Damaged in the Garden: a Study of the Nature of the Fall of Man
The identity of man is uncovered in the Garden of Eden. On that frightful day, Adam and Eve were deceived, ushering in the reign of sin. The text of Genesis 3.1-7 portrays this damning event:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'" And the serpent said to the woman, "You surely shall not die!” For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
This account of being seduced by Satan into indulging in the forbidden fruit is more complex than a simple sinning narrative. This event reshapes the nature of man as well as the environment of humanity. So what exactly happened as the juice touched the lips of man? What are the ramifications for humanity?
Theologians throughout the centuries have debated the level of damage that Adam caused the human race. Typically, Christendom has offered three predominant views in explaining the sin in the garden. All of these views are pivotally connected to an exegesis of Romans 5.12-21. The debate over the sin in the garden progresses to the level of depravity in man. Finally, the question of freewill arises with this author seeing man acquiring a weakened freewill after the influence of the fall and after he personally follows Adam’s example into sin.
Sin in the Garden: the Three Major Positions
In the beginning God made both man and female to fellowship with Him in the Garden of Eden. Man was to have dominion over all the lands and animals because humanity was given special status as image bearers of God. Man was given provisions but also a prohibition. Adam and Eve were welcome to feast on any tree within the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2.16-17 states, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” God warned His newly formed creation of the consequence of partaking of the forbidden tree. God said, “For in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”
Unfortunately, Eve was tempted by the serpent into believing that death would not come from eating from the forbidden tree but rather that wisdom would be the result. The serpent focuses the gaze of Eve on the limitations, which blinds her to her privileges. Eve’s limitations become frustrations. Then the serpent instills doubt into the intentions of God’s limitations. Finally, the serpent presents himself as a counselor that is concerned for the happiness and welfare of Eve (Wevnin 45). Scripture states concerning Eve’s outlook, “and that the tree was desirable to make one wise.” Dr. Robert Reymond interprets the phrase “when the woman saw that the tree was…” as “when the woman had come to the conclusion that the tree was…” Reymond states, “These words make it clear that the woman had come to the place where she believed the serpent’s words rather than God’s words” (444). She reached unwisely toward the visually pleasing fruit, passed a sample to her husband, and bit a piece out of humanity forever. At that moment, the realization of sin weakened the nature of man. Man was now aware of the side effects of disobedience to God. The man and his woman experienced for the first time shame, guilt, and broken fellowship with God. Paul declares in Romans 5.12 “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.” Man’s innocence, purity, and righteous perfection before a holy God were damaged. Adam and Eve’s sin ushered in the era of sin on earth. God’s perfect creation was now going to be cursed forever. The author of Genesis narrates:
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.”
Instead of the earth supplying man’s needs abundantly, the earth will become a burden to man. Pain, toil, and death were the physical consequences of Adam’s actions.
But what were the spiritual ramifications of the fall of man? This is the point where significant debate has taken place. Predominately, there are three major explanations of the spiritual effect of the fall on humanity. These views are named Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism.
Pelagianism. Pelagius was a British monk who moved to
Arminianism. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was educated through the Calvinistic tradition. His spiritual awakening came as he was called upon to refute the Anabaptist’s views of Dirch Koornheert. Instead of solidifying his Calvinistic views, he rejected some of the major tenets of classic Calvinism (Sawyer 346).
In contrast to Pelagianism, Arminians accept the idea of the corrupted nature of man. Arminianism views humanity as entirely unable to live with righteousness without special help through the Holy Spirit. Man has been damaged both physically and intellectually through the sin of Adam, but man’s volition remains intact (Erickson 650). But man’s volition must be engaged by the Holy Spirit before man could make a decision for salvation. Instead of accepting the unconditional election and predestination of Calvinism, Arminians perceived predestination as God’s foreknowledge of those who would respond to the call of the Holy Spirit. Man was free to choose his salvation as well as reject his deliverance (Sawyer 347). Arminianism accepts the idea of original sin but limits its pervasiveness. Adam’s sin seriously damaged the nature of man but not to the extent of impairing man’s volition. With assistance from God, man has the ability to respond in faith to the Lord.
Calvinism. The Calvinist sees a connection between Adam’s sin and the rest of humanity. In some way, Adam’s sin was not just an isolated event but the event that caused humanity to become sinful. Because of Adam’s transgression, man receives now at birth a sinful nature worthy of eternal damnation. This sinful nature resides with man unless God has elected that individual for eternal salvation, and if so, God will send the Holy Spirit into man’s heart to cause him to respond to the Gospel. God has to initiate salvation because man’s nature is totally depraved; hence, man cannot respond to God by his own volition. A Calvinist completely eliminates man’s freewill. Unlike the Pelagian view which does not see imputation of a corrupted nature or guilt to humanity because of Adam’s sin, and unlike Arminianism which views God as imputing a corrupted nature but not guilt, in the “Calvinist scheme he imputes both a corrupted nature and guilt” (Erickson 651).
In the Calvinistic explanation, there are two views concerning the imputation of sin to man (Grenz 194-195). The first explanation is called federal headship. It holds a creationist view of the origin of the soul. This view states that humans receive the physical nature by inheritance from the parents, but the soul of man is created by God and united with a body at birth. This teaching views mankind as not present mentally or spiritually during the sin of Adam, but Adam functioned as man’s representative, thus acting on man’s behalf. Since Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to humanity, Adam’s corruption can also be imputed. The other concept of how Adam’s sin was perpetuated through humanity is called natural headship. This view is connected to the traducianist understanding of the soul. The traducian view states that man inherits his soul from his parents. When Adam sinned, he corrupted his soul, and the rest of humanity inherited a piece of that sinful soul (Erickson 651-652).
Calvinism, following the tradition of Augustine, proposed the idea of total hereditary depravity in man. The Calvinist sees the destruction of man as freely beyond repair. Man is completely incapably of choosing to serve the Lord. Man’s salvation is dependent on God’s sovereign choice to infuse His Holy Spirit in the heart of man. A Calvinist does not argue concerning the reality of original sin; rather, they debate about the process of passing original sin to the next generation.
Exegesis of Romans 5.12-21
A pivotal verse in understanding the idea of original sin is Romans 5.12-21 (Tennant 251). Paul’s intent in these verses is to deal with the saving act of Christ in contrast to the damning work of Adam. Paul in Romans is attempting to bring peace to the local church. Tensions between Jews and Gentiles were rising because of the return of the Jews after Claudius died (Acts 18.2; Romans 16.3). Paul wants to emphasize the common salvation that both Jews and Gentiles have in Christ. Romans 5.12-21 is not an explanation of the doctrine of original sin but an argument to prove that through one man grace could overcome the sin of one man. Paul does this by using a “just as…so also” style of argumentation. In verse 12 he begins the comparison but does not complete it until verses 18-19. Adam and the sin and death he brought into the world are part of the “just as” clause; Christ and the righteousness which he provides are part of the “so also.” The force of the argument is not on the “just as” part but on the “so also” clause (Moo 180). Paul concludes his case in verses 20-21 by highlighting the work of Christ in bringing eternal life instead of death.
Verse 12 begins this difficult section with “therefore,” noting that Paul is linking Romans 5:12 with the preceding verses. Paul could be referring to verses 1-11, verse 11 only, or the longer argument beginning in verse 1.18. Probably, Paul is taking the simpler approach of arguing for the manner of reconciliation of verse 11. Paul mentions “just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” Paul is making a reference to Adam, though he does not mention his name until verse 14. It was through Adam that sin appeared in the world, and as a consequence of sin, death entered also. There has been some debate concerning the nature of this death. Some see death referring to physical death; others see a spiritual death, while still others view both deaths in the context. Paul in verse 17 contrasts Adam and Christ through the idea of life. Adam brought death and Christ brought life. Genesis 2.7 warns “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” But in the sense of physical death, Adam did not die; in fact, it was many years before Adam suffered physical death. Hence a spiritual death could be pictured also (Eph. 2.1). Probably, God’s warning of death was meant both spiritually and physically, with emphasis on spiritual death or life. Eternal life in the presence of God was ended because of being banished from the Garden of Eden, and physical death was insured because Adam was rejected from eating from the Tree of Life (Morris 229). The order of appearance in verse 12 states that sin appeared first and death was the consequence of sin.
