Exposition by Max A Forsythe
Christ Covenant Reformed (PCA)
One
of the newest wrinkles in juvenile corrections is to begin holding parents more
responsible for the actions of their children.
At one time, this might have been a good idea.
However, I have my fears that too many of our younger generation might
seize this opportunity to arrange for their parents’ visitation with a judge
on a regular basis. In
the military, this parental responsibility has held on much longer than in
society at large.
Yet I have heard stories of young people who acted up to prevent a father
from getting a well-deserved promotion, or to plague their parents with needless
disciplinary problems.
So I doubt if the modern imputation of a child’s disobedience to the
parents is as appropriate as it once was.
The
contemporary problem is that, while our humanist officials are looking for
someone to hold accountable after the fact, they are much more interested in
keeping the same parents from preventing the problems by traditional methods.
Exodus
20: 5-6 “....I,
the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing
love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
E.F.
Schumaker, a contemporary philosopher, observes that such a curse works in the
medium by which the younger generation is trained and raised up.
He suggests that the theory of evolution, which was beginning to be
taught and accepted in the late 19th century, has now been accepted by the third
and fourth generation of those who advocated the idea a hundred years ago.
He believes that it takes that long for a new generation to fill their
minds with a cultural myth to the point of living according to that belief.
So yes, children’s children are affected unfavorably by their parents
and grandparents.
I can see this fact in the lives of the children of druggies, alcoholics
and abusers.
But this effect is as far as we can go with this line of thought.
The modernists have indeed appreciated rightly that the innocent, by
imputation, often suffer because of the depravity of others.
Yet they will not go so far as to accept the natural depravity of each
and every individual born on this planet.
This
latter type of imputation is the one before us for consideration today.
Jonathan Edwards rightly observed that “the
essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart lies not in their
cause but their nature.”
So the multitude of dysfunctions widespread in our culture today must be
attributed not only to human cause but also to the fallen nature of humanity as
well.
The
second point is more complicated in our quest to understand how and why sin from
Adam may be imputed to us.
In this matter let us briefly consider several heresies related to this
study.
The
first heresy in this matter is raised by A.A. Hodge in his Outlines of
Theology. This was the Manichaean theory, raised in the third century after
Christ.
Briefly, Manes taught a dualism whereby our spirits have an origin in
God, while sin results in our entanglement with the material creation.
Anyone who has enjoyed the Star Wars series and other films promoted by
George Lucas should be familiar with the underlying force/counter-force themes
those films continually espouse.
Lucas’ “May
the force be with you” and
Flip Wilson’s “The
Devil made me do it” have
had more than just a passing entertainment impact.
Because
of our first principle -- that God cannot be the author of sin -- we may safely
reject this heresy, as has most of the Christian church since the third century.
A
second theory is little better -- that sin is a necessary incident of human
limitations, which may lead to higher stages of development on the way to
perfection.
The
Trekkies of the Star Trek series see themselves as evolving beyond the initial
corruption of earlier generations of our species.
Very, very many of our professional educators earnestly believe that if
parents are limited in their impact on their own children, and if only positive
experiences and activities fill the minds and times of our young, then in time
we may really leave all that learned wickedness far behind!
Of course, the experts have got to curtail the teachings of any
theological and military histories which might explore the causes of negative
human activity.
“Accentuate
the positive and reward good behavior continually”
-- this
is the focus needed to accelerate the evolution of all progressive [peoplekin.]
A
third theory, espoused first by the Pelagians and later by the Rationalists, is
somewhat similar.
In their denial of innate corruption, they believe that the proper
emphasis of society must be focused on teaching appropriate behavior and helping
people to always choose the better behavior.
The best way to deny innate corruption is to never ever talk about it our
consider any public debate.
Just as the Victorian age hardly ever publicly discussed sex, so may we
know the success of the rationalist solution for our human tendency to sin.
If we never talk about sin, or consider the legitimacy of innate
sinfulness, maybe guilt will just go away and we can forget it.
So much for human intellectualism!
Let us now consider three biblically based theories.
The
first of these views is the realistic theory which I take from Bekhof’s Manual
of Christian Doctrine.
According to this theory, that was once popular in Christian circles, God
originally created one general human nature, which in the course of time was
divided into as many parts as there are human individuals.
Under intense questioning we may safely dispose of this theory.
After all, are we not held accountable for all of the sins of Adam or for
every sin of every forefather between us and Adam.
Neither does this theory explain how Jesus Christ can be exempt from
responsibility for Adam’s sins.
In
the third of these biblical views, we will disagree in the proposition of the
traditional second view momentarily.
This third theory allows for imputation.
By this phrasing Adam’s descendants derive their innate corruption by
the process of natural generation.
Individuals are not seen as being born corrupt because they are guilty in
Adam, but because they are guilty because they are born corrupt.
Both
A.A. and Charles Hodge go on here, forever it seems, explaining how both
theories one and three fall short of good biblically-based theology.
Good theology as understood within the Reformed teachings is that which
best reflects the exposition of Scripture.
The second argument fits these criteria.
This argument is called, variously, the Augustinian model, Immediate
Imputation, or the Federal theory.
Not only was Adam the natural progenitor
of the whole human race, but also the representative of our whole race.
It
is in his role as Covenant head of the household of man where Adam fell short of
obeying God’s commands.
Thus, his failure to fulfill his obligation to God’s Covenant is what
is imputed to us.
This one sin of Adam is what we are held accountable for -- the sin of
apostasy -- not conforming to the law of God.
How many times have you failed to conform your life, your conscience and
your heart to the law of God?
This is the one sin which has been imputed to us from Adam.
Think of it this way.
When President Bush and the American Congress decided to wage war on the
Iraqi nation, were not all American citizens in both Kuwait and Iraq rounded up
to be the
“guests” of
Saddam?
Going back to earlier wars, how were German citizens, institutions and
ideas treated immediately after war was declared in 1917 and 1941?
Did our people not round up even American Japanese citizens and intern
them for many, many months?
I
know that those are poor examples, but in this way was Adam representative for
the whole human race.
Paul the apostle addresses this imputed condition in which we find
ourselves in the verses before us today.
Now we know that the whole purpose of the Epistle to the Romans is to
make known that the righteousness of one man, Jesus Christ, can be and is so
imputed to believers as to be the meritorious ground of their justification
before the God of heaven.
To make this doctrine more plain, he lays forth the imputation of
Adam’s sin in verse twelve:
“just
as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way
death came to all men, because all sinned.”
The
thrust of the argument that follows is that Adam is a “type”
of Christ.
Remember where Jesus is called the second Adam?
Just as Adam is the head and representative of his race, so is Christ the
head and representative of His people.
Just as the sin of the Adam is the ground of the condemnation of his
posterity, so the righteousness of Christ is the ground of justification for all
who are in Him.
Paul
continues in verses eighteen and nineteen with this comparison, where he shows
us that just as one man’s disobedience constituted us sinners, so the
obedience of another constitutes us righteous. Calvin observes on this point
that you must “see
that our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only
because we are partakers in Christ: indeed, with him we possess all its
riches.”
Further, old John becomes almost poetic in his polemic on this point:
“This
is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence,
he has made with us;
that,
becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him;
that,
by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us;
that,
by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us;
that,
accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power;
that,
receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us;
that
taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself ...
So the whole point of this study in contrasts is that if we are convinced of the imputation of Adam’s sin, then and only then might we better appreciate and understand the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. May that understanding be ours today.
Resources Used: The Holy Bible, New International Version
Places Preached:Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology. Hodge, Charles. Romans & Systematic Theology. McNeill, John T. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Murray, John. New International Commentary: Epistle to Romans. Schumaker, E.F. Small is Beautiful.
Christ Covenant REFORMED (Presbyterian Church in America) Post Office Box 13926 - Columbus, OH 43213-7926
Rom05b.htm 16 July 95
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe go to: http://www.tulip.org/trf-list - Permission granted to redistribute unedited versions with this notice.