We are working with the doctrine of original sin. I have rejected Pelagianism as no doctrine of original sin. It's only teaching actual sin. I have said that Armenianism is really beside the point. And I've also rejected the natural headship view. Do you have comments or questions? I understand you'll continue to think about these things for years to come. And you don't need to give quick answers. But I just wanted to give you opportunity. Then let me, yes, yes. Why is Pelagianism included in these notes? Because exactly because it was important historically. Yes, exactly. So not because it's a good option, because it was a reaction to Augustinianism and the beginning, if you will, outside of the Bible of the wars over grace and the nature of grace. And that battle decided the question was grace necessary. Answer, yes, because Pelagia said it wasn't. At least not the biblical notion of grace. The Calvinist Arminian debates centered around the question over it was grace efficacious, wasn't effective. And Wesley held it was universal and not efficacious. The Calvinists following, say, lost the name of his fellow evangelist helped me out. Whitfield, George Whitfield, thank you. He said, no, it is not universal. It's particular because it is efficacious. He stood in the line of Augustin and Calvin. And so disagreeing with Wesley, with whom he agreed to disagree, and they both rejoiced that the other one preached the true gospel. We're into the Calvinist views. We still are, that is, natural headship is, a headship view. But now let me work with immediate imputation, which is, like I say, illogical and difficult to understand, the top of 44. The Calvinist views of immediate and immediate imputation are alike in holding to representative union between Adam and his posterity and to the imputation of Adam's sin, the race. Again, just real quick to keep it in your mind. What is either immediate or immediate is the imputation of Adam's guilt. Joshua Placius, professor at the theological school at Salmore in France, which gave us also unlimited atonement, four point Calvinism. Amaraldianism was, Amarald was a teacher there. He gave us that doctrine. Is the originator of the view of immediate imputation. Previously, all of the orthodox reformed scholars had taught that Adam's sin was the basis for the condemnation of mankind, and that the corruption of human nature was a result of Adam's sin. Placius reversed the order. He made the corrupt human nature the basis of the condemnation and made the guilt of Adam's sin dependent upon participation in the corrupt nature. Let me try to explain. Here is immediate imputation. One, Adam's sin is imputed to the human race, resulting in condemnation for the race. This is upfront, bold, alien guilt. Number two, as a consequence, human beings are born with a corrupt nature. The two are inseparable guilt and corruption, but in terms of cause and effect, the guilt is the cause of the corruption of the pollution. According to immediate imputation, as I say, it's illogical. You can hardly hold it in your mind because it puts the corp before the horse. As a result of Adam's sin, human beings are born with a corrupt nature. Corruption proceeds logically. It's the cause of the guilt. This corrupt nature is the basis for each person's condemnation because, too, since each person has a corrupt nature from Adam, each is guilty of Adam's sin. As I sift through some of the weaknesses, I think it will become evident to you what really is involved is this. Placous and immediate imputation hold that we are born sinners because of Adam's sin. We are not guilty per se. And it is when we live out of our sinful natures and commit actual sins that we then become guilty. You say, that is a practical denial of original sin. Well, you're right. They end up with a dilemma, either that's the case or if you think about it hard enough, wait a second. It is illogical, that we are just born sinners. I mean, how did that come about? Oh, because of Adam's sin. But isn't our being born sinners a punishment? That is, there's a hidden prior guilt. So either you have guilt, corruption, guilt, which, in effect, is no different than immediate imputation at all. Or you really do cancel that first guilt and you have us corrupt and then guilty because of our own sins, which veers very close practically to pelagianism. Let me just work with three, four, and five of the objections, the weaknesses on 44. Meeting imputation number three has difficulty with surprise, surprise versus 13 and 14. There was Adam's sin, which was the cause of the death of even those who did not sin as Adam did. It is the sin of the first man. That is the cause of death raining from Adam until Moses. There's no other intermediary. Second, number four, Johnson correctly argues. The theory is inconsistent with the parallelism between Adam and Christ, just as we are not justified by inherent righteousness, so we are not condemned by inherent corruption. It really breaks down the parallelism. And five, immediate imputation number three, which is the fifth weakness given on the bottom of 44. Median imputation was devised as an attempt to soften Calvinism. In this case, by solving the problem, you guessed it, of God's reckoning guilt to those who had not personally sinned as the problem of alien