Chapter 2: The Spread of Sin (weeks 5-9)

[Alex, Moderator]

In this chapter, as we continue our study of sin, we will be touching on several concepts that we learned about from volume 2. Here are the big concepts summarized:

1. Sin is Universally Devastating: "The first sin, the sin for which our original human ancestors are responsible, has had calamitous consequences for them as well as all their descendants and unleashed a flood of misery on the human race. In consequence, humanity as a whole, and every person in particular, is burdened with guilt, defiled, and subject to ruin and death" (p. 78). All of humanity is affected by sin. No one is innocent: "sin characterizes human beings from their youth, their birth, even from their conception (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Job 13:26; 14:4; Pss. 25:7; 51:5; 58:3; 103:14; Isa. 43:27; 48:8; 57:3; Ezek. 16:3; Hosea 5:7; John 3:6; Rom. 7:7ff.; Eph. 2:3)" (p. 80). Even the saints in Scripture are not spared from sin. "Indeed, it is especially the pious who, even when they are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, nevertheless fall down before God, humbly confessing their sin and begging for compassion and forgiveness (Pss. 6; 25; 32; 38; 51; 130; 143; Neh. 9:33; Isa. 6:5; 53:4–6; 64:6; Jer. 3:15; Dan. 9:5ff.)" (p. 80). Sin permeates into the very core of our being. "In a word: sin is not located on and around humans but within them and extends to the whole person and the whole of humankind" (p. 81).

2. The Internal Struggle of "Romans 7:7-25": Romans 7:7-25 is a famous (and thorny) passage of Scripture that has been the source of considerable interpretative disagreements for centuries. In this passage, Paul describes an internal struggle between doing what is evil, though he wants to do what is good: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do" (vs. 19). The classical Augustinian (and Reformed) interpretation of this particular passage of Scripture is that it refers to a regenerate person. But, it has also been interpreted by some people to refer to the unregenerate man. The strongest arguments that can be made for the first view is that the "struggle between 'flesh' and 'spirit,' as Paul pictures it here, occurs only in the life of the regenerate (Gal. 5:17): only they can say they love the law of God, approve of it, and want to keep it with all their heart… [furthermore] if Romans 7:14ff. were to be understood of the unregenerate, rebirth itself would be unnecessary" (p. 82). In fact, Romans 7:7-25 is one of strongest passages in the Bible that teaches the total depravity of human nature. "Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the fallen state of man and the entire corruption of his nature, then the perpetual and irreconcilable warfare which corruption maintains in the hearts of all believers against the divine nature of which they are made partakers" (Haldane, Robert. Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. New York: R. Carter, 1847. p. 305). "For if the regenerate person still has to complain so intensely about the power of sin that resides in him or her, then the unregenerate person is totally—without knowing it—a servant of sin, being in the flesh and walking according to the flesh; and the mind of the flesh is hostility to God" (p. 82).

3. All Mankind Fell with Adam: We are all guilty because of Adam's sin. There are two passages of Scripture, in particular, that explicitly link Adam's fall to the universality of sin: 1 Cor. 15:21f and Rom. 5:12ff. "In 1 Corinthians 15:21f., [Paul] states that just as the death of all humanity has its cause in the person of Adam, so the resurrection from the dead has its cause in the person of Christ… They die, not in and by themselves, but in Adam; and they rise again, not in and by themselves, but only in Christ. How and why death spread to all is further explained in Romans 5:12f… By one human being, sin, as a powerful and all-controlling principle, came into the world; in the same way also death spread to all humans, because all sinned… Accordingly, Paul says in verse 12: Adam sinned; consequently sin and death entered the world and held sway over all." (pp. 83-84). Paul elaborates that "as a result of Adam’s trespass both sin and death, in their interconnectedness, achieved dominion over humankind, [and] that as a result of Adam’s trespass all humans personally became sinners and all die individually" (p. 84). It comes down to this: "(1) upon the one trespass of Adam, God pronounced a judgment consisting in a guilty verdict and a death sentence; (2) that judgment was pronounced over all humans because… they are included in Adam; all were declared guilty and condemned to death in Adam; (3) in virtue of this… all humans personally became sinners and all in fact die as well. God apprehends and regards, judges and condemns all humans in one [representative man], and so also they all descend from him as sinners and are all subject to death" (p. 85).

4. Original Sin Defined: The doctrine of original sin is "one of the weightiest [and] most difficult subjects in the field of dogmatics" (p. 100). This doctrine "explains everything and without it one cannot explain anything" (p. 101). The term "original sin" comes from the Latin peccatum orginale and refers to the origin and source of all our sins. So "by original or hereditary sin, one should only understand the moral depravity that people carry with them from the time of their conception and birth from their sinful parents" (p. 101). "Original sin differs from actual sins in that it was not personally committed by us; but it is still sin" (p. 94). It is clear that this moral depravity—this tendency to sin—is not something that we develop over our lives, but something that we are born with. It is rooted in Adam's first sin. "Scripture plainly says it (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22), and experience confirms it every minute: all people are conceived in sin and born in iniquity… Scripture and history, accordingly, together point us to an original common moral debt incurred by the human race. 'By one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19)" (p. 102).

