Biblical & Theological Issues

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 9 No. 2 – Essential Doctrines)

by Donald E. Hartley

A Grim Portrait

Scripture paints a grim picture of the state of mankind.  Paul concludes in summary fashion in Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.” Whether one associates this “sin” with our participation in Adam’s original sin or our subsequent personal sins, the universality of the statement concerning “all” stubbornly persists. Falling short of the glory of God may be more sinister than simply falling short of the mark. Piper states, “The idea is not that you shot an arrow at God’s glory and the arrow fell short, but that you could have had it as a treasure, but to you don’t. You have chosen else instead.”1 This latter idea is the quintessence of personal sins. Practically speaking, mankind never aims at God’s glory (commendable though that might be) but rather shuns it like the plague.

The explanation for this pre-conversion hostility is that humans are “by nature the children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). Elsewhere this state is referred to as “being in the flesh,” a condition that renders one unable (not simply unwilling) to please God (Rom 8:7-8). Bound by this nature, the descendants of Adam live in futility of thinking, with a darkened understanding and an alienation from the life of God. Why? Paul explains that it is “because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts” (Eph 4:17-18).

The Apostle’s solution is a supernatural prerequisite that instills a willingness something seek God’s glory. He likens this act to a spiritual resurrection operative towards God’s elect (Eph 1:3-14), describing it as the “greatness of his power towards us” (Eph 1:19), a power exercised in raising Christ from the dead and seating him at his right hand (Eph 1:20-23), and based on his mercy and grace (Eph 2:1, 4-6). The radical nature of this resurrection (or regeneration) requires an appreciation for the radical depravity of mankind. If one regards the nature of man as merely sick or weak and not dead, then the remedy of monergistic regeneration will give way to a form of synergism. Monergism refers to “only one working,” whereas synergism refers to a “working together” of two or more agents. In synergistic regeneration, the Spirit is required for the divine act but his activity is only necessary and not sufficient. It requires the cooperation of man to complete the act. In monergistic regeneration, man is dead and enslaved to sin and must be raised to life before he exercises the proofs of life including faith and repentance. The story of Lazarus illustrates this latter model. In John 11:43, Jesus raised Lazarus with a command, “Lazarus come out!” The call is

specific and effectual. The story indicates no cooperative (synergistic) elements. But once Lazarus came to life, he responded as any person who is alive would.

Paul likens the act of regeneration to the divine command in creation. “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ is he who shined in our hearts to give us the light of the glorious knowledge of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). The implication is that the creative call behind regeneration is also specific and effectual.

The Fork in the Road

Augustine: All of Grace
The human assessment and radical solution credited to Paul has not always been greeted with enthusiasm in the church. The earliest controversy over man’s free will versus his deadness in sin occurred in the fourth century A.D. between Pelagius and Augustine. Augustine viewed humanity at present as massa peccati ‘mass of sin’ (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love 1.673). He maintained that the will is truly free only when it is not a slave of sin (The City of God 14.11). Although Adam’s sin flowed from his evil will or pride (The City of God 14.13), left unexplained is how evil sprang from his heart in the first place (The City of God 7.3–5). Nevertheless, this sin affects all Adam’s posterity (contra Pelagius) because all mankind is corporately connected to Adam and somehow participates in his fall (The City of God 13.14; 14.15). Adam’s sin transformed him from posse pecare (able to sin) to non posse non pecare (not able not to sin). This inability also passed on to his descendants. According to Augustine, the fall brought with it a loss of true freedom (Confessions 1.7; 7:3, 16; 8:5, 9, 10), a noetic downgrade in powers of reasoning with a positive proclivity toward sinful biases, an absence of grace (adjutorium), a loss of paradise, the presence of concupiscence (predilection for the sensuous), physical death, and hereditary guilt (a condition or habitus of the human nature [either traduced or created]).