The next phrase of verse 12, “and so death spread to all men, because all sinned,” is at the heart of the controversy over original sin. Paul states that death infected all men in some manner. This infection was because of sin. Somehow through the actions of the one man, Adam, all men suffer death. Paul does argue in verse 14 that man died even though he did not sin like Adam: “who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.” Paul uses the term dih:lqen in verse 12, which could mean that death simply spread or death permeated all (Porter 22). One could interpret this statement to mean that death continued to spread because after the sin of Adam, man throughout time has been cut off from the Tree of Life. In every generation, death will be the result because man is no longer in touch with the life-giving tree. One should not interpret the sense of death spreading as death entering man and corrupting his nature. The final phrase of the verse, which is translated from e;;f=w,: can mean “in which, because.” Some see this clause as referring to the law while others see it meaning “in whom.” The “in whom” meaning was the classic Augustinian interpretation. But his view has some problems because of the distance of the antecedent in verse 12a (Porter 23) and Paul would have used e;n rather than e;f if he intended to say “in Adam all sinned” (Schreiner 274). One should interpret the phrase in a causal sense. Dunn mentions that the debate has been settled in flavor of rendering the meaning as “for this reason that, because” (2 Cor. 5.4; Phil 3.12) (273).
Even though “because” could be seen in a causal sense, there remain the questions concerning the referent of the term “sinned.” Typically, there have been three major choices available. The first option states that h{marton refers to humans actually sinning in Adam. It is the idea that when Adam sinned, all of mankind sinned as well. This is typically called the realist view and was held in some form by Augustine. The second view is called the federalist view. This idea states that humans actually sinned because of Adam’s acting as the legal representative of his race. McGarvey argues that Adam’s sin carried the punishment of death to only the generations before the giving of the Law of Moses (334-5). But typically, in the religious world today, people state that because of Adam’s actions, all of mankind is rendered guilty of sin. The third alternative is called Pelagianism. Pelagius’ view stated that man sinned independently through Adam’s example. The example of Adam led man to sin on his own accord.
The focus of verse 12 could dwell on the last phrase “because all sinned.” The verse has no mention of the biological unity with Adam (Haag 96). Unlike Augustine, who has influenced Christian thought for centuries, Paul does not mention that man sinned in Adam. This erroneous interpretation began because of Augustine’s inability to translate Greek (Allen 367). He was using the Latin Vulgate’s phrase in quo. Augustine’s interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of the grammar of the text (Porter 23). He highlighted “in Adam” incorrectly. Also, Augustine argued incorrectly because he stated that baptism is for the remission of sins, the church baptizes little children who have not committed any sin, those children have been baptized for the remission of sins, so Augustine reasoned that Children have original sin (Sesbouev 14). Because of the erroneous practice of infant baptism, Augustine attempted to harmonize his theology in accepting original sin. Instead, through Adam’s sin death began to rule in the world. It was the reigning force of sin that caused individual man to choose to follow the pattern of Adam. All men will die spiritually and physically because Adam ushered in the personification of sin into the world. In fact, when the verb h{marton is used, it connotes a sense of action (Haag 99). Romans 3:23 states “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Adam in a sense is responsible for the sins of mankind because through his actions he opened the floodgate for sin to influence the world. Before Adam, sin existed because Paul states that “sin entered the world,” but before Adam’s transgression, sin was held in check, outside the human existence. But those that disagree with Adam as the example of sin appeal to the aorist tense of h{marton. They state that the aorist verb is punctiliar and past referring (Porter 25). They argue the term for “sinned” could not refer to habitual sin, but rather to one act of sinning. Blocher notes “the Greek aorist tense or aspect is susceptible of various uses: culminative, complexive, gnomic” (72). Essentially the aorist tense is undefined. Probably, it is best to see h{marton not as a punctiliar but an omnitemporal statement. This means the term can refer to the past, present, and future. (Blocher 73). Verse 12 is Paul’s case for Adam being the prime-mover in the story of sin in humanity. Adam’s actions did not corrupt his biological genres in which man now shares in. “When Paul states ‘all sinned,’ he means that every human has personally sinned” (Schreiner 275).