5. Original Sin Affects Everyone: "The way in which this 'originated sin' becomes the experience of all of us is not through imitation but through generation" (p. 110). It is an inherited defect. It is not something learned. We are all born with original sin. As such "all people are born of Adam guilty, impure, and in the process of dying. They do not become all this only at a later age as a result of actual sins but are this from conception and birth on. Proof of this is death, for death holds sway not only over adults but in even greater measure over infants, even the unborn, and according to Scripture death is not a natural process but the wages of sin'" (p. 110; Romans 6:23). The fact that death affects everyone (adult and child alike) is proof that the testimony of Scripture is true: we are all born as sinners. "Every human person, in virtue of the physical and ethical relation in which he or she stands to Adam, is born culpable and stained" (p. 117).

6. Doctrine of Original Sin Denied by Pelagianism: Pelagianism altogether rejects the idea of original sin. "According to Pelagius, the image of God consisted solely in a free personality… Adam’s trespass, according to [Pelagius], did not deprive humans of the image of God and in fact had no adverse consequences whatsoever… Adam’s trespass negatively affected his descendants only in that it left them a bad example… Sin, accordingly, is propagated not by generation but by imitation. Humans, whose souls were created pure by God, are still today born in the same state as Adam was before the fall… Human beings are still completely free and can of themselves know and do the good: they have no need of grace. It is indeed possible for them to abstain from all sins, and a few have in fact attained this ideal… Evil is not born along with us but is later voluntarily committed by us" (p. 86). Pelagianism argues that original sin "would take away all personal responsibility" (p. 88) and thus leave us without personal accountability for our actions. The reason that sin is universally observed, is not because it arises from a single person (i.e., Adam in his fall), but rather by learned imitation, as "sinful deeds and inclinations of humans exert mutual influence [to] promote and confirm each other" (p. 88). In terms of why humans (even infants) still die, recall that Pelagianism teaches that death is a natural phenomenon and not the result of sin. According to Pelagianism, death existed prior to the fall (see volume 2, chapter 13, point #4).

7. Pelagianism Rejected: "Pelagianism was condemned by the Christian church" (p. 90; recall: volume 2, chapter 7, point #6) and the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 5 and 8) explicitly opposes it. "If anything is certain, it is that sin is not an accidental phenomenon in the life of individuals, but a state and manner of life involving the whole human race, a property of human nature. The sinful deeds, which occur not just now and then but characterize all persons of all ages and circumstances, point back to a sinful inner disposition, just as bad fruit presupposes a bad tree and muddied water an impure spring" (pp. 88-89). Though Pelagians speak of the innocence of children, we know that "all children from their infancy on display delight in doing the forbidden and a tendency to all sorts of wrong"(p. 89). While it is true that "depending on a child’s age and level of maturity, sin among children has not yet come to its full development and cannot yet manifest the hideous forms that occur at a later age. But the experience of all parents and teachers also tells us that the seeds of all sorts of sins have already been sown in the soil of the child’s heart… Self-seeking, vanity, jealousy, lovelessness, pride, craftiness, deception, untruth, disobedience, stubbornness, and so on: these are the flaws that at an early stage already surface in children… And when we look at our own life, we find sin as far back as our memory reaches" (p. 89). Furthermore, it is absurd to think that it is possible to be devoid of all sin. Even the saints in the Bible are numbered among the sinful. "Those most advanced on the road of sanctification have to the same degree felt their guilt and imperfection. So strong and so universal is the conviction of the sinfulness of the entire human race that if anyone were to make the claim of being sinless, we would all immediately attribute it to a lack of self-knowledge, to pride or mental illness"!!! (p. 89).

[Alex, Moderator]

8. Doctrine of Original Sin Weakened by Semi-Pelagianism: "According to semi-Pelagianism, the consequences of Adam’s fall consisted for him and his descendants, aside from death, primarily in the weakening of moral strength… as a result of Adam’s fall, humanity has become morally sick; the human will has been weakened and is inclined to evil… but humans can will the good, and when they do, grace comes to their assistance in accomplishing it" (p. 90). This is the position of the Eastern Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Anabaptists and Remonstrants (Arminians). "All agree… that Adam’s fall had consequences also for his descendants, because they are physically connected with him. But the moral state that came into being in the human race as a result of Adam’s trespass is not one of sin and guilt but of weakness, lack, sickness. Original sin as such cannot damn humans… It is an occasion for sin, not sin itself in the true sense of the word. Since the will is in a weakened state, however, it easily yields to the temptations of the flesh… [when a person succumbs to temptation] original sin turns into personal sin, which renders a person guilty and deserving of punishment" (p. 91).