guilt again. You say alien guilt is really a bur in the saddle of many people, is it not? Yes, it's the reason for realism and it's the reason for immediate imputation. It looks to me like the cure is worse than a disease. It's supposed cures, however, as in the case of realism, this theory too fails to reach this goal. Johnson aptly argues. Now follow me carefully. I know it's late and you're worn out, but follow me. If inherent depravity, if being born with corrupt natures, is a punishment and it's hardly possible to argue otherwise, did God cause us to be born corrupt without for no reason? Is that not a verdict? Then guilt must have preceded it. What then could the guilt be? Other than the guilt of Adam's first sin. So it really, either it conceals an implied guilt, which really is a concession to the immediate imputation view or, in fact, as the formula consensus, Hellvitica, the Hellvitic confession, a real important statement of the reformed faith and Toriton, its prime mover, claimed Placias' doctrine in reality did away with the imputation of Adam's sin entirely for it is really corruption that makes us liable to wrath. It is rather, it is our actual sins that bring us under God's condemnation. This is hopelessly illogical. It wants to put the result, which is corruption, before the cause, which is guilt. And that's why it is so hard to wrap your mind around it. Your mind is perfectly good. The theory is defective. It's backwards. It doesn't really work. Comments or questions? Yes, sir. I understand. The comment is this section of the notes blows our minds. How can we digest it all? It's too much that the gentleman was kind and said, good stuff. I'm not sure if you all would have that evaluation. It is heavy. I don't apologize for it in this way. Original sin is an neglected doctrine. I'm trying not to neglect it. Through the reading of the syllabus and the books beforehand, I hope you have enough background to follow my summary and so forth. You're rescued in this way for final examination purposes. I am committed to that study sheet I gave you the first day, so you don't need to reproduce all of this stuff. 45, Calvinism, immediate imputation. I have stacked the deck. I've saved what I considered the good view for last. I just give strengths. And then I try to answer objections. So once you include weaknesses, I have all the way along. The weaknesses, the big weaknesses, alien guilt. People don't like it. 45 strengths. I'll just go pick out a few of these as well. Number two, immediate imputation is implied in our estate, born spiritually dead and evidently under a curse. Ephesians too. We were either tried in Adam and fell, or we have been condemned without a trial. We're either under a curse for Adam's guilt. Shouldn't say quilt, but guilt. It's my Pennsylvania Dutch heritage. I'm just teasing. I don't have any Pennsylvania Dutch heritage. Or for no guilt at all. Immediate imputation explains most satisfactorily what is ultimately mystery. Johnson is pointing us in the right direction here. Although Romans 5, 12 to 19 is the only passage that really deals with original sin, any kind of detail, that teaching is implied in different places in the Bible. It is implied in Psalm 51, where David laments that I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. It is original sin that alone gives the answer to that that helps us understand that particular state of affairs. We are saying that babies are born as sinners. Number three, immediate imputation bets best fits with Paul's argument in Romans 5. This view alone emphasizes what seems to have been the governing principle of the apostles' argument. Adam and Christ are representatives of their respective races. There's a definite parallel between the respective acts of the two atoms and the effects of those acts upon their people. Adam's sin brought condemnation and death to the human race. Christ's righteousness brings justification and life to his people. I would go so far, as to say. This is not Johnson now, this is Peterson quoting himself, that Christianity is a representative religion. Romans 5 teaches that this representation works in two ways. It explains the condemnation of the race in Adam. It counts for the justification of believers in Christ. The two are bound together by the apostle, and I receive them as such. First number five, I don't really confuse this with Holy Rit. Number five here, likewise, takes us back to 13 and 14. I won't repeat it. Let me go, first of all, any questions or remaining difficulties that you can articulate at this point. Top of 46, objections, some have argued at the following verse, contradicts immediate imputation. Deuteronomy 24, 16 says, quote, fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers. Each is to die for his own sin and of quotation. This verse deals with civil government rather than with divine government. We must separate the two. If this verse is pressed into service in evaluating God's ways in salvation, it could also be used to disprove the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and we don't want to do that. So let's keep the civil sphere and the sphere of salvation separate. Likewise, Ezekiel 18 is a better objection than that first one. It talks about this time in a context of spiritual life and death.