In verses 13 and 14, Paul reverses direction in his argumentation. He explains the idea of imputation. Though sin would not be charged to one’s account, nevertheless sin was present throughout time. Adam’s actions forced all men to suffer death because all men were removed from the Tree of Life. Paul in verse 13 is referring to the Mosaic Law, but there was still law present in the world (Morris 233). There was just a difference in the nature of imputation. There was the law that was written on man’s heart (Rom. 2.15). Also, God punished those in Noah’s day because of the wickedness in the heart. God did not punish the people because of Adam’s sin but because of their own sin. If man was guilty because of Adam’s transgression, Noah would not have found favor in God’s sight (Gen. 6.5-9). The difference between Adam’s sin and the generations that followed Adam before the giving of the Law was that Adam broke a direct commandment of God while the succeeding generations transgressed the law of the heart, which is not an explicitly expressed command.
In verses 15-17 Paul continues to explain the typology of Adam and Christ. In proving to his audience the ability of Christ to reconcile all men to God, he states that Adam was able to separate man from God because of his example, and thus Christ can lead man back to God through His example. Adam’s actions ushered sin into the world. Paul contrasts Christ’s actions which ushered in the reign of grace. Christ’s actions supersede Adam’s role. From the damage that Adam did to humanity in presenting sin as an option for man, Christ repaired the damage (Moo 184).
Finally, in verses 18-19, Paul returns to his original proposition. He compares and contrasts Adam and Christ. Adam’s actions guided man into sin; Christ’s actions guided man into grace. Where Adam disobeyed, Christ was obedient. Paul’s point is not focused on Adam’s actions, but on Christ’s power to overcome the influence of Adam on the world. Sin is more than just limited to Adam, though he is the figurehead; it is the reigning power of sin in the world. Adam opened the door for the power of sin to influence humanity, and Christ opened the door for grace. Man has the free choice to follow the example of the disobedience of Adam or the obedience of Christ. It seems that the text is pointing to each character as an example to follow. Instead of Cottrell’s interpretation of the text as the elimination of the curse of Adam and the reign of original grace, one should see the text as a testimony of sin or grace. Cottrell disagrees with universal salvation, but if there is original sin from Adam which passed to all men, there seems to be universal salvation given to all men. In verse 14 Paul mentions that Adam is a tu;poV, which indicates that Adam and Christ correspond to each other. So instead of agreeing with original sin and countering the view with original sin, one could resolve the text by arguing that Paul is highlighting the two examples that man has the choice to follow: Adam leading to death or Christ leading to life (188-189). But Grudem charges back, stating that those who do not accept the imputation of Adam’s sin to humanity are the unspiritual. He argues that the reason a man will not believe this view is that he is unregenerate (494-495). But this is an ad hominem argument, an attack on the person and not the truth. He labels those who disagree with a negative term. Ultimately, in verses 20-21, Paul concludes that Christ has overcome the effect of Adam. “No longer is sin the enslaving power, it is now grace that exercises dominion” (Gaventa 236). Man needed a counter example of righteousness, and Christ provided this for man. Jesus states “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12.32).
Depravity in Man
The pivotal section of Romans 5.12-21 seems to indicate that “through one man” means that Adam sinned and man followed his example into sin, instead of Adam sinning and man becoming infected with hereditary sin. But there is still ample evidence indicating that man has a sinful nature. Are these verses meant to be read as the curse of Adam or the curse of personal sin? Some argue that man sins because he was born a sinner; man was predetermined to sin (Boice 205). But instead of seeing a fatalistic nature of man, one should see man’s depravity coming from his freewill to sin. Man has the choice to make in determining his nature. But after a man chooses to sin on his own account, man damages himself in the same manner that Adam and Eve did.