9. Semi-Pelagianism Rejected: The semi-Pelagian view of original sin is also problematic. First, "It denies the character and seriousness of sin… The state in which humans are born either corresponds to God’s law or deviates from it; it is good or evil, sinful or not sinful. There is no third [neutral] category" (p 91). Yet, semi-Pelagians compromise the doctrine of original sin and place mankind in "an intermediate state and speak of original sin as a disease, a deficiency, an illness that is not a real sin but can only be an occasion for sin" (p. 91). Second, semi-Pelagianism cannot adequately explain the existence of death and punishment. "Sin and guilt are inseparable (Gal. 3:10; James 2:10; 1 John 5:17). If sin is lawlessness, it is punishable… [and] where there is guilt and punishment, there has to be sin. Original sin [notably] is such that death is its consequence (Rom. 5:14)… [and is the] source of many sins, and is presumably therefore itself sin. Otherwise God would be unjust for punishing with death, the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)" (p. 92). Herein lies the biggest problem: "if original sin is not sin, all other later sins, which so readily and so necessarily spring from it, cannot be sin either" (p. 92).

10. Original Sin Affirmed by the Early Church: "From the outset the church fathers assumed a certain connection between Adam's sin and that of his descendants" (p. 90). "Irenaeus said: 'We offend (against God) in the first Adam, not doing his commandments; but we are reconciled in the second Adam, being made obedient even unto death.' Tertullian spoke of 'an evil of the soul' that came to us from 'an original defect' and is to be inferred from Adam’s fall. 'Therefore every soul, as long it is stained, is judged in Adam, until it is re-judged in Christ.' Most vigorous is the language of Ambrose… 'Adam lived and we all lived in him; Adam died and we all die in him.' Still, more than anyone else, it was Augustine who took hold of Paul’s thought… he points out that the appalling misery of the human race can only be explained as a punishment upon sin. How can God, who certainly is good and just, subject all humans from their conception on to sin and death if they are completely innocent? An original moral debt must rest upon all; there is no other way to understand the crushing yoke that weighs upon all the children of Adam. One who examines the miseries of human life, from the first cries of infants to the final groans of the dying, has to come… to the acknowledgment of original sin" (pp. 93-94).

11. Original Sin As Explained by Roman Catholicism: The Roman Catholic Church gradually adopted a modified view of original sin, based on their doctrine of the image of God. "The image of God… was… conceived as a supernatural gift… [yet it remained possible to exist as] a human without that image, [and to be] without sin: a natural human… In such a human, flesh and spirit would… be at odds with each other" (p. 96). This struggle between the flesh and the spirit was termed "concupiscence" and always belonged to natural man. This internal battle existed by virtue of creation, even before the fall, but was restrained by the superadded gift. When Adam "lost [the superadded gift], the war between flesh and spirit automatically broke out again. This inner conflict in his nature, though it had been suppressed, was now again free to assert itself" (p. 96). Concupiscence (i.e., the struggle between flesh and spirit) is inherently part of a natural human being. It is not a product of the fall, and therefore is not considered sinful nor part of original sin (recall volume 2, chapter 12, point #4). At the Council of Trent, this doctrine was formalized: original sin was defined as the imputation of Adam's trespass and the loss of original righteousness. "But the council deliberately refrained from laying down more specific determinations. The nature of sin was not further defined" (p. 96). "The state in which humans are born after the fall is completely identical to that of Adam before the fall but without the supernatural gift… Original sin consists in nothing but reduction to a merely natural state; the supernatural things having been lost, the natural [nevertheless] remains intact" (p. 97). However, Roman Catholic theology is not able to consistently explain why Adam's descendants are affected by his sin: is it based on a physical transmission or is it related to something else? Roman Catholics are inconsistent in their answer (p. 97).

12. Original Sin As Explained by Reformed Theology: In contrast to Roman Catholics who view original sin as purely a negative event (i.e., a removal of original righteousness [the superadded gift] and the imputation of Adam's trespass), the Reformed saw it as a negative and positive event, and "stressed that original sin is not just a loss of something but simultaneously a total corruption of human nature" (p. 98). Unlike the Roman Catholics, the Reformed taught that original sin results in total depravity. See, for example, the Westminster Shorter Catechism's Q&A 18: "The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it." The first two elements (i.e., the guilt of Adam's first sin and the loss of original righteousness) are also affirmed by Roman Catholics, but only the Reformed hold to the last element as well (i.e., total corruption). Therefore, "original sin [consists], negatively, in the loss of original righteousness and, positively, in the corruption of nature, and that it was rooted in the imputed trespass of Adam" (p. 99).