Controversy erupted between Augustine and over original sin Pelagius because the latter saw no need to baptize infants for a sin they had not committed. Augustine saw baptism of infants as taking away guilt (reatus) but not sin itself (concupiscentia). His understanding of the fall determined how he then construed grace and free will. Pelagius, however, looked to creation to dictate how he understood human nature.

Pelagius: All of Free Will

Pelagius was a moralist (ascetic) who understood the commands of God as implying human capability (and culpability), arguing that God would not command the impossible (ought-implies-can was his overriding axiom). Therefore, Pelagius was offended at Augustine’s prayer regarding the gift of obedience, “Command what you will and grant what you command” (Confessions 10.29.40).

Pelagius reasoned that God gave man freedom, the bonum naturae, that has both the possibilitas boni et mali, “the possibility to good and evil” (Augustine’s The Grace of Christ and Original Sin responding to Pelagius’s Defense of the Freedom of the Will) and that this ability is part of man’s indestructible nature via creation. Man’s will, he reasoned, is inconvertibly good and a perpetual tabula rasa (blank slate) without inclination, predisposition, or predilection to sin. Thus he rejected inherited sin and original sin and linked Augustine’s views to Manichaeism (Pelagius, Marius Commentary 2.10). The prevalence of sin, he insisted, is due to habit that collectively forms societal norms that in turn influence the individual to sin (Pelagius, Demetrius 8). Society is evil, not the person. Grace simply facilitates doing righteousness, but it is not necessary (Augustine, Proceedings of Pelagius 22.46; The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 35.38; Retractions 2.68; Admonitions and Grace 10.26– 12.38). God’s grace is external and consists of instruction whether in the Law or Christ’s teachings (Pelagius, Demetrius 8; Augustine, The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 7.8).

The historic church (historic catholic, Roman Catholic, and Reformation) has responded with consistent affirmation of Augustine’s views against Pelagius.² The primary issue is whether and to what extent the act of one affects the all. To answer this question, we will shift the focus to Rom 5:12-21 and specifically Rom 5:12, a passage and verse upon which Augustine and Pelagius sharply divided and which directly addresses the question.

How Did We Get This Way?

The seriousness of the historic divide focuses on the implications of the fall of man.³ Implications assume an acknowledgement of the fact of the fall, namely, that man once existed in a pre-fall state (Gen. 1–2) but sinned, and the effect was that he fell into a post-fall condition (Gen. 3).⁴ The thorny problem of why man fell and how this could occur in God’s “good” creation will not be addressed.⁵ Rather, the implications, as outlined here, are cast in terms of how Adam’s fall impacts mankind today. How are we related to Adam in such a way that we bear the consequences or punitive effects of his one act?

Romans 5:12-21
Paul outlined in Romans 5:12-21 the connection between Adam and Christ in terms of their respective acts for the “many” or “all.” Aside from what distinguishes them in terms of their effects on their constituents, what unites them is the effectual nature of their act to all their constituents.⁶ In other words, all those whom Adam represents experience the effects of his act in the same way as those whom Christ represents.⁷ Adam does not become one’s representative only when one volitionally sins. “In sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:7[5]). By this statement David was not referring to the union instrumental to his conception as sinful, but was instead accounting for his actual sins by tracing them to a sin nature original or congenital to his conception. The implications of this statement are profound. David, and by extension all humans, are conceived as sinners.

Rather than attempt a detailed exegesis of Romans 5:12-21, it will be sufficient to focus on Romans 5:12 and then to align the rest of the passage with the conclusions drawn there. The text reads, “For this reason just as sin came into the world through one man and death by means of sin, and so death came upon all men because all have sinned—.” The ellipsis at the end of the verse is meant to indicate that Paul’s thought is aborted briefly and taken up a few verses later.⁸ Paul wishes to make a comparison between Adam and Christ. Subsequent resumption of this theme indicates that this comparison is intended to teach that each one (Adam & Christ) is a representative who acts in behalf of others and whose effects (of that act) accrue necessarily toward those represented. But for now Paul delays this comparison in order to focus on the contrast of what the first representative brought in terms of his effects and his recipients.⁹ But for our purposes, we will not be diverted.

