Morphemics

Fallen Nature or Lack Thereof

In this contribution to the discussion with Clifton on soteriology, which, originally, had been just between him and Darren, I suggested that the fall did not bring about a change in human nature but that original sin is nothing more than the declaration of Adam's guilt on all who are in him. In the following post, I said that I was willing to take this off the table. Not that I don't believe it, but that such a position, because it is not how Reformed theology has actually formulated the doctrine of original sin, might prove too much of a distraction in the debate between monergism and synergism. So I was a little surprised to see that there were aspects of this view that Darren wanted to consider. The purpose of this post, then, will be to a give a more complete account of my view of the fall along with some clarifications and answers to objections that Darren has expressed in this post and a subsequent one in which he was answering Clifton.

The doctrine of original sin received its first extensive treatment in post-apostolic church history in the debates between Pelagius and Augustine. I have written something on it here and here. The chief focus of Augustine's account of original sin is on the change in human nature that occurs as a result of Adam's fall. The debates that produced the Reformation served to give greater emphasis to the declaration of guilt in Adam as opposed to the declaration of righteousness in Christ. The WCF speaks of both imputed guilt and the inherited corruption that came about as a result of Adam's fall. It argues for an actual change in human nature when Adam falls in addition to a declaration of guilt on all who are in Adam. Other traditions within Reformed theology do not articulate the forensic aspect as much as the WCF; although, it is present by implication from the doctrine of justification in the Second Adam.

Here then is where I differ from standard Reformed theology. I believe that forensic categories are sufficient to account for original sin such that Christ's righteousness can be the basis by which we are delcared righteous. Original sin is nothing more than a verdict of guilty upon all those who were in Adam when, as their Federal Head, he failed to keep the commandment of God. All of which forces the question of how one accounts for a corrupt human nature, for our propensity to evil- for total depravity. An attractive feature of saying that this comes about as a result of the fall is that it exhonorates God of having created us in such a sorry state. Everything that he created was pronounced good. But then, I am not arguing that Adam had the same disposition toward evil as the unregenerate do. The fall produced a change in disposition, but not a change in human nature. To see this, consider what factor changes the disposition of the regenerate as compared to the nonregenerate. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. People who have been saved are not completely disinclined to do evil. In fact, while they remain on Earth, there is a constant battle between the flesh and the Spirit. Basically, Adam was no more or less inclined to do make the wrong decision in a given situation than are any of the regenerate. He, as do we, had a human nature tempered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Just as now the entrance of the Holy Spirit into a human being entails new life, even so, in Adam's case, the Holy Spirit's departure entailed death. The subsequent absence of the Holy Spirit from Adam's progeny, and not a fundamental change in human nature, is what accounts for their depravity.

A common view of redemption, even among Reformed circles, is to see it as a restoration of what was lost in Eden. Adam fell from perfection and Christ restores what was lost. The immediate problem with this view is this- what prevents man from losing it again? If it is simple restoration, then all previous conditions must apply, including those that allow for the fall in the first place. So there must be more to it. An alternative is to think that if Adam had not fallen, then we wouldn't have it so good. We would still be in Eden, not Heaven. But even this falls short. Redemption results in so much more than just redemption. It is not simply forgiveness and putting us back where we were only unalterably. Christ unites himself with human nature and thereby makes it possible for us to be brought into union with the divine. Surely such glories should not be considered as mere by products of a divine repair job. On the contrary, man was created with the intent that Christ would become incarnate and thereby fundamentally change man's nature for the better. This new nature would be perfect and incorruptible. In the meantime, man was created with a courruptible nature and had to merit the verdict whereby God, along with the incarnation, would effect this change. But Adam failed and the verdict was guilty. The Son of God, who as the prototype of humanity was all along to have become incarnate, also took on the role of the Second Adam. Now it was not merely a matter of raising a sinless but corruptible humanity into incorruption by assuming all that man was, Christ also had to pay the penalty for Adam's sin and he had to merit that which Adam had failed to merit.