"Calvin very clearly puts it this way: … our nature is not only destitute of good but 'fertile and fruitful of every evil'" (p. 98). Describing the total depravity of men, the Reformed taught that concupiscence (i.e., the inherent struggle between the flesh and spirit) was itself sin: "it does not first become sin when the will has consented to it, but it is sin in itself, not only as formed, therefore, but already as unformed" (p. 98). Sin does not become sin only when it is acted on, but already when it is conceived in the heart. Therefore, "this corruption of human nature is so total that humans are by nature incapable of any spiritual good, inclined to all evil, and on account of it alone deserving of eternal punishment" (p. 98).

13. Total Depravity Defined: Although it is strongly affirmed in Scripture, there is nevertheless a "natural aversion that spontaneously arises in the human heart against the doctrine of the total moral depravity of humans" (p. 120). "As extensive as original sin is in humanity as a whole, so it is also in the individual person. It holds sway over the whole person, over mind and will, heart and conscience, soul and body, over all one’s capacities and powers. A person’s heart is evil from his or her youth and a source of all sorts of evils (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Ps. 51:5; Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 36:26; Mark 7:21). One cannot renew one’s self (Jer. 13:23; Ezek. 16:6), understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), or submit to the law of God (John 8:34, 36; Rom. 6:17, 20; 8:7), and one is dead through trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Rebirth, accordingly, is a prerequisite to entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3)" (p. 119). As a result, "Human persons are now under the hard necessity of not being able not to sin" (p. 120). This is total depravity.

Of note, the teaching of total depravity does not mean that "every human lives at all times in all possible actual sins and is in fact guilty of violating all God’s commandments" (p. 120). No, rather it simply means that "the deepest inclination, the innermost disposition, the fundamental directedness of human nature… is not turned toward God but away from him" (p. 120). Also, the "doctrine of the total corruption of human nature by no means implies… that the sinful disposition that lies at the bottom of the human heart always erupts in the kind of deeds that betray clear hostility and hatred toward God and one’s neighbor" (p. 121). Total depravity does not mean that we are at all times as bad as we possibly could be, but rather that we are never even in the best of times as good as we should be.

The reason that we are not as evil as we are capable of being is because God restrains our sins (e.g., with human government, social pressures, physical inability to act out on our sinful desires, etc). "There are various circumstances that intervene and keep the [sinful] disposition from fully expressing itself. Not only are many sinful deeds restrained by the sword of the government, common civil decency, public opinion, the fear of disgrace and punishment, and so on, but a variety of factors—such as the natural love still inherent in every person; the moral character fostered by upbringing and struggle; favorable circumstances of constitution, environment, or job; and so on—all these frequently lead people to practice beautiful and praiseworthy virtues. Note, however, that while these factors may subdue [and restrain] the sinful disposition of the heart, they do not eradicate it" (p. 121).

[Alex, Moderator]

When sin entered the world, humans lost their inclination towards goodness. "They now no longer want to do good; they now voluntarily, by a natural inclination, do evil. The inclination, the direction, of the will has changed. 'The will in us is always free but it is not always good.' In this sense the incapacity for good is not physical but ethical in nature: it is a kind of impotence of the will [to do good and obey God]" (p. 121). "Good, true good—good in the eyes of a holy God—is only what is done out of faith, according to God’s law, and to God’s glory… given this standard, the only possible judgment is that of Scripture: 'There is no one who does good, no, not one' (Pss. 14:3; 53:3). As John Owen put it, "'You can do nothing;' that is, which appertains to fruit-bearing unto God. In things natural and civil we can do somewhat, and in things sinful too much; we need no aid or assistance for any such purpose. But in fruit-bearing unto God we can do nothing" (Owen, John. A Treatise on the Holy Spirit and His Operations. Xenia: Board of the Calvinistic Book Concern, 1841. p. 285).

14. The Transmission of Original Sin: Explaining original sin is difficult, yet it is integral to our identity. While it is recognized that Adam's fall plunged all of mankind into ruin, the question remains, Why? How is it that all his descendants are held liable for one man's actions? Surely, "there can be no doubt that nothing shocks our reason more than to say that the sin of the first man made guilty those who, so far from that source, seem incapable of having taken part in it" (p. 101). Below, we will explore two possible solutions, one that is based on physical connectedness and the other based on covenant theology.

15. The Transmission of Original Sin Explained on Physical Grounds: We are all interconnected: "humanity is not an aggregate of individuals but an organic unity, one race, one family" (102). In contrast, angels are independent creatures who were all created simultaneously. There is no procreation with angels and thus no descendancy (cf. Matt. 22:30). When they were judged, there was no angelic Adam-like figure that stood as a corporate representative for all. Each one was independent of the other. "But that is not how it is among us. God created all of us from one man (Acts 17:26)" (p. 102). Angels stood or fell was individuals, but humans fell as a collective whole. "Like branches in a trunk… so all of us were germinally present in Adam’s loins… [Adam] was not a private person… but a root-source, the base… our common natural head… Certainly this physical oneness of the whole of humanity in Adam as such is of great importance for the explanation of original sin… If Christ was to be able to bear our sins and to share with us his righteousness, he first of all had to assume our human nature" (p. 102). Accordingly, some people believe that it is physical descendancy alone that explains the hereditary transmission of sin, much like how physical attributes are transmitted from parent-to-child through natural, physical means (recall the theory of traducianism; see volume 2, chapter 13, point #11).

16. Problems with Explaining Original Sin Using Physical Grounds: It is clear that physical descendancy by itself is insufficient as the explanation of original sin. Humans are more than just physically related; we are more than animals. We are interconnected not only on physical grounds, but relationally too. If our only connection is physical, then it would be impossible to explain how Jesus Christ is able to satisfy for our sins. "We can and may indeed say that God so imputes to us the righteousness of Christ as if we ourselves had accomplished the obedience that Christ accomplished for us, but we are not, by that token, the people who personally and physically satisfied God’s righteousness. Christ satisfied God’s righteous requirement for us and in our place. So it is also with Adam: virtually, potentially, and seminally, we may have been comprehended in him; personally and actually, however, it was he who broke the probationary command, and not we. If [we] were to reject this distinction… all imputation, both in the case of Adam and in that of Christ, would be unnecessary" (p. 102). "Further, if Adam’s trespass had been ours in this realistic [physical] sense, we would also be responsible for all the other sins of Adam, all the sins of Eve, even all the sins of all our ancestors, for we were included in them as much as in Adam when he violated the probationary command. It is impossible to see, therefore, how Christ, who physically descended from the fathers and from Adam and Eve, could be free from original sin" (p. 103).

"Original sin cannot be equated with what is known today as [genetic] heredity… inasmuch as it entered human nature by a violation of God’s command and can be again removed from it by regeneration and sanctification. Neither, on the other hand, is it an individually acquired trait, for it characterizes all people without exception and is so much a part of human nature that even the regenerate still produce children who are 'by nature children of wrath'… Original sin, after all, is not a substance that inheres in the body and can be transmitted by procreation. On the contrary, it is a moral quality of the person who lacks the communion with God that one should and does possess by virtue of one’s original nature. Adam’s depravity automatically began the moment he—in doubt and unbelief, pride and covetousness—tore himself away from God. In the same way, moral depravity starts in his descendants from the first moment of their existence. Just as God withdrew his communion from Adam on account of his trespass, so he withdraws it from all his descendants" (p. 116-117). Therefore, there must be something more than just physical connectedness that explains original sin.

17. The Transmission of Original Sin Explained By Covenant Theology: Covenant theology offers another solution. "Adam was not a private person, not one individual alongside other such individuals, but all humans were included in him" (p. 94). Adam was a public person and acted as a federal head for his people. (Note: the word federal comes from the Latin word foedus, which means covenant). This is how covenant theology explains original sin. It is passed on from Adam to his descendants, not on physical grounds, but because Adam is the federal head over his people as established according to the Covenant of Works. His actions affected everyone on those grounds alone. The concept that we are affected by those who are heads (or leaders) over us, despite having little (or no) physical connection is not new, but is present everywhere:

We each belong to many different communities: "the nuclear and extended family, society, the nation, the state and the church, associations and federations of all kinds" (p. 104). All the members stand or fall together. As Paul writes: "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Cor. 12:26; cf. p. 104). "All the members of such a body can be either a blessing or a curse to one another, and increasingly so to the degree that they themselves are more outstanding and occupy a more pivotal place in the organism. Fathers, mothers, guardians, caretakers, teachers, professors, patrons, guides, princes, kings, and so on have the greatest influence on those under their jurisdiction. Their life and conduct decides the fortunes of their subordinates, elevates them and brings them to honor, or drags them down and pulls them along to destruction. The family of the drunkard is ruined and disgraced because of the father’s sin. The family of a criminal is widely and for a long time identified and condemned along with him. A congregation languishes under the faithless conduct of a pastor. A people decline and are eventually destroyed as a result of the foolish policies of a king… Among people there is solidarity for good or ill… We stand on the shoulders of earlier generations and inherit the things they have accumulated in the way of material and spiritual wealth. We enter into their labors, rest on their laurels, enjoy the things they have frequently acquired at great cost. We receive all this undeservedly, without having asked for it. It is waiting for us at our birth; it is bequeathed to us by grace. There is no one who objects to this and opposes this law. But if the same law begins to exert its effects in things that are bad and makes us partakers in the sins and sufferings of others, the human mind revolts and charges this law with being unjust. The same son who [blithely] accepts his father’s inheritance refuses to pay his father’s debts. (p. 104). We are all (passive) beneficiaries of our earthly leaders (whether good or bad).