Initially it is important to recognize the nature of this act of Adam as necessarily accruing towards all of his constituents. That is to say, Adam’s sin does not merely potentially effect/ affect his constituents or depend in any way upon those constituents for it to be effective. His act is actualized upon all those he represents—and actualized from conception. Paul confirms this elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, where he states that in the way death came by one man to all men, so does the resurrection come through one man upon all men.

This effectual action of the one to all represented conjures up two potential problems. First, if Adam’s act is effective towards all those whom he represents and this act-and-effect is parallel to Christ’s act-and-effect to all whom he represents, then how does one avoid universalism? Second, how can an act of Adam be applied to mankind independent of their personal actions or free will without avoiding the charge of unfairness, arbitrariness, or capriciousness? I will address the second question first, as Paul seems to provide the basis for answering it in the latter part of v. 12. I will follow with an explanation of how this parallels Christ and his effects. The first question over universalism will be addressed later.

Act of One Applied to the Many/All
The key to answering the latter question is rightly construing the meaning of the phrase “…because all have sinned.” I have translated it as causal here, but there are at least six interpretations of this word (actually not a word but a phrase in Greek) and all but two views take it causally.¹⁰ The Greek phrase in question is eph’ ho—a preposition followed by a relative pronoun in the dative case. This exact phrase occurs five times in the New Testament and may be translated spatially (“where,” Acts 7:33) or causally (“because,” 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil 3:12; 4:10).

Spatial views. One spatial view interprets the phrase as referring back to “death” with the sense, “…in which [death] all have sinned.” But this sense appears more ambiguous than the phrase itself. A second spatial sense is associated with Augustine. He takes the phrase as referring back to the “one man” and translates the phrase as “…in whom [Adam] all have sinned.” It is difficult to theologically disagree with this interpretation—for this construal seems to rightly understand the passage as demanding this sense; but grammatically it is unlikely. The question is whether there is a way to retain Augustine’s theology while remaining true to the grammar, as well as defining the sense in which “all have sinned” did so in Adam.

Spatial/causal view. The four remaining interpretations of this crucial phrase are causal or a combination of causal and spatial. The first here is the combination view. This translates the phrase as “…because in whom all have sinned” and associates the sin not with personal sins but rather to the participatory sin in Adam. Although the theology is hardly questionable (as with Augustine above), grammatically it may be a case of  “illegitimate totality transfer.” In other words, the phrase in question may be construed as either causal or temporal but unlikely as both.

Causal views. The final three views rightly construe the grammatical phrase in terms of cause but offer different interpretations of the latter term for “sinned” as referring either to being in Adam (in some sense) or to later personal sins. Pelagius is well-known (or infamous) for understanding the phrase as causal but independent of Adam entirely. His view would construe the passage as, “…because all have sinned [personal sins, not Adam’s sin].” Besides the variance with the context of vv. 12-21 in terms of death coming to all as proof that personal sins are not in mind, the church as a whole has rejected the theology underlying this interpretation as heretical.¹¹ Another similar causal view does take the notion of sin as connected to Adam but only indirectly. It holds that “sinned” refers to personal sins, but as a result of a corrupt nature inherited from Adam. It would translate the passage as, “…because all have sinned [personal sins due to inherited nature, not Adam’s original sin].” Although this view attempts to correct Pelagius’s disconnect with Adam, it fails to account for death apart from personal sins. It too must be rejected.

