TryingToLearn
Puritan Board Freshman
So, here's what I believe with regards to the propagation of sin. I would like to see if anyone can change my mind on this because I recognize the position of natural propagation of sin has been the dominant position throughout history, however, I do not think this aligns consistently well with Reformed theology.
The common answer as to how Jesus was born sinless is that the Holy Spirit's conception of Him kept Him from the sin nature he would have naturally received from Mary (or the explanation is that sin is received from the father, and thus Christ was sinless as virgin-born). I remember reading a post a while back by Michael Heiser where he proposed some complicated scenario in which a child could be born without a father and then asked whether that child would be sinless. While his rant against original sin was obviously misguided, I think he's correct on this point; sin is not propagated through the human father (the thought that it was once led to me think the Nephilim were in an unfallen state). If sin is propagated naturally, we should affirm that it is done so from both parents, as both are fallen.
However, I would go further and argue that sin is not even propagated through natural generation at all. I believe this because I think the early church came to this conclusion in trying to explain original sin apart from the categories of covenant and imputation.
It seems much more biblical to say that sin nature flows from the imputation of Adam's sin. In the same way, the new nature flows from the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Thus, Jesus Christ was not exempt from a sin nature because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, rather, He was exempt from sin because He was not in the Covenant of Works with Adam. Jesus never received the imputed sin of Adam because He was His own federal head in the Covenant of Redemption.
The duplex gratia of justification and sanctification is grounded in covenantal union with Christ. Similarly, the reverse of this, condemnation and a sin nature, is grounded in covenantal union with Adam; not natural generation. Thus, a sin nature flows out of condemnation (the imputed disobedience of Adam) because of covenantal representation, not physical generation.
Thoughts? Any arguments for a both/and position? I've read Turretin on this and he argues that souls are created without original righteousness as a result of Adam's sin (which I consider to be the imputation part of this), certainly correct, but he then further argues that the body is also corrupt and infects the soul with a positive inclination towards evil. I, however, am not sure that this is necessary or if the idea of sin somehow being passed on physically rather than covenantally would have even been in the mind of the biblical authors.
Also want to note that Turretin sees Romans 5:12 as teaching the entrance of inherent sin as well as imputed sin into the world. I think this is dangerous, as it might open up an interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 where all are seen as "dead in Adam" because of inherited sin, not imputational sin (which is much more exegetically faithful to Paul's context), loosing the forensic focus. This has the potential to misconstrue Romans 5:18-19 as Christ making us actually righteous rather than positionally righteous.
The common answer as to how Jesus was born sinless is that the Holy Spirit's conception of Him kept Him from the sin nature he would have naturally received from Mary (or the explanation is that sin is received from the father, and thus Christ was sinless as virgin-born). I remember reading a post a while back by Michael Heiser where he proposed some complicated scenario in which a child could be born without a father and then asked whether that child would be sinless. While his rant against original sin was obviously misguided, I think he's correct on this point; sin is not propagated through the human father (the thought that it was once led to me think the Nephilim were in an unfallen state). If sin is propagated naturally, we should affirm that it is done so from both parents, as both are fallen.
However, I would go further and argue that sin is not even propagated through natural generation at all. I believe this because I think the early church came to this conclusion in trying to explain original sin apart from the categories of covenant and imputation.
It seems much more biblical to say that sin nature flows from the imputation of Adam's sin. In the same way, the new nature flows from the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Thus, Jesus Christ was not exempt from a sin nature because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, rather, He was exempt from sin because He was not in the Covenant of Works with Adam. Jesus never received the imputed sin of Adam because He was His own federal head in the Covenant of Redemption.
The duplex gratia of justification and sanctification is grounded in covenantal union with Christ. Similarly, the reverse of this, condemnation and a sin nature, is grounded in covenantal union with Adam; not natural generation. Thus, a sin nature flows out of condemnation (the imputed disobedience of Adam) because of covenantal representation, not physical generation.
Thoughts? Any arguments for a both/and position? I've read Turretin on this and he argues that souls are created without original righteousness as a result of Adam's sin (which I consider to be the imputation part of this), certainly correct, but he then further argues that the body is also corrupt and infects the soul with a positive inclination towards evil. I, however, am not sure that this is necessary or if the idea of sin somehow being passed on physically rather than covenantally would have even been in the mind of the biblical authors.
Also want to note that Turretin sees Romans 5:12 as teaching the entrance of inherent sin as well as imputed sin into the world. I think this is dangerous, as it might open up an interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 where all are seen as "dead in Adam" because of inherited sin, not imputational sin (which is much more exegetically faithful to Paul's context), loosing the forensic focus. This has the potential to misconstrue Romans 5:18-19 as Christ making us actually righteous rather than positionally righteous.
Last edited: