, where another person becomes a debtor instead of a former debtor, and is accepted by the creditor, who thereupon discharges the first debtor. The person thus rendering himself debtor for another, who is in consequence discharged, is called expromissor; and this kind of novation is caned expromissio. The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon on Novation, http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n027.htm.
Octavius Winslow:
Jesus, My Surety
Go, my soul, to Calvary, and learn how holy God is, and what a monstrous thing sin is, and how imperiously, solemnly, and holily bound Jehovah is to punish it, either in the person of the sinner, or in the person of a Surety (Jesus).
6. donsands
August 29, 2006
9:02 PM
Disheartening to read about the murder. And very uplifting words on the double imputation of Christ.
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful study of the Word.
“This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.”
7. John K
August 29, 2006
10:05 PM
Just thinking out loud here, but I’m afraid I have a little trouble with the imputation of Adam’s sin to us. Is there not a difference between the imputation of sin to us and the inheritance of a sinful nature?
Of your three examples of imputation, number 2 (the imputation of our sin to Christ on the cross) we see Christ, who was perfectly righteous) bearing our sin. In number 3 (imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinful believers) we have sinful people being covered by Christ’s righteousness. To be consistent, then, we would have to interpret the first example of imputation as basically “good” humans being counted as sinful by the imputation of Adam’s sin. But this is not the case. The human race is basically depraved; there is no good in us, in and of ourselves. Imputation is not necessary. We are sinful without it.
Don’t know if this makes any sense or if I’ve even explained my thoughts clearly, but I see the human sin nature as inherited from Adam and inherent in us, and I see it as being different from imputation.
In Christ,
John K
8. Michael Garner
August 29, 2006
10:29 PM
I think Tim just stumbled onto a great question! I think his internal struggle is something important to wrestle with. There is a reason that Salvation is not thought of primarily as Justice being served. Rightly so, the word that seems to come to my lips more immediately when contemplating salvation is grace.
Reformed Theologians often refer to the Covenant of Grace whereupon God the Father convenants with His Son. In said covenant, God graciously agrees to allow for the sins of the elect to be pardoned justly by the propitiation of Jesus on the cross. Further, he graciously agrees to impute the righteousness of Christ to us.
Had God not graciously allowed for this, nobody could rightly serve our sentence and we would all be damned. Thanks be to God for his grace abounds still more and more.
Thank you Tim for reminding gus of the great doctrine of imputation.
In Chrst alone,
mike
9. Brian Thornton
August 29, 2006
10:37 PM
“Imputation is not necessary. We are sinful without it.”
John,
Without imputation, is there original sin? Is an infant sinful without the imputed sinfulness of Adam? How can an infant die of natural causes without ever having sinned unless he has been counted as sinful because of Adam’s sin?
Read here as Paul explains verse after verse how the same way Adam’s sin was imputed to us, Christ’s righteousness is also imputed…
For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Finally…
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
These are all from Romans 5.
Aren’t these statements from Paul - especially the last one - clearly showing how Christ’s righteousness is imputed in the same way that Adam’s sin was imputed?
10. Michael Garner
August 29, 2006
11:30 PM
Brian,
While I agree with you, make sure you are careful how you word things. For exampe you say,
Aren’t these statements from Paul - especially the last one - clearly showing how Christ’s righteousness is imputed in the same way that Adam’s sin was imputed?
In Romans 5 Paul repeatedly states that the one is not like the other. Now, he is arguing from the lesser to the greater and so your point still stands. However, we should be careful not to say that the imputation occurs in the same way.