A final view understands the phrase causally and the verb “sinned” as referring not to man’s personal sinning either in terms of being disconnected from Adam entirely (Pelagius) or due to their corrupt nature inherited from Adam (Cyril of Alexander), but rather to their participation in Adam’s original sin (Augustine). The passage would be translated as, “…because all have sinned [in Adam being strongly implied].” This interpretation handles well the prepositional phrase, the tense of the verb (“sinned”), as well as maintains the essential feature of the Augustinian understanding of being “in Adam.”¹² If this interpretation is correct, then we are held responsible for an act done by Adam with the implication that we were in some way participatory. That is, it is assumed that either we acted in Adam with our free will when Adam acted in disobedience to God (realistic theory) or Adam perfectly represented mankind by his one act of disobedience (federal view). Against the realistic theory is its failure to parallel the act of Christ. We certainly were not “in Christ” in terms of performing a righteousness that brings our justification. In making us participatory for our condemnation, this view demands the same for our justification. Thus what has become known as the federal view is adopted here, namely, Adam and Christ by their one act either condemned or justified those whom they represented. As a result of Adam’s sin, we have inherited not only a judicial guilt (imputed) but also a corrupt nature. Our subsequent deaths and volitional acts only confirm this status and condition.

Who Are the Many/All?
A second troubling issue is whether the necessary element of the act of Adam to the all (5:12, 18a) and the “many” (5:15a, 19a) imply universalism when referring to the constituents of Christ who are the “all” (5:18b) and the “many” (5:15b, 19b). There are essentially three responses with respect to the nature of the work of the representative towards his constituents.

Actual universalism. Actual universalism asserts that the “all” and the “many” are unequivocal. That is, those whom Adam necessarily condemned by his one act are the same as those who are justified by Christ’s deed. The strength of this position is its consistency (“all” and “many”) and its acceptance of the effective nature of the act of each representative. The weakness of this view, from a contextual perspective, is that it assumes a horizontal parallelism of the “all” and “many” of Adam to the “all” and “many” of Christ instead of a vertical position. The vertical position (a top-down approach accruing from the representative) not only gives meaning to these terms from a representative perspective but would also allow an equivocal sense of the terms “all” and the “many”—but in appearance only.

Hypothetical universalism. Another view that attempts to answer this question is hypothetical universalism. This view understands that while Adam’s sin effectually transmits to “all” or “many” of his constituents, the nature of Christ’s work is merely hypothetical to the same “all” and “many” of whom Christ represents. The similarity with the actual universalism view is that the “all” and the “many” are unequivocal. Its weakness (in addition to that just mentioned above) is that it breaks the parallelism of the effects of Adam and Christ towards their constituents. In short, it is inconsistent. Why is Adam’s sin effectual apart from personal sin while the effects of Christ are contingent on human faith?¹³

Reformed particularity. A more consistent answer may be labeled “reformed particularity.” This view asserts that the “all” and the “many” of both Adam and Christ are vertically defined as “all/many of whom Adam represents” and “all/many of whom Christ represents.” In this case, there is little that would necessitate equating these constituents based on the terminology of “all” and “many.” Indeed, that the all/many of Christ are in Adam in no way necessitates that the all/ many in Adam are in Christ. Further, this view (similar to actual universalism) maintains a consistent parallelism between the acts of either representative to their constituents— both have effects that are necessary and effectual apart from either personal sins or personal faith. Finally, it accounts consistently for both personal sins and personal faith by means of this connection. In either case, the personal acts necessarily follow as evidence of this association rather than serving as the basis of it.

Conclusion
In summary, according to Romans 5:12-21 the implications of the fall include imputed sin, death, judgment, condemnation, transgressions (personal sins), and the reign of death. Mankind’s fall in Adam is where sin, death, and its corollaries find their genesis. But the good news is that where sin and its effects abound, grace abounds much more. Verses 13-21 explain the reversal of these effects and implications of the one man Adam, namely, in the act, effects, and implications of the one man Jesus Christ. For to his constituents come justification, a reigning in this life, and eternal life.