It points to actual sins of human beings
as being the cause of their condemnation. The soul who sins bottom of verse four is the one who will die. Oh, it goes through extensive examples of each person standing for himself before God. If you have a godly father, it does not automatically make you godly. If you mess up, you will be judged for your own sins, okay? Your father's righteousness doesn't suffice for you. Conversely, if you have wicked parents, you can end up doing the right thing and on and on like that. If you start out good, you may end up bad and vice versa, okay? The passage has nothing to say, Johnson correctly argues, about the reasons men are in sin. That is, it's like Romans one to three. It gives them more immediate reasons, not the ultimate ones, understand? Nor about original sin, doesn't even talk about that. Or the imputation of Adam's sin to men, doesn't deny these things, it just doesn't address them. It refers to the principles of divine government in the earth or divine justice. The wicked shall die, the righteous in the divine way, of course, shall live. Again, you could press this one. This does deal with God's dealings with human beings on earth in a religious sphere, not just a civil sphere. So it's more apropos than the first passage in the first objection. But you could press this one too and deny substitutionary atonement. It's just not talking about atonement, it's not talking about original sin, it's talking accurately about actual sins of human beings. And we shouldn't use it to deny original sin any more than we should use Romans one to three. To deny the truth taught in Romans five. We are condemned for our actual sins. It's true, is it the ultimate ground of our condemnation? No, that's what Adam did in the Garden of Eden. Third, realists commonly appeal to Hebrews seven to defend realistic imputation. The concept of realistic imputation in general. Here, the writer to the Hebrews is showing that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. And he is far superior to the priests who came from Levi. He mentions here that Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek. He then argues from that that seven, nine, and 10. One might even say that Levi who collects the tent, meaning is who functions as a priest and collects the people's tithes. One might even say that Levi who collects the tent paid the tent through Abraham. Because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. Realists commonly appeal this passage to defend realistic imputation in general and apply it in particular to a realistic imputation of Adam's sin. The passage doesn't talk about that particular thing, but it seems on the face of it to support a notion of realistic imputation, of Levi really being in Abraham's loins. And that way paying the tent in that real sense. Johnson argues that in view of the special typical nature of Hebrews seven, quote, the tithing of Levi in Abraham was no more real than the fact that Melchizedek was really the son of God. No, Melchizedek was a type of the son of God. And likewise, Abraham stood for his ancestor Levi, for his descendant, sorry, Levi. The relationships are typical. Somebody had the New American Standard Bible. Would you read Hebrews seven? I think it's verse nine. Okay, the NASB better indicates the typical nature when it starts out verse nine, just as was read. And so to speak, understand? I think it's indicating. One might even say, and IV, it's indicating that the relationships are not real, but rather representative, rather typical. He say, this is a very impractical thing, the whole discussion, and you have an abiding concern for the purposes of the doctrines of the word of God. Draw us of systematic and pastoral implications of the doctrine of original sin. Friends, I would be glad to before I let you go home. Number one, worship is due God for his dealings with human beings, for revealing his truth to us. He could have just left it at our actual sin and not even gotten into the more immediate things. Boy, could you imagine the views then we would have had? The speculation that would have grown on. Worship is due God for the principle of representation. We certainly enjoy it on the positive side. Do we not? For his gracious dealings with us in Christ, and for his wisdom and justice for all of this, God is to be praised. More than once in Romans, Paul just bursts out with praise to God for his gospel. Secondly, a realistic assessment of fallen human beings. People are in need of a savior due to real objective guilt. Adams and their own. Listen, moderns will fight against this tooth and nail. They won't admit it. It is the truth. It is the truth. There are in need of a savior due to real objective guilt and due to the pollution of sin. Let us be careful to heed the purposes of the doctrine of original sin in scripture. It does not remove culpability from sinners. Instead, it establishes it. It gives us the behind the scene story of how we became sinners in the first place. It is not God's fault. God made us holy. We sinned in our first father, Adam. Could God have put 10 people on probation? Sure, or 100 or 1,000 a million? Sure, but he didn't. He did it with one. And God seemed right in God's sight. And all I can say is praise the Lord for his grace in the Son of God. Evangelism is thus imperative. Now we come full circle. See on page 46, implications. A fuller appreciation of the saving righteousness of the second and last Adam, Jesus Christ, should result. Let us not lose sight of the major purpose and context of Romans 5, 12 through 21. Our salvation totally depends on the efforts of another even Jesus on our behalf. Here is the greatest cause of our rejoicing. It is called alien righteousness. I don't love alien guilt. I accept it because I think the Bible teaches it here. I'm driven to it because of the inevitable implications of the parallelism between the two atoms. But I do love alien righteousness. Jesus Christ died and rose to save sinners, even us. Praise the Lord. Any remaining comments or questions? Then go in peace, and the Lord bless you all.