There is little doubt that Adam’s sin affects himself as well as the rest of the world. There were consequences to his disobedience. The first consequence of the fall was Adam and Eve lost their legal and moral innocence before God. The text indicates that “their eyes were open.” They both knew the difference between right and wrong. For the first time in history, man was aware of his condition before God. Adam and Eve reacted to this knowledge by hiding themselves from God because of their shame and guilt (Shuster 62). Their minds were completely innocent before this act, but now they have a wounded conscience before God (Reymond 447). This seared conscience has negative ramifications for man’s first couple. Instead of owning responsibility for their actions, Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. Another consequence is the image of God in man was fractured. Instead of divine concern and justice for one’s neighbor, man started to emphasize selfish concern for his own well-being. This is discovered in Genesis 3.8 where the Hebrew text literally reads “man hid himself and the woman herself.” Instead of concern for one another’s welfare, the focus of man changed to an attitude of “every man for himself.” The nature of God’s love for others was superseded by an overindulgent love for self (Reymond 448). A third consequence of sin is fellowship between God and man was broken. Instead of living in the presence of divinity, man must live in separation from the Godhead. This idea is borne out by the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. The way back into the place where God walks is denied forever by a flaming sword and the cherubim which were a symbol of God’s justice and God’s holiness (Ex. 25.18-22; Num. 7.89; Ps. 18.10; Ezek. 1.5-28). The fourth consequence was man’s environment was cursed. The earth’s productivity will be hindered by thorns and thistles (Gen. 3.17-18). Creation will add to man’s suffering while on earth. In fact, the earth will groan as it waits to be released from bondage (
Man has certainly inherited something from Adam, but it is not spiritual depravity or inherent moral guilt but an environment far from God. Every child is influenced because of Adam’s sin. Every generation from the time of Adam and Eve must contend with a world is selfish, shameful, guilty, out of God’s presence, and striving for the material instead of the spiritual. This change in the original environment of man reaps lasting consequences for humanity. Man is polluted by his environment, not Adam (1 Cor. 15.33). The Biblical authors seem to indicate that one’s surroundings affect spirituality. Paul mentions “Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light” (Eph. 5.7-8). Peter states “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2.9). If man was simply a bearer of the depravity of Adam, it seems unreasonable to implore Christians to separate from darkness if the entire race shared in darkness. The Biblical exhortations to refrain from sin should be removed from the Bible because when man sinned, he was only acting according to his predetermined state.
Man’s environment influences man’s depravity as well as man’s personal sins. When an individual reaches the age of accountability (Rom. 4.15; 7.9) and freely chooses to sin, that person pollutes himself in the same matter as Adam, though man’s environment influences his propensity to sin. Man at that moment falls into a righteous sense of depravity and a justice sense of depravity. Man is declared a sinner and depraved before the eyes of God. Man is now declared to have a “sinner nature” (Eph. 2.3). Sin now affects man subjectively and personally in the sense that sin brings about a weakness of the soul, hence making it difficult to resist temptation. The sinner becomes spiritually sick because he has been exposed to the destructive power of sin. Adam was not the originator of man’s depravity; rather, man corrupts his own spirit (Cottrell 195).
