We have some tasks before us. The first task ought to be grading the quiz. Does anybody present who has not taken this quiz? In that case, blessed are you. I hope that I hear some groanings when I said grade this quiz. Did you find it difficult? Now, we would use that word tricky. Remember last lecture? Sin is tricky. The quizzes aren't tricky. Quizzes are, oh no, that's right, sin was deceitful. Hukama, 133 to 167, true or false according to the writer. It's not according to you or me. I promise to tell you when I disagree with him and I do hear in there on this quiz. But that's a second step. The first step is to answer the questions according to his ideas that establishes a measure, can't talk, of objectivity. Number one, after the fall, God passed sentence upon all three parties directly involved in the fall. The serpent, woman, and man. True according to Hukama, page 134. Yes, sir. The question is, and it's a good one, at least in showing the careful reading of Hukama, is this question tricky in light of Hukama's distinction between sentence and curse? Reserving curse for serpent and the creation, but not using it of Adam and Eve. Would, I think that's true, the way he does that, but would not, the curse be a sentence in itself? That is, would not sentence be the bigger category of which curse is a subset? And so the point is to make our first parents immune from the word curse, but not to make the rest immune from the word sentence question. How many people stumbled on number one because of that? Particularly because of that reason. Because of sentence and curse? If you missed it because of that distinction, I will give you credit. Make a note in the margin for my poor student assistant who has to sift through these things, OK? I will give you credit. It does seem to be picky. Although I couldn't imagine how you possibly could think these things are tricky. Close my mind. Number two, already in Genesis 3, we see the promise of the coming Redeemer. True, page 135, how indicative of the grace of God no sooner had our first parents sinned. God is on the scene in holiness and judgment and confrontation, but shortly thereafter he is present in mercy and grace and making the promise of the Redeemer of the world. Already in the garden of Eden, surely God is loving kind. So two is true, 135, 3. Adam and Eve had not worked before the fall. Work was a consequence of the fall. False, 137. It was work in the beginning. There will be work, not in a sense of bothersome toil, but in a sense of meaningful activity in the new earth, underneath the new heavens. As we think of the goals of our lives, the goal should not be retirement in the sense of totally occupying ourselves with leisure, understand? Not serving in the church anymore. One can change one's work. And I've known people that retire at the full time, church worker, or half time at church work, depending upon their energy and so forth. But work was not a curse. The nature of work changed after the fall. But God made us to be involved, meaningfully, for his glory. Did I see a hand out there? Must be my evangelist eyes. OK? Bless you, my son. Student was going to make a question, but said he's just going to eat that one. Four, although only thorns and thistles are specifically mentioned, we aren't to understand them as standing for natural disasters, disease, germs, and disease spreading insects. True, according to Hookamont 137, I agree. Let's be realistic. The whole thing is set within the garden in that context. And we can't expect encyclopedic comprehensiveness. So in that way, they are speaking in terms of the garden and are representative of greater disasters and so forth that are visited upon. Humankind and the world, four, is true, 137. Five, Adam and Eve would have died, even if the fall had never occurred. False, 138. Their human death was a consequence of the fall, according to Romans 5 and verse 12, which we will look at shortly. Lord willing, 5 is false, 138. 6, if fallen human beings had continued to eat of the tree of life, they would have lived forever in sin-torn bodies. True, page 140. In that respect, it is good of God to exclude them from the garden after the fall. Now, and the tree of life, of course, reappears in Revelation 22 in the last chapter of the Bible. The last two chapters of the Bible are the mirror image of the first two, the first three. In that, the curse is removed. Again, we have the tree of life and so forth. This time, not in a garden, but in a city as indicative of the population growth and even the redeeming work of God. So 6 is true, 140. 7, all religions recognize that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man. True, page 141. I guess one could, if one pressed it to consider certain cults or philosophies, you could find some that think we're not sinful whatsoever, but the major religions of the world indeed defines it in different ways, but they recognize something as wrong with us. 7 is true, 141. 8, although Bart and Bruner rejected the doctrine of original sin. Rudolf Boltmann accepted it. It's a joke, false, 143, 144. Boltmann was much more radical than Bart and Bruner. He hardly accepted any basic doctrine of the Christian faith. He rather reinterpreted them in terms of existential encounter. So 8 is false, 143, 144. I told you before, if you have Calvin and one of these true and false, thank you're not sure. Error on the side of making him look good. If you have Boltmann, you can deal the other way. You're probably going to get it right. He didn't believe a whole lot. In fact, the secular existentialist of his day in Germany said to him, Rudy, demythlogize one more element and we're on the same camp. He refused to demythlogize God to say that the basic concept of God was amyth as well. So I'll give him credit for that, although one of his disciples did, which seemed to be a consistent outworking of his own philosophy slash theology. Nine, it is unimportant whether one holds to a doctrine of original sin as long as one acknowledges actual sin. False, page 146. There is a problem, even in evangelical Christianity, there's hardly a mention of original sin. Actual sin is important. I'll say something about that in a moment, trying to put the Romans five passage in its context in Paul's unfolding of Romans. He treats actual sin first and then original sin. So if you ask me what place original sin should have in the life of the church. In the context of Romans, it pertains to Christian discipleship and not to evangelism per se. As the way Romans uses it, but both are important. I'm thankful that a couple of world wars and other major skirmishes have taught modern people that we're sinners, okay? And that does such a thing as actual sin. I think of the liberal theologian who went and spent time at a concentration camp, okay, for prisoners. He went in with a very optimistic, rosy view of humanity. Langon Gilke is his name. He came out totally disillusioned and because of his experience, he changed his view of human beings. He said, surely, if ever there were a place where people would work together with his view of human beings, right? This is it. He said they turn on each other like dogs. It was incredible. It brought out the worst in them. And he rejected and I wish in the beginning he had believed in the B.I.B.I.L.E. and affirmed that we were sinners, okay? But at least through the school of hard knocks, he ended up saying that we are deficient. But he doesn't believe in original sin and regards dance history as mythological as so many modern theologians do. It is important to hold both to original and actual sin. Number nine is false. Page 146, 10, original sin, includes both guilt and pollution. True page 148, 10 is true. And 148 is the place the answer is found, 11. Pollution is a judicial or legal concept describing one's relationship to the law, false. 148, that's a definition of guilt. Pollution is a moral concept describing the ruinous effects of sin on our lives. Guilt is the legal concept. So 11 is false, 148, 12, original guilt means that we deserve condemnation because Adam, our head and representative broke God's law. True page 148, 12 is true, 148. Now, don't you see, most of these are straightforward. That person was just a little bit of a ringer, our myth. 13, we should distinguish between two aspects of original pollution. Pervasive depravity, we just love these terms. They keep us employed, we're so happy for these. Pervasive depravity and spiritual inability. True, according to who come up page 150, I agree. Pervasive depravity number 14 means that by nature, fallen human beings do not love God with all their heart, soul and strength. It is true, page 150. The property pervades their beings and lives and keeps them from loving God as they ought, which is his do. He deserves the total love of his creatures because of who he is. 15, pervasive depravity means that unregenerate people are unable to do anything good or helpful to others. False page 150. If the sentence had stopped after good, you might have been perplexed to know whether I mean civic good or kind of a common notion of good as in, she's a good woman or he's a good man, we use that expression. But when it says, or helpful to others, of course, it makes the question false. Page 150, unsafe people are able to do anything good in terms of meriting God's favor. They can't do moral good, but they can do civic good indeed. Top of, I mean, page 16, question 16. Spiritual inability means that unregenerate people are unable on their own to turn to God in repentance and faith. True page 152. It is one thing to define it. It is something else to work carefully with the Bible to see what it teaches on this matter because it is an important thing to ask. That is, what an unsafe person is able to do to save him or herself. I hope to tackle that later this evening or maybe the beginning of our next class. 16 is true 152, 17. Pelagius accounted for the universality of sin by pointing to the bad example Adam set for his descendants. True page 155. It is rather remarkable the coincidence that we all follow Adam's bad example, isn't it? Pelagius denied in effect the denied original sin and collapsed it into actual sin. Adam is a bad example, but he is much more than that. 18, according to Pelagius grace was the inward working influence of the Holy Spirit inclining our wills to the good. False page 155. That is at least a partial biblical definition of saving grace in my estimation, but for Pelagius grace was purely external. Our minds were a result of grace. Free will is part of grace. Law and Christ example which is another subset of law. These are grace according to Pelagius. These are not grace according to the Bible. Grace is something supernatural and external that comes and liberates us from our sins. 18 is false 155. According to immediate imputation, I will say this right away, if you find confusing to try to sort out immediate and immediate imputation, don't feel bad, it simply means you have a logical mind. My conclusion after thinking about this for some years now is that immediate imputation is illogical. It puts the cart before the horse and it does not make sense. So don't feel bad. You are smarter than you thought you were. According to immediate imputation, the guilt of Adam sin is imputed to us directly. False 156157. Here is the key. To distinguish between immediate which means direct and immediate which means indirect imputation. The key is the guilt of Adam sin. Is the guilt of Adam sin directly imputed or indirectly? If it is directly, it is immediate imputation. If it is indirectly, it is immediate imputation. If you keep a hold on that, you can kind of work it out. So immediate imputation holds that the corruption or pollution of Adam sin is directly imputed and the guilt is only indirectly imputed. An immediate imputation, I see the quizzical looks. We will be back to this later. Immediate imputation holds the other way. The guilt is directly imputed and the corruption is indirectly imputed. 20. Now that is as clear as mud. 20. I will define the things and work with them as we go tonight. Realism holds that although we were not present in the Garden of Eden we are guilty of Adam sin because Adam our representative fail. False page 158, that would be the representative view. The federal headship view. Representationalism, those are synonyms. Realism holds we were present in the Garden. Perhaps the key to remembering this is realism holds we were really there. We were actually there in one sense or other. We will define that in a few moments more carefully. But for our purposes now, 20 is false. Page 158, remember the purpose of the reading and the purpose of the reading is to give you theological and historical background that I need to work with the passages now. The biblical passages and the kind of sift the views. If you never heard the views before, we wouldn't get very far. And the purpose of the quiz is to utterly torment and frustrate the student. I mean the purpose of the quiz is to help you read it carefully. And although I understand it hurts getting whipped. Still, don't you learn more by preparing for the quiz and taking the quiz? But I hear a disclaimer out there. So I don't expect you to have mastered all this yet. But I hope at least you the word realism doesn't sound totally unrealistic. Totally far into you. 21, Hukamat, rejects realism in favor of immediate imputation. False page 160. I wish he did because he mixes the two. Oh, it's not tricky. He mixes them. He says he tries to hold them both together. Now the concepts are difficult, I understand. But he makes a mongrel in my estimation that doesn't help us a bit. 22, according to immediate imputation. Adam was a representative head of the human race. But not the natural head. False 161. He is both, he's everybody acknowledges or should. He's a natural head. What the representative view does is say that that natural headship is not the way to explain original sin. But it doesn't deny that he was, in fact, the natural head. 22 is false 161. 23, according to immediate imputation. Direct imputation of Adam's guilt. And an indirect transmission of corruption. True 162. When Paul says because all sinned in Romans 512, he refers to actual sin, not original sin. True, of course, page 163. Not, I was waiting to get you on the one I got you. That's false 163. I usually give you a zinger and I say it to the end. False, because all sinned refers to original sin and not actual. Give me a number correct over 24 please. Last time you all should have a copy of this now. I circulated some of these around. Last time we thought about this a little bit. We set Romans 512 through 21, the original sin passage in the Bible. The most important one. We set it in the bigger context of Romans in this way. Do you have any questions concerning this? You say, I was busy reading from my quiz. I had little time to reflect on such things. Let me just bring to your attention one fact then and mention one other thing. Number one, in its context in Romans 512 to 21, is primarily about justification. It is not chiefly about original sin. It has a positive purpose of showing that the basis of justification which was given in chapter 3, 24 and 26 as Christ's work understood as a redemption and a propitiation of God's wrath is also conceived here. His work as righteousness, one act of righteousness Paul calls it. This is the basis of justification viewed positively if you will. If propitiation views the basis of justification negatively, the turning away of God's wrath, then here in chapter 5, he portrays the basis of justification positively as Christ procuring righteousness for us in his one act of righteousness in dying on the cross. We will be back to this in the end. We will work our way through the passage and in the end I am going to say it again. The passage is about justification first and it is about original sin. Secondly, number two, this outline demonstrates, especially in here, the place that original sin occupies in Paul's thought. Paul does not begin with original sin. He begins with actual sin. In answer to the question, should I talk about the Garden of Eden and evangelism? Should I fight over what the serpent was and this kind of a thing with people? No, avoid that. Don't make problems for yourself. Don't lie. Somebody asks you a question. Do you believe in animals in historical person? Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ believed you as an historical person. The apostles did. He is presenting that way in Genesis. But original sin in its context in Romans has to do with discipleship, not with the gospel, per se. Understand? In the gospel point, too, the fact that we have sinned against God's law. That guy is a holy God and we have offended him in our actual lives with transgressions and thought word indeed as we said last time, with me. Original sin is a more ultimate question. It is like this. Somebody comes into the Lord and begins to think more and they say, yeah, I'm guilty because of my sins, but is that the Bible's ultimate answer to that question? Why am I a sinner anyway in the first place? Did God make us a sinner's? Of course, it's not acceptable. So the whole discussion of original sin is a more ultimate one as to how we became sinners in the first place. The Bible works like that in a number of fronts. When it deals with salvation, you have a whole series of legitimate answers to the question, why am I saved? I'm saved because I believe the gospel. That's a valid biblical answer. I'm saved because in God's grace he sent somebody to present the gospel to me. Good answer. Is that the ultimate answer? Reason as to why we're saved? No. We can go further back because even on that one we can go further back. We can go in terms of logic and priority. We would give the glory to God unlike Pelagius and see the Holy Spirit working in us even that we might believe. We can go further back to that and say ultimately we're saved. Not because we believed, but because the Son of God did something for us in the first century. His work is the basis of our salvation as our Romans outline indicates. Not our faith. Our faith does save because it's faith in the work of Christ. There's a more ultimate answer. Doesn't make illegitimate the less ultimate answer. Understand? It's an important point because we think that ultimate things somehow cancel out less than ultimate realities. They don't. Faith is important. Is that the ultimate biblical answer as to why people are saved because of what Jesus did? The answer is no. We go back into the mysterious realm of the biblical teaching concerning before the creation of the world. And the mysterious eternal election of God. And there are things the Bible says there ultimately we are saved because of God's will and His grace. Grant to us in Christ Jesus before creation. Does that cancel out those other more immediate responses? It does not. They all fit together in God's plan. So the fact that what Adam did in the Garden of Eden is the ultimate reason why we're sinners does not make illegitimate the Bible's answer that our actual sins are condemnable. Understand? Another way to test this would be to study the judgment passages which I have done in another context. And if you study them why are people condemned? Is it because of original sin? Never brought up because they never heard the gospel. Doesn't mention it in those passages. It's true. The only remedy is the gospel because they don't believe in Christ. That's the only remedy but it's not what's mentioned in those passages. And the judgment passages people get what they want. They want justice. They get justice. They're condemned for their thoughts, words and deeds that are contrary to the will of God. And God justly condemns them for what they have done. Thank God that through His Son we don't get justice in terms of what our sins deserve. We do get justice because Christ's saving work is as is a propitiation as we said last time. We're ready to work carefully. So I've said two things. Number one, Romans 5, 12 to 19 is first of all about justification. Secondly about original sin. Number two, the original sin passage follows His longer discussion of actual sin. Both must be held together. I deplore the modern attempt. I'm thankful that they do talk about actual sin now. That's definitely progress from the early decades of this century, in which the optimistic liberalism denied that we were sinners. History has cured that view pretty much, although new age or sound like that again. It's ridiculous. It's so out of step with life. But I deplore the modern tendency to affirm actual sin and deny original sin. And I lament evangelical pastors even not talking about original sin ever very rarely anyway. They are doing less than a complete job of teaching the whole council of God. Let us work now with Romans 5, 12 through 19. Verse 12 poses for us the problem. I don't think this is anywhere exactly in your notes. So you need to write a little bit. I'll repeat things to make sure you Romans 5, 12, therefore just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin. And in this way, death came to all men because all sinned, my voice is up because the sin tax is incomplete. He doesn't complete his thought. Understand? NIV indicates it with a dash. The Greek New Testament does something like that as well. It's very important to see, I guess I would say it this way, God and his providence led Paul to not complete his thought. He started to go a particular line of reasoning. He broke it off in the middle. I would say under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I'm sure not going to criticize Holy writ here. And then he picks it up again later on for the sake of our understanding. Of course, you do understand the one man is Adam, of course, right? I'll just fill it in for fun, not trying to teach any radical theology here or whatever. But if he had completed the thought, it would go something like this based upon verses 18 and 19 below. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin. And in this way, death came to all men because all sinned. So also, that's how he does it later on. So also, through one man, Jesus Christ and his obedience or righteousness, there came eternal life to all men. The meaning is to all who believe in him. See, he would finish it by speaking on the other side of the ledger of Christ over against Adam, of Christ's righteousness over against Adam's sin and of life over against death. You with me? Verse 12 says, just as sin entered the world through one man, Adam. And death is what we call an ellipsis. Certain thoughts are omitted because they're so obviously repeated without... They don't need to be repeated, they're implied. And death entered the world through one man through sin. And in this way, death came to all men because all sinned. The problem of the doctrine of original sin is this. How do we relate the sin of the one man Adam to the sin of all at the end of the world? One man sinned, all sinned. How do we relate these two things? This is the problem. How is Adam sinned? The sin of all. Verses 13 and 14 then explain in some sense, verse 12. These verses are difficult. They're difficult. In fact, I don't understand every aspect of them as I would like to. I won't fool you. But I understand the basic thrust. And one very important part of them that becomes a test later on for original sin. Was there a comment or question on verse 12? Okay, a student has suggested the solution to the problem. And in the solution suggested, there's a combination of both. You suggested the representative view and the realist view. I'm going to suggest that they're both not right, but we're ahead of the game. So let's hold on to that until we get through the whole passage. Survey the historical views. I'm going to give a brief summary. And then I'm going to go and try to tear some of them down and show where they're weak. And then try to show why I think the one view is correct. So it's like put on your thinking caps, night. It's dense stuff at points. 13 and 14. The reason I say they explain verse 12 was because of the word four, the conjunction four. Four before the law was given. Surely the law of Moses because of verse 14. Sin was in the world. Yeah, sure, because of the sin of Adam. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. I want to retract my comment about sin being in the world because of Adam in verse 13. He may be speaking of something different there. Sin is not taken into account where there is no law. A difficult expression indeed. We can't press it literally and define law in the same way we just did in the beginning of 13 law of Moses. Otherwise you would say the sins of the people in between the time of Adam and Moses were not taken into account. That doesn't square with the early chapters of Genesis. Especially 6 through 9 which talks about the flood which is God's response to terrible human sinfulness. That doesn't square with the early chapters of Romans. At point the people's actual sins without the law all the way up until the middle of chapter 2 from 118 through the middle of 2. You with me? My own understanding is and I'm not positive of it but the meaning is something like this. It's a comparison kind of an unstated comparison that works like this. Sin is not taken into account when there is no law as it is taken into account when there is a law. That is the law makes sin a well-defined and terrible thing that it really is. In any case 14 tells us never the less as a qualification made. Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses even over those. Now very literally it reads even over the ones who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam who is a type of the coming one. The NIV has explained it and I think correctly when it says even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam. What is it? What is the similarity between the time of Adam and the time of Moses? I think the similarity is this in both cases we have a direct divinely revealed prohibition. Namely the prohibition in the Garden of Eden not to eat from the forbidden fruit and certainly the prohibition written with the finger of God on tablets of stone. The ten holy words of God the commandments. In between we don't have quite the same thing. Oh we had the preaching of Noah. It is not absolutely different but I believe the sense is these two times the Edenic situation and the mosaic situation are alike in having express prohibitions from the mouth of God in the former case from the hand of God in the latter case. And in between time we don't have quite the same thing. We could account for sin in between but apparently the thought of 14 is we couldn't account for death raining and ruling. There is personification of the law and of sin already beginning in verse 12 they sneak into the world. They are intruders. Oh and as soon as they get in in verse 13 they are also usurpers. They not only push their way into God's good world but they become tyrants and they lord it over mankind. And this is a terrible derangement of the original creation situation. So my suggestion is the sins of the people in between the time of Adam and Moses are sufficient to account for even their own judgment at the hands of God but not sufficient in Paul's reasoning to account for death raining and ruling and lording it over them. I do want you to notice this the important expression at the end of 14 even over those who did not sin by breaking a command as did Adam. We will return to that one so my thought is 13 and 14 explain verse 12 further in that they appeal to Adam's sin as the reason for the rule the dominion of sin in the time between Adam and the time of Moses. I understand the verses are difficult especially the last clause in verse 13 but that's the best I can do. I am sure that 13 and 14 are designed to explain verse 12 I'm sure that and I'm also pretty sure I'm sure we understand the end of 14 which speaks of people who did not sin in the same way that Adam did. It becomes very important because it goes contrary to certain of those views of original sin realism for example if we were really in Adam's loins then how is it possible that we did not sin in exactly the way he did. We would have sinned every exactly the way he did there's no such there's no possibility of a different way of us sinning if we were really in him. I cited the flood in the centers of the time of the flood as an example of God's judgment of sin in between the time of Adam and Moses and rightly so how were their sins shown how were they taken into account if they didn't sin by breaking express command Romans 1 and 2 answers answered answer the question for us. Chapter 1 there's revelation of God in creation they sinned against it they suppressed the truth in unrighteousness I'm not saying those chapters only pertain to the time of Noah I am saying the data in those chapters which speak of human being sinning apart from the written law which begins in the middle of two of Romans that pertains to that time so I'm not limiting it to that time but especially pertains to that time in this discussion. That is God revealed himself in the things he had made in his handy work and people instead of acknowledging him as God and being thankful suppress that truth and engaged in idolatry homosexuality Sodom and Gomorrah terrible idolatry every thought and intention of man's heart was only evil continually Genesis 6 terrible terrible also the law of God was written on the heart according to Romans 2 14 and 15. And people sinned against this internal barometer of right and wrong so Romans itself accounts for people sinning apart from the written law and for people being condemnable because of it but the written law makes sin all the worse. And that's why the Jews that's why the order of Romans in chapter 2 the second half of that chapter when Paul brings the Jews to their knees before God as culpable he's got the world by the tail everybody's the center if the covenant people are condemned and certainly the pagans are condemned the covenant people are Christ condemned by the law in creation by the law on the heart and by the law written on the tablets of stone. Yes sir if the first Adam according to some of these Calvinistic views of original sin if his action caused was imputed to the whole human race by God so that all of us are born sinners then why didn't it work like that for the second Adam in fact why isn't his righteousness imputed automatically to everyone instead why is there necessity of persons believing unto salvation. The answer lies in the nature of the correlation between the two atoms and their races I'm going to argue for a fundamental underlying similarity but also acknowledge it is not an equation in every detail I want to argue for similarity as when the passage gives it and allow for dissimilarity when it does it. It's a very good question and a very thing has led some that conclude that everybody is saved based upon Romans 5 18 and 19 before we take our break let me just say this the end of first 14 indicates introduces a very important concept. Adam Adam was a type of Christ here he says it here he introduces the concept of type apology or the Old Testament is predictive in a couple at least a couple of sentences sentences the Old Testament predicts in word in terms of predictive prophecy. It also predicts in terms of action individuals institutions and events are predictive of the coming Messiah the Exodus is an event that predicts Christ the office is a prophet priest and King predict ultimately the one who would hold all three offices in his person and persons Melchizedek for example according to Hebrews 5 through 7 is a type of Christ here Paul explicitly labels Adam a type of the one who was to come so maybe now we're going to get the completion of that fractured syntax from verse 12 maybe now he's going to tell us how Adam and Christ are like as a matter of fact for three verses he tells us how they are not alike and we'll be back after our break to Lord willing to give our attention to those matters.