18. The Grace in Covenant Theology: We must realize that it is only with this framework that we can understand the Covenant of Grace. "For if there was no covenant of works, neither would there be a covenant of grace: the one stands and falls with the other" (p. 103). In the Covenant of Works, there "is indeed a solidarity in sin and suffering, but God permits it and frequently gives people the power to break with that moral community and themselves to become the forerunners of a generation that walks in the fear of the Lord and enjoys his favor" (p. 105). If original sin was conferred to us on physical grounds alone, then there is no hope in breaking away. After all, it is impossible to reverse our physical lineage. But, if we were all comprehended in Adam by a covenantal relationship, then when a newer and better covenant is brought in (i.e., the Covenant of Grace), there is hope for us in being set free. Our connection to Adam as sinners can cease (even though our physical descent from Adam remains).

Side note: The idea that we depart from Adam and become united to Christ in the Covenant of Grace is frequently described by the Apostle Paul. In his discussion of Romans 6:4-6, theologian G.K. Beale writes, "Verse 6 says that identification with Christ means that 'our old man' (i.e., the former identification with the old Adam) was destroyed in Christ, so that the new existence is described as 'newness of life' (v. 4), which is identification with Christ" (Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. p. 442; cf. p. 837). The "old man" is our old position with Adam. We now lay aside the "old man" and put on the "new" (Col. 3:9-10).

[Alex, Moderator]

19. Federal (Covenant) Heads: All day-to-day relationships (e.g., parent-child, teacher-student, friend, neighbour, etc.) are limited by physical, geographic, and time-constraints; there is a limit to the extent that our actions affect others. The passage of time, the separation by distance, etc. can weaken our influence over others. "However great the blessing or curse of parents and guardians, philosophers and artists, founders of religion and reformers, kings and conquerors, and so on may have been, there were always 'circumstances' of place, time, country, people, language, and so on that set limits to it. The circle within which their influence was exerted was always [limited]… Only two persons have existed whose life and works extended to the boundaries of humanity itself, whose influence and dominion had effects to the ends of the earth and into eternity. We are referring to Adam and Christ. The former brought sin and death into the world, the latter righteousness and life. It follows from the totally exceptional position occupied by Adam and by Christ that they alone can be compared to each other" (p. 105). The relationships that we have with other people often (imperfectly) illustrate (by analogy) the relationship we have with Adam and Christ.

20. The Analogy Between Adam and Christ: Adam and Christ are federal heads of two separate covenants: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Their people follow after them. Their actions have eternal implications for their people. "If Adam fell, humanity would fall; if Christ remained standing, humanity would be raised up in him. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are the forms by which the organism of humanity is maintained also in a religious and an ethical sense. Because God is interested, not in a handful of individuals, but in humanity as his image and likeness, it had to fall and be raised up again in one person. So reads God’s ordinance, so reads his judgment. In one person he declares all guilty, and so humankind is born—unclean and in the process of dying—from Adam; in one person he declares all righteous and consecrated to eternal life. 'For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all' [Rom. 11:32]" (p. 106). "The way things go in the case of the sin and death that accrue to us from Adam is identical with the way the righteousness and life that Christ acquired accrue to us. There is a difference in intensity: grace is more abundant and life is more powerful, but the manner in which both are imparted to us is the same. Just as the trespass of one was the cause of the guilt, the sin, and the death of all humans, so the obedience of one is the cause of the righteousness, acquittal, and life of all. In the one [Adam] all are condemned and have died; in the one [Christ] all are justified and saved" (pp. 84-85).

21. Sin Begets Sin: "How can it be that one single sin had such dreadful consequences and brought about such a radical reversal in the nature of humans? Generally speaking, we can begin by saying that frequently in life the relation between an act and its consequences seems to us to be totally disproportionate. One hour of thoughtlessness can produce a lifetime of tears. A small error, a single misstep can radically change the direction of the lives of numerous people. Seemingly insignificant incidents have an aftermath that lasts for generations… Adam’s one trespass brought about an overall change in the thoughts, attitudes, and inclinations of his whole nature" (pp. 107-108). Furthermore, sin often serves as a punishment for previous sins (2 Sam. 12:11–12; 1 Kings 11:11–31; 22:30ff.; Isa. 6:9–10; 7:17; 10:5–7; 14:3; Jer. 50:6–8; Rom. 1:24–28; 2 Thess. 2:11–12; etc.; p. 106). "'The curse of an evil deed is above all that it must continually give birth to evil.' The nature of sin is such that it progressively renders sinners more foolish and hard, entangles them ever more firmly in its snares, and propels them ever more rapidly down a slippery slope toward the abyss… a subsequent sin may be called a punishment for a prior sin, since it distances the sinner even further away from God, makes him more wretched, and abandons him to all sorts of covetousness and passion, dread and remorse… in the case of Adam and all his descendants, a sinful state followed the sinful deed" (p. 107). "Every act of the will, arising as it does from antecedent impulses and desires, has a retroactive impact on it and reinforces it. In that way every sin can become a habit, a tendentious pattern, a passion that controls a person like a tyrant… Those who commit sins become the servants of sin. A crime, a lie, a theft, a murder never vanishes with the moment in which it has been committed" (p. 108).

22. The Heinousness of Adam's First Sin: We should not minimize the offence of Adam's first sin. The sin was not just that he ate of the forbidden fruit, an act that had no precedence. "The very act of eating was itself already a revelation of a sweeping moral change that had [already] occurred in his inner self. Strictly speaking, it was not the first sin, but the first fully matured sin in the sense of James 1:15. Anterior to the sinful deed, there were sinful considerations of the mind (doubt, unbelief) and sinful tendencies of the heart (covetousness, pride), which had been prompted by the temptation of the serpent and were fostered by the will of man" (p. 108). It is clear that "the change initiated in Adam did not consist in that now some sinful principle was implanted in him or some component of his being, his soul or body, his abilities or powers was removed from him. It consisted in that, by his doubt and unbelief, his pride and covetousness, and finally by the sinful deed itself, the person himself progressively detached himself further from God and his law, positioned himself outside the circle of his favor and fellowship and began to use all his gifts and powers above all against God and his commandments. And when this happens, when a human being positions himself or herself outside God’s fellowship and God’s law, the sinful state automatically follows, just as the darkness sets in when the light goes out" (p. 108). The physical act of the eating of the forbidden fruit is the outward display of the inward state. "The first sin originated in the consciousness and, as a result of various considerations and inclinations, was completed in the act" (p. 109). The sin was not confined to only the eating of the fruit, but also to the hidden inward rebellion that preceded the outward action (perhaps in the seconds, minutes, or hours before).

Side note #1: While the eating of the forbidden fruit was specifically named as the first sin of our first parents, it is likely a synecdoche (i.e., one part is named but it actually represents the entire whole—for example, in common language, the word "wheels" can be used to refer to an entire vehicle or car, not just the tires). Theologian G.K. Beale suggests that the eating of the forbidden fruit actually represents all of the sin and guilt that Adam and Eve committed in their rebellion against God—and even includes the initial failure of Adam to guard the temple of God from the intrusion of the unclean serpent (Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. p. 442; cf. p. 359). If we consider the "creation mandate" (i.e., Gen. 1:28: being fruitful, multiplying, filling the earth with the glory of God, subduing the creatures, ruling over creation) to be a summary of the moral law issued to Adam, then his failure to subdue the creatures and rule over the creation was the first visible demonstration of sin that climaxed with his eating of the forbidden fruit.

Side note #2: The first offence was an exceedingly great sin. In fact, the Puritans ascribed to that one act the simultaneous breaking of the entire Ten Commandments! In that sinful act "intolerable injury was done unto God; as, first, his dominion and authority in his holy command was violated. Secondly, his justice, truth, and power, in his most righteous threatenings, were despised. Thirdly, his most pure and perfect image, wherein man was created in righteousness and true holiness, was utterly defaced. Fourthly, his glory, which, by an active service, the creature should have brought to him, was lost and despoiled… Adam, at that one clap, broke all the Ten Commandments…

"1. He chose himself another god when he followed the devil. 2. He idolized and deified his own belly; as the apostle's phrase is [cf. Philippians 3:19], 'He made his belly his god.' 3. He took the name of God in vain, when he believed him not. 4. He kept not the rest and estate wherein God had set him. 5. He dishonoured his Father who was in heaven; and therefore his days were not prolonged in that land which the Lord his God had given him. 6. He massacred himself and all his posterity. 7. From Eve he was a virgin, but in eyes and mind he committed spiritual fornication [cf. James 4:4]. 8. He stole, like Achan, that which God had set aside not to be meddled with; and this his stealth is that which troubles all Israel—the whole world [cf. Joshua 7:16-26]. 9. He bare [false] witness against God, when he believed the witness of the devil before him. 10. He coveted an evil covetousness, like Amnon, which cost him his life (2 Sam. 13), and all his progeny. Now, whosever consider what a nest of evils here were committed at one blow… that we are compelled every way to commend the justice of God [that is, to justify God], and to condemn the sin of our first parents, saying, concerning all mankind, as the prophet Hosea does concerning Israel, 'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself' (Hos. 3:9)" (Fisher, Edward, and Thomas Boston. The Marrow of Modern Divinity. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009. pp. 57-58).

23. Salvation Through Christ: It is easy to become sadly despondent in our study of sin. But, we must realize that "it is always better to fall into the hands of the Lord than into those of people, for his mercy is great [cf. 2 Samuel 24:14]. For when God condemns us, he at the same time offers his forgiving love in Christ, but when people condemn people, they frequently cast them out and make them the object of scorn. When God condemns us, he has this judgment brought to us by people—prophets and apostles and ministers—who do not elevate themselves to a level high above us but include themselves with us in a common confession of guilt. By contrast, philosophers and moralists, in despising people, usually forget that they themselves are human. When God condemns, he speaks of sin and guilt that, though great and heavy, can be removed because they do not belong to the essence of humanity" (pp. 124-125). In Christ, we can be restored to God's image and truly live as children of God! (For more, refer to volume 2, chapter 12, points #15 and 16).

[Hans, Pastor and Moderator]

Dear Alex,
Again it was spiritually wholesome to go through your summary of chapter 2 from Bavinck’s Volume 3, dealing with “The Spread of Sin”.
Thanks for the quotation from R. Haldane too. “Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the fallen state of man and the entire corruption of his nature then the perpetual and irreconcilable warfare which corruption maintains in the hearts of all believers against the divine nature of which they are made partakers.”

Your definition of total depravity is most comprehensive and Biblically, Confessionally, and experientially so true! “Total depravity does not mean that we are at all times as bad as we possibly could be, but rather that we are never even in the best of times as good as we should be.”

What Bavinck states (presumably drawing from J. Muller) as you quote at the end of your point 7 is something we should pray may convict all people, including ourselves, initially and constantly in true repentance before God. “So strong and so universal is the conviction of the sinfulness of the entire race that if anyone were to make the claim of being sinless, we would all immediately attribute it to a lack of self-knowledge, to pride, or mental illness.” I mean, isn’t this most incriminating?

I remember sitting in a worship service in Pitt Meadows in the FRC church there at the time, back in the early 1970’s. A guest minister preached. I don’t recall the text. But in his sermon speaking of the reality of our sin and sinfulness by nature, he quoted a 3 stanza poem which I asked him later to send to me. I have since passed it on to many others. It is a poem telling of the depths of our total depravity in sin, but proclaiming too there is a Saviour with whom is plenteous redemption even for the chief of sinners who calls on Him.


Physician of my sin-sick soul,
To Thee I bring my case;
My raging malady control,
And heal me by Thy grace.

It lies not in a single part,
But through my frame is spread;
A burning fever, in my heart,
A palsy in my head.

Lord, I am sick—regard my cry!
And set my spirit free—
Say, canst Thou let a sinner die?
Who longs to live for Thee?

Now when you google this I learn it is a 7 stanza song and cry from John Newton, 1779.

1. Physician of my sin-sick soul,
To thee I bring my case;
My raging malady control,
And heal me by thy grace.

2. Pity the anguish I endure,
See how I mourn and pine;
For never can I hope a cure
From any hand but thine.

3. I would disclose my whole complaint,
But where shall I begin?
No words of mine can fully paint
That worst distemper, sin.

4. It lies not in a single part,
But through my frame is spread;
A burning fever in my heart,
A palsy in my head.

5. It makes me deaf, and dumb, and blind,
And impotent and lame;
And overclouds, and fills my mind,
With folly, fear, and shame.

6. A thousand evil thoughts intrude
Tumultuous in my breast;
Which indispose me for my food,
And rob me of my rest.

7. Lord I am sick, regard my cry,
And set my spirit free;
Say, canst thou let a sinner die,
Who longs to live to thee?


Here are some true or false statements I worked through with the youth in a Catechism lesson on LD 3.
--The Bible teaches about our misery in a way that is not miserable.
--The true Christian isn’t plagued with sin anymore.
--A Christian knows there is always reason for a repentant heart before God.
--A healthy Christian is always conscious of his/her sins and sinfulness

Thanks again for your side notes as well. With your side note #1 under point 22 I remember reading that in Beale where he states Adam was likely sinfully negligent in not guarding the “temple of God from the intrusion of the unclean serpent.” I wasn’t quite sure how to take that or to absorb it, when I read this from Beale, and tended to discount it as too speculative. But you mentioning it now again in the context of the spread of sin as Bavinck expands on it too, now I think as well Beale may be showing keen insight here. Eating of the forbidden fruit is “likely a synecdoche” indeed, as is the reality in the case of any sin on our part; something James 1:14-15 makes clear too.

Boston’s exposing how Adam’s one sin broke all ten commandments is without dispute and proves God’s justice and man’s sinfulness and makes it all the more amazing God’s graciousness in and through Christ Jesus, the promised Seed of the woman, the Saviour of sinners. This morning in my Scripture readings I came to Hebrews 8, and verse 12 and II John verse 3 gave me cause for pause and praise. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” … “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow! I look forward to our reading group meeting, God willing, on Nov. 29th!

[Alex, Moderator]

Thanks for your thoughts, Pastor Overduin! I look forward to our reading group meeting at the end of this month too!