After man chooses to become defined as a sinner, his nature becomes depraved. Jesus in comparing people to trees and man’s deeds to a tree’s fruit states in Matthew 7.17, “Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit”. In this verse, Christ speaks of not just bad fruit produced, but also a bad tree, which is the person himself. Jesus uses the term ponhrouvV, which means “wicked, evil, bad, and degenerate” (Arndt, Bauer, and Gingrich 630) to describe the nature of people (Matt. 5.45; 7.11). Paul likewise pictures people as evil, not just as performing evil. In 2 Thessalonians 3.2 he requests prayer “that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men.” Acts 17.5 “wicked men from the market place, formed a mob” and 1 Corinthians 5.13 “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES” both present man has internally evil. In 1 Corinthians 5.13 the wording is “tovn ponhrovn which connotes “the evil one or the article is used in a generic sense referring to the wicked in general” (Rienecker and Rogers 401). This sickness of sin (2 Cor. 4.4) corrupts even the mind of man. Paul mentions in Ephesians 4.18 man being “darkened in their understanding” and in 2 Timothy 3.8 claims men have depraved minds. Even the heart of man which represents man’s spiritual nature is viewed in a state of depravity. Paul refers to the “hardness of their hearts” (Eph. 4.18; Rom. 1.21). Since man’s heart is damaged through sin, this leads to a state of weakness in fleeing from Satan and temptation (Rom. 5.6; Col. 1.13). In fact, man is in a state of slavery to sin (Rom. 6.6). Man can be so depraved that Paul will describe sinners as dead in sin (Eph. 2.1; Col. 2.13). The reason that man is dead in sin is because sin dwells in the flesh:
So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me (Rom. 7:17-20)
The Bible does declare man to be spiritually depraved because of the presence of sin. But this depravity infects man not directly through Adam’s sin, but through man’s environment and through man’s own sin or sins. Paul mentions both personal sin and the corporate power of sin, but man’s individual sin and the reigning power of sin in the world has lead to man’s depravity (Hunermann 112). Every man or woman after the fall of Adam was raised in a world that has been tainted by the presence of sin which gives man the propensity to choose to sin on his own account, which leads man to a state of partial depravity (Cottrell 196-197).
A Weakened Freewill
The Bible provides ample evidence that man has a choice to make concerning following God or rejecting Him (Deut. 30.19; 1 Kings 18.21; Gal. 6.7-8; Rev. 22.17). In fact, Joshua implores the people: “And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh. 24.15). The people of Joshua’s day had a decision to make. Were they going to follow God or the gods beyond the river? In the New Testament Paul mentions to the Corinthians: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5.10). The image of the bema is pictured in this verse. The bema was the place where a Roman governor would sit to render a judgment in legal cases (Hafemann 216). The man or woman would give an account of his or her deeds to Christ who is function as the judge on the bema. Also, the Bible indicates: “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust” (James 1.14).
Though it seems that freewill has been given to man, has man’s freewill been affected? Some state “yes” and refer to total depravity which was a result of Adam’s sin. This idea states that man is depraved completely. Moreover, man is in bondage to his will. Man does not have the ability to choose God (Ellis 32). This estimation of man seems unlikely because of the continued commands throughout the Bible for man to choose right before God. Also, Ecclesiastes 7.29 states “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.” Man is made pure, but chooses to follow lust instead of the Lord. Finally, if man is totally depraved, Jesus was totally depraved, since Jesus came in the flesh (John 1.14). If Jesus inherited the sin of Adam, He could not have become the sinless sacrifice for man’s sins.
So instead of seeing man as totally depraved and without freewill, maybe one should see man as becoming depraved and having a blurred freewill. Sin has a devastating effect on man. Paul mentions the blinding element of sin in 2 Corinthians 4.4 “whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Jesus mentions that man can close his ears to the truth in Matthew 13.13-14. In fact, man can become entangled in sin to the point that it is impossible for the individual to turn back to God (Heb. 6.4-6). When man follows the path of sin instead of the path of righteousness, it becomes increasingly difficult for man to freely choose the right over the wrong (Rom. 7.21). When a person sins, he suffers from the consequences of sin, which is shame, guilt, and an awakened conscience, and this pulls him farther away from God. Jesus even acknowledged this difficulty in explaining the two gates of life. In Matthew 7.13-14 He says “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” Jesus knows that it will be more difficult for man to walk through the narrow gate than the wide gate. As long as man is allowing the flesh to override the spirit, man’s freewill becomes weaker (Rom. 8.6-14). Man is not totally depraved but can become blinded to righteousness by overly focusing on worldliness.