The verdict of justification was still attatched to this fulfillment of merit. Furthermore, the promise of glorification, whereby man's nature would be fundamentally changed, was still attatached to the verdict. When Christ merited our redemption, he was justified. This verdict of righteousness is attatched to his resurrection. Once God has attatched glorification to justification, resurrection is inevitable. Christ is the firstfruits from the dead. Our resurrection into our new natures may not take place until Christ's return, but this resurrection has been insured by our justification and is assured to us by the earnest of the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.

To recap, the ony fundamental change in human nature is between that nature as it was created and human nature as it was intended to become by means of the incarnation of Christ. The difference in disposition between the regenerate and the unregenerate can be accounted for the agent of their regeneration, which is the Holy Spirit. Adam had the same disposition as those who are currenly regenerate but not yet glorified. For Adam, the possession of the Holy Spirit was a gift whose continued presence was conditioned upon meriting his eternal reward. For us, the Holy Spirit is given as a result of Christ's merit: he cannot be taken away again. Human nature as created has always been corruptible. The change in human nature through the incarnation of Christ is built into the original design of creation, with or without sin. It is, therefore, of no consequence to the fullness of our redemption to say that original sin is strictly a forensic declaration of guilt. The intended change was always to have been based upon a forensic declaration of righteousness and effected by Christ's assuming of human nature.

As I have mentioned, this is not the standard Reformed view, although I do believe it to be consistent with the basic outline of Reformed theology. I present it, not as a dogmatic declaration that I, the individual, am right as opposed to the Reformed church, but as a point of discussion. I also mentioned that I was willing to take this view off the table in the debates about monergism. Overall, the Reformed position is not jeopardized by affirming both a change in human nature at the fall and a forensic declaration of guilt. For my part, I believe that asserting such a change is superfluous. The more important point, which a lot of Reformed people miss in wanting to assert the sinlessness of Christ, is that Christ, in order to redeem us, must have taken on the same human nature that we possess. Consequently, if human nature is fallen, then it is a fallen nature that Christ must have assumed. Just as human nature has a tendency to corruption in the model that I have offered, even so, fallen nature need mean nothing more than that human nature has aquired a tendency to corruption after Adam fell. There is no need to think that fallen equals sinful. As far as what kind of nature Christ assumed, there is no need to insist on my views of original sin in the monergism debate. The chief advantage of such a view in this debate would be in accounting for the fall in a way consistent with a Reformed view of the will. Generally, there is no explanation for how Adam could have fallen if he had a perfectly good nature and the will cannot act against nature. If his nature is that of corruptible flesh indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then his odds of falling are the same as ours might have been.

Now to answer some of Darren's objections and observations. In response to my statement that Christ "is not himself sinful, but he shares with us in the guilt of Adam's sin," he writes, "I am not comfortable with talking about Christ as actually guilty of original sin, and that his punishment on the cross was therefore just. If the atonement is substitutionary, it must be in this sense precisely unjust -- not that God acted as an evil tyrant in torturing a guiltless party for the trangressions of others, but that Christ offered up himself for this very purpose. "

First, I must take the blame for some equivocation. Earlier, I had written, "for 'tendency to corruption' is not identical to 'guilty of sin.' In this usage, 'guilty' means actual and personal sin. On the other hand, when I speak of being guilty in Adam, I am referring to a verdict. Think of it this way: a man is accused of murder. If he actually did it, then he is 'guilty' by the first definition of the word. He is taken to trial and evidence is presented. The jury does their best to make the verdict match the facts of the case. However, once they have delivered their verdict, then, no matter what the accused actually did, he either stands guilty or not guilty. A verdict of guilty does not cause the man to have personally commited murder if, indeed, he didn't. In the case of original sin there is another factor- that of being in union with the Federal Head. The verdict, which is delivered by God and, therefore, infallible, is made on the basis of Federal Headship and not of personal action. Christ, by virtue of his human nature and union with Adam, can declared guilty of Adam's sin without any implication that the Second Person of the Godhead has personally and actually sinned, even if only according to his human nature.

The atonement is substitutionary viewed from the perspective of discreet personhood. The man Christ Jesus took the punishment for my sin. But it does not follow from this