Donald E. Hartley, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Bible and Theology at Southeastern Bible College.
notes

¹ John Piper, God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards with a Complete Text of The End of Which God Created the Worlds (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998), 36.
² Several condemnations of Pelagianism include the following: (1) Trial and condemnation of Caelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, in Carthage (A.D. 411). (2) African Synods (A.D. 416) condemn Pelagius’ views. The following year Pelagius and Caelestius appeal to Zozimus who calls the council of Carthage. (3) Council of Carthage (A.D. 418) condemns Pelagius and Coelestius and affirms Augustine’s views. (4) Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) condemns Pelagianism. (5) Synod of Orange (A.D. 529) moderately reaffirms Augustinianism but condemns Pelagianism. For a popular summary see R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 33–66; J. Patout Burns, ed., Theological Anthropology, trans. J. Patout Burns, Sources of Early Christian Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 1–22; B. R. Rees, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers (Rochester, NY: Boydell, 1991).
³ By “implications” I am referring to the extent of the effects of the fall. Thus the order is the fact, effects, and implications of the fall.
⁴ In other words, I am foregoing what has been termed “the Myth Theory of the Fall.”
⁵ For a discussion on this issue see the Treatise on Original Sin in Jonathan Edwards, A Jonathan Edwards Reader, ed. John Edwin Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
⁶ This is confirmed by the rhetorical question, “But does not the gracious gift operate just like the trespass” (5:15a, cf. vv. 18-19)? Thus there is continuity in operation (necessary and effective to all constituents), as noted by these verses, and discontinuity in effects (vv. 16-18). Hodge states it well: “And when it is said that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity…his sin is the judicial ground of the condemnation of his race, precisely as the righteousness of Christ is the judicial ground of the justification of his people” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2005-06], 173).

 ⁷ Cranfield argues against this: “But it is not necessary to assume that the manner in which the many were made sinners must be closely parallel to the manner in which the many were made righteous” (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, ICCNT, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975], 279).
⁸ This thought is broken by vv. 13-14 that address the reign of death from Adam to Moses which is designed to show that death reigned because of the imputed sin of Adam rather than direct violation of the Law (or personal sins of his descendents). Second, vv. 15-17 compares and contrasts the two “types” (type and antitype) where Paul asserts one similarity in terms of the effectiveness of the one act towards their respective constituents. Finally, Paul returns in vv. 18-19 to the formal statement of comparison begun in v. 15.
⁹ Murray calls v. 12 “an unfinished comparison; it has a protasis but not an apodosis. Therefore it is an unfinished sentence” (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, 2 vols., NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce and Ned B. Stonehouse [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 180).
¹⁰For a discussion of these alternatives see Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans , 274-81.
¹¹Murray gives four reasons why personal sins are not in view: (1) It is historically untrue (case of infants); (2) In vv. 13-14 Paul says the opposite, death reigned on those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam; (3) the repeated idea that death reigned over the many because of the sin of the one man Adam (vv. 15-19); and (4) it is inconsistent with the analogy between Adam and Christ. “How contradictory would be the appeal to the parallel obtaining on the side of condemnation and death if Paul finds the basis of the condemnation and death of all in the actual transgression of each individual” (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 184). The parallel would make justification by works, too.
¹² See Augustine, The City of God 14.11; 16.27; The Trinity 4.12.15; 13.16.21; Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love 26; 45; Against Faustus the Manichaean 22.78; 24.2. Most of Augustine’s comments on Rom 5:12 are in the context of the Pelagian controversy. See Augustine, Guilt and Remission of Sins 1.8, 10, 11; 3.1, 8, 14, 19; The Spirit and the Letter 47; Nature and Grace 9, 46, 48; Perfection in Human Righteousness 18, 21; The Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1.55; 2.34; Marriage and Concupiscence 2.3, 8, 15, 20, 24, 37, 42, 45, 47, 48; The Soul and Its Origin 1.28; 2.20; Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.7, 24; The Predestination of the Saints 2.30; Tractates on the Gospel of John 30.5; 49.12.
¹³“There is a federal union with Christ which is antecedent to all actual union, and is the source of it…. Their voluntary union with Christ by faith, is not the ground of their federal union, but, on the contrary, their federal union is the ground of their voluntary union” (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2006], 19).