The odds are stacked against man in choosing righteousness over wickedness because of the environment which man was born into after the fall. The world was corrupted through sin. The nature of sin perpetuates itself through sinful man raising children to be sinful. Man lives within a world full of selfishness and worldliness. This leads every child into a state that is bent toward sin. The world is now conditioned to produce sinners. This is a fundamental difference between Adam and modern man. Adam lived in a world unstained by sin which produced no tendency toward sin. Adam and Eve were created perfectly in the image of God to have freewill (Shuster 192). Adam and Eve were not raised by sin-soaked parents nor lived in a tainted environment but completely had freewill to determine their choice towards God.
Adam’s sin did not completely blind man to God in the sense of hereditary depravity, but Adam did usher sin into the world, which damaged the environment for man. Man follows Adam and sinks deeper into depravity and clouds freewill by his personal sin or sins. Man was created to have freewill, but as man is subjected to sinful examples and sins himself, man’s freewill escalates deeper into a depraved mindset. As man chooses to follow sin, he makes it more difficult for him to choose righteousness.
Conclusion
As Adam and Eve enjoyed the forbidden fruit, this couple could not have imagined the consequences of this action. There are been many explanations of the ramifications of this sin. These explanations range from Pelagianism, which states that man inherited a sinful environment, to Calvinism, which states that man inherited total depravity and the actual guilt of Adam. But Romans 5.12-21 seems to indicate that Adam introduced sin into the world, and man now lives with the consequences of sin and banishment from the Tree of Life and Christ came into the world to provide a counter-example of righteousness and guide man back to the Tree of Life (Rev. 22.14). And man follows Adam in exhibiting a depraved nature when he sins like Adam. Man’s nature is corrupted and his freewill is blinded by this sin, which makes choosing the path of righteousness more difficult. The great tension of the Bible is repeated by challenging man to choose which path to follow: to follow Adam into sin or follow Christ into glory.
Works Cited
Allen, David. “Apostles of Balance: Semi-Pelagianism in
Arndt, William F, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. “ponhrovV”. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. 1979.
Babcock, William S. “Grace, Freedom and Justice: Augustine and the Christian Tradition.” The
Blocher, Henri. Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle.
Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith.
Cottrell, Jack. The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today.
Clark, Elizabeth A. “From Origenism to Pelagianism: Elusive Issues in an Ancient Debate.” The
Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary.
Ellis, E. Earle. “God’s Sovereign Grace in Salvation and the Nature of Man’s Free Will.” Southwestern Journal of Theology XLIV (2002) : 28-43.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed.
Gaventa, Beverly R. “The Cosmic Power of Sin in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Toward a Widescreen Edition.” Interpretation 58 (2004) : 229-240.
Grenz, Stanley. Theology for the Community of God.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology.
Haag, Herbert. Is Original Sin in Scripture?
Hafemann, Scott J. Second Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary.
Hunermann, Peter. “Experience of ‘Original Sin’?”. Original Sin” A Code of Fallibility. Trans. John Bowden. Ed. Christophe Boureux and Christoph Theobald.
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. Delight: Gospel Light Publishing, n.d.
Moo, Douglas J. Romans. The NIV Application Commentary.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990) : 3-30.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith.
Rienecker, Fritz and Cleon Rogers. Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament.
Sawyer, M James. The Survivor’s Guide to Theology.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.
Sesbouev, Bernard SJ. “The Theological Rationalization of Original Sin.” Original Sin” A Code of Fallibility. Trans. John Bowden. Ed. Christophe Boureux and Christoph Theobald.
Shuster, Marguerite. The Fall and Sin: What We Have Become as Sinners.
Tennant, F. R. The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin.
Wenin, Andrev. “The Serpent and the Woman, or the Process of Evil according to Genesis 2-3.” Original Sin” A Code of Fallibility. Trans. John Bowden. Ed. Christophe Boureux and Christoph Theobald.
No comments:
Post a Comment