In Christ alone,
mike
11. Phil
August 30, 2006
1:18 AM
John K and others,
Yes, there is a great difference between “the imputation of sin to us and the inheritance of a sinful nature” as you put it. We became sinners because Adam introduced death into the human race through sin and thus all his progeny were desperately wicked from birth. Where some see (impute?) imputation, reads functionally more as inheritance. I certainly inherited a sin nature from birth due to Adam’s sin. Adam’s sin affects the whole human race, but God will only count a man’s own sins against him. Those who assert that God will heap Adam’s sin upon us in addition to our own record proffer this argument in the face of how the Bible clearly states that God will judge each of us:
“And will He not render to man according to HIS work?” [Prov. 24:12b]
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” [Matthew 16:27]
“God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” [Rom. 2:6]
“So then each one of us will give an account of HIMSELF to God.” [Rom. 14:12]
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for HIS DEEDS IN TH BODY, according to what HE HAS DONE, whether good or bad.” [2 Cor. 5:10]
“For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which HE HAS DONE, and that without partiality.” [Col. 3:25]
“�and I will give to each one of you according to YOUR DEEDS.” [Rev 2:23]
“�and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to THEIR DEEDS.” [Rev 20:12]
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what HE HAS DONE.” [Rev. 22:12]
12. Tim Challies
August 30, 2006
6:33 AM
Phil - And yet even a person who has no sin on his account but the sin of Adam is worthy of condemnation. If this were not so, Christ would not have had to be born free of such original sin.
13. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
8:32 AM
make sure you are careful how you word things.
Michael,
That’s good advice, for sure. In light of that, I think in Romans 5:19 Paul makes the final statement that he has been putting forth in the previous four or five verses. So, instead of my words, let’s use Paul’s words.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Disobedience of ONE = making MANY sinners
Obedience of THE ONE = making MANY righteous
Paul starts off this statement by saying, “FOR AS THROUGH…”, seemingly to compare the similarity of how one man’s disobedience affected the many, just as through the One’s obedience affected the many.
Finally, Romans 5:16 states that condemnation came through ONE sin…not many individual sins.
14. francisco
August 30, 2006
9:51 AM
Brian,
Good exegesis.
1. I understand Tim’s point on the necessity of the virgin birth of the Messiah.
2. However Rom 5:19 seems to say:
a. Disobedience of One (Adam)= making MANY sinners. It does not say ALL. Question: who is the ALL Rom 3:23 refers to? I say this because of this. I was discussing with some friends of mine on how it seemed to me that the authors of “How to Read the Bible for all its worth” (former edition) dismissed the doctrine of original sin by saying one should not draw doctrine from the Psalms (especially the verse where the psalmist says he is “being born in sin”). One of my friends said to me: I got to questions for you (the old ones folks! sorry if I bother you with this):
- what about babies? (Tim has discussed this at length not too long ago)
- how can I be held accountable by a sin I did not will to commit (the whole thing about “free will” starts surfacing).
I told him that was exactly what I was expecting to hear…. Therefore I ask challies’ readers again: who the ALL in Rom 3:23 refer to? Perhaps I am not a good exeget to realize this. My apologies.
b. Obedience of one = making MANY righteous. Now that seems a good point for particular redemption!
15. donsands
August 30, 2006
10:34 AM
Seems the ALL Paul is talking about would include all Jews & all Gentiles, which would include everyone.
“Among whom also we ALL lived in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Eph. 2:3
The good news: “But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For He is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall” Eph. 2:13-14
16. GWilly
August 30, 2006
12:42 PM
“How sweet and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity”
I would just like to commend you guys for having a civil, uplifting question and answer session.
17. Tim Challies
August 30, 2006
12:47 PM
“I would just like to commend you guys for having a civil, uplifting question and answer session.”
Likewise. A while back I had someone write me and say, that out of the hundreds of blogs he’d looked at, this was the only one (or one of very few) where discussions were consistently civil. I like it that way and thank all of you for making it that way!
18. Phil
August 30, 2006
2:08 PM
Phil - And yet even a person who has no sin on his account but the sin of Adam is worthy of condemnation. If this were not so, Christ would not have had to be born free of such original sin.
All of this is true, if the premise — imputation of Adamic sin — was founded first. For example, the Roman Catholics make perfect sense in their teaching on the authority of the Magisterium and the like; the only problem is that it’s a doctrine in search of a supporting Scriptures (which there aren’t any). Same, too, for imputed sin. I’m a Reformed believer in terms of 5 point soteriology, and I really really wish I could believe in this one, too. But I honestly just don’t see it. When I read that Adam made sinners of many I not so much concerned with the term many as I am with the term made. We’re reading this so very differently…
Tim reads “made” and sees “credited to their account making them guilty from birth.”
Phil reads “made” and sees “changed their nature making a sinful disposition from birth.”
As a brother who enjoys your blog and virtual fellowship, I respectfully submit to you that one of the above readings assumes a bit much. Now I’m willing to believe in original sin (defined as imputation of Adam’s guilt) only once it has been thoroughly proven without textual conflict, not just believe it as foregone assumption to be imposed as I read. I went through this when I came from Arminian (originally Charismatic AoG) theology. I stepped back and realized our entire soteriology, missiology, etc. was all founded upon the assumption of “free will” and “foreseen faith” — a doctrinal framework we desperately needed to defend because it’s undoing would cascade across our theological landscape. We spoke of “free will” as if it were actually in a verse somewhere (it’s not, for those who still believe in it). Years later, I’m having this same feeling as I see discussions surrounding “original sin”; a doctrinal term for an assumed conclusion. I wish I could “see” it, but I can’t yet overcome the myriad Scriptures in which God so clearly lays out the rules in his lawcourt of Divine judgment. I can’t go around telling people that they’re guilty of Adam’s sin while knowing full well that when we get to court the judge has already stated the he will both judge and punish according to a man’s deeds alone. I can’t read “entered” in Romans 5:12 as “credited to everyone’s account”, nor can I read “made” as “made guilty by genetic association.” But rather perspicuity seems to indicate that through Adam sin “entered” — was introduced, was brought into, was ushered in to — mankind (not that sin wasn’t already in the world) by imposing upon us a wicked nature.
If imputation is correct, it will show up all over the place; woven in to the framework of revelatory Scripture. If not, the assumption will meet opposition from other verses, such as the many consistent verses on judgment that I’ve already posted.
Also, since you brought it up in attempt to defend imputed Adamic sin, I’m sincerely interested in the verses that support the assertion that Christ needed to born without the “original sin.” Where is that expressly taught?
19. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
2:22 PM
Phil, in light of your denial of imputed sin, could you please address this statement from Paul in Romans 5:
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
When you see ‘made’ in this verse relating to those being ‘made’ righteous…do you see imputed righteousness? If not, why? If so, then why do you not also see the same thing in reference to the many being ‘made’ sinners through the one man’s disobedience?
20. Michael Garner
August 30, 2006
3:32 PM
“Phil reads “made” and sees “changed their nature making a sinful disposition from birth.”“
There was a time where I wanted to believe this so much so that I really talked myself into it. However, I think Brian brings up the crucial point.
The two examples of “made” in verse 16 really have to mean the same thing or we seem to have lost any value in having words at all. However, if all that the verse is saying is that Jesus changed our nature then Paul has not solved his problem. Yea, Paul’s whole point is that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. However, if this is the case, then working backwards the very same thing must be true of Adam’s relationship to mankind.
21. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
4:32 PM
Michael, good comments…one other thought on this.
IF, as Phil asserts, Adam’s sin only “changed their nature making a sinful disposition from birth.”, would that be enough to condemn the many? I don’t think that it would.
Paul says in Romans 5:16 that, “judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation”. My question is this: is a sinful disposition enough to be condemning resulting in judgment?
22. Ellen
August 30, 2006
7:00 PM
IF, as Phil asserts, Adam’s sin only “changed their nature making a sinful disposition from birth.”, would that be enough to condemn the many? I don’t think that it would.
Brian, are you a sinner? Have you sinned? Is that enough to condemn you?
23. John K
August 30, 2006
8:30 PM
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
We have two different tenses here. I think we we (as members of the human race) were “made” sinners, because that is what we are. IOW, if humans were not created as sinners (Adam) but we now are, then somehow we “became” sinful. The answer is that we were “made” so by Adam’s sin.
The future tense “will be made righteous” may then refer to our final sanctification in glory, not an imputed current condition.
24. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
9:01 PM
Brian, are you a sinner? Have you sinned? Is that enough to condemn you?
Ellen,
Your first two questions concern two completely different things. Am I a sinner? Yes. Have I sinned? Yes. BUT…I was a sinner even before I sinned, because Scripture says that in Adam ALL sinned.
I don’t know how to answer your third question because I am not sure what you are referring to when you say ‘that’. Is ‘what’ enough to condemn me? Paul says that the one man’s disobedience resulted in condemnation for the many, including me…before I ever even had the chance to sin myself.
I am unclear as to why people have a problem with imputed sin from Adam, when they don’t have a problem with imputed righteousness from Christ…unless they do not agree with original sin… which, if true, would mean that we are not born guilty and sinful, but innocent…which cannot be lined up with Scripture, I don’t believe.
Ultimately, if we are only born with a sinful disposition rather than already deemed a sinner, then Paul’s explanations in Romans 5 are pointless, aren’t they?
25. Allan
August 30, 2006
9:25 PM
Was then the ‘wrong man’ punished for my sin?
If God says He can justly do it, - He can justly do it. ‘That He might be just, and the justifier’ (Rom.3:26.)
Also:
Deut 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.
Ps. 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Isa 45:21 There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Zec 9:9 Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation.
Rev 15:3 Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways.
Only two federal men have ever lived: The lost are in the first by birth, and the redeemed are in the Second by (new) birth.
That He was ‘made sin for us’ surely is imputation (and thus expiation), and not inheriting a nature, or we are into the “Jesus was born again in Hell’ heresy.
A
26. Ellen
August 30, 2006
9:44 PM
I am unclear as to why people have a problem with imputed sin from Adam,
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
In those days they shall no longer say:
“‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.
27. Ellen
August 30, 2006
9:46 PM
I want to read somebody write down - I lost a child before birth and as one who is guilty of Adam’s sin - my child is in hell for eternity.
28. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
10:05 PM
Ellen and others…I encourage you to read Romans chapter five, especially verses 12-14:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN BECAUSE ALL SINNED…How? How can that happen through the disobedience of ONE man unless his sin is reckoned to us as disobedience?
How could ALL be counted as sinners through the act of ONE man?
Was Adam NOT our representative in the covenant of works? Didn’t he represent the whole human race, and NOT just himself alone?
I am beginning to go over the same ground here…sorry for the repetition.
29. Ellen
August 30, 2006
10:10 PM
DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN BECAUSE ALL SINNED
because (IF YOU’RE YELLING, I WILL TOO) SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD.
Then write for me. My unborn child is in hell for eternity because she is guilty of Adam’s sin.
30. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
10:11 PM
Ellen’s post #27 was apparantly entered while I was typing my post #28.
In response to her comment about someone declaring that a child lost before birth is in hell…well…this topic has definitely run its course in other recent threads.
I would only say that I hope we all hold dogmatically to the following statement, without having to declare ALL or NONE with respect to infants in heaven or not…”salvation is by grace through faith, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…and ALL those the Father gives to Christ will come to Him.”
31. Ellen
August 30, 2006
10:16 PM
Brian, you’re teaching is that Adam’s sin is imputed to that unborn child.
That child is as guilty as eating the fruit as Adam and unless that child repents, that child is in hell.
THAT is the logical consequence of the imputation of Adam’s guilt.
32. Ellen
August 30, 2006
10:17 PM
“salvation is by grace through faith, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ…and ALL those the Father gives to Christ will come to Him.”
How can an unborn child hear and have faith? If salvation is Sola Fide, where does the faith come from?
33. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
10:20 PM
My final post with respect to this rabbit trail:
“Then write for me. My unborn child is in hell for eternity because she is guilty of Adam’s sin.”
My unborn child is JUST as guilty and stands JUST as condemned before a holy and just and righteous God as I do…the ONLY thing that will save my unborn child (regardless of when he/she dies), is God’s saving grace…that predestination to be conformed to the image of His Son…that calling which results in justification, which results in glorification…Romans 8:28-30.
To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, amen.
34. Ellen
August 30, 2006
10:31 PM
Brian, you say this is a rabbit trail…I say that teaching has consequences - and logical conclusions.
When you start a teaching, where does it go?
To me, this is not a rabbit trail, this is merely looking at the end point of the imputation of Adam’s guilt.
35. Brian Thornton
August 30, 2006
11:20 PM
As I promised, no more words from me on this topic…there are others who can explain this much better than I…please take the time to go to monergism.com to read about original sin and the imputation of this sin to all of mankind.
From monergism.com, specifically:
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/originalsin.html
Original Sin, Imputation of Adam’s Sin
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned,” (Rom. 5:12).
Yet the fall is not simply a question of rational deduction. It is a point of divine revelation. It refers to what we call “original sin.” Original sin does not refer primarily to the first or original sin committed by Adam and Eve. Original sin refers to the results of the first sin - the corruption of the human race. Original sin refers to the fallen condition in which we are born.
“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 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” WCF
36. Michael Garner
August 31, 2006
12:48 AM
“I want to read somebody write down - I lost a child before birth and as one who is guilty of Adam’s sin - my child is in hell for eternity.”
Ellen,
This has actually been discussed very recently. I think Tim’s discussion of the issue was actually very charitable to all sides. I suggest strongly that you read his comments on the various views. Even a glance at the articles will reveal that it is certainly possible to hold Inherited Sin and believe that All or Some babies are in Heaven.
You may say that the logical course is for them to be in hell, however the logical course for all of us is to be in Hell. Grace is quite an amazing thing and there are quite a few reformed theologians who believe that God does grant grace to infants and spare them from hell.
There are also many who believe that Scripture simply is not clear enough to tell us what happens to infants who die.
However, despite that disagreement, they can still hold that Adam’s sin is imputed to all his offspring. The reason is because it is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture (whether Romans 5 or not).
The question becomes one of two things:
1) Are we sinners because we sin.
or
2) Do we Sin because we are sinners.
Scripture teaches the latter position. We all inevitably sin (many times over) because we are born sinful. That is, we have inherited the sin nature of our forefather, Adam. With that inherited sin nature we also are born deserving eternal condemnation.
However, it really does not appear that you have an exegetical problem with the notion of Inherited Guilt. It seems your primary concern is with the moral implications of said theory (and thus the inflammatory request for a parent to claim that their child is in hell).
However, if we scrap the idea of Adam’s sin being imputed to us, then by reverse logic (via Romans 5) we must be willing to scrap Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. This is something we can’t ever do. This is something we must never do. This is the reason you will see people like Brian or I fight vigorously for the truth of Original Sin. It isn’t (as one could suspect) because we hate babies and want to see them in hell. It is because it is A) what Scripture teaches and B) something Paul very carefully links to the imputed righteousness of Christ. At the end of the day, if we lose imputation, we lose the Gospel.
In Christ alone,
mike
37. Grant
August 31, 2006
6:49 AM
I had a thought about imputation.
Neither Karr, not the legal system can impute the crime of doing that
to that little girl from one man to another. Even though we’re created
in the image and likeness of God, there are still differences, e.g. we are
to seek the glory of God whereas God seeks His own glory, and has
every right to.
More than just a crime against the state, it’s a sin against God. Jesus
Christ can impute the sin of people to Himself, suffer the penalty in
their place, and thus make atonement for them because He is the
sovereign God against Whom we’ve sinned!
As Paul joyously declared in Romans 7:25-8:1: “Thanks be to God
through Jesus Christ our Lord!…There is therefore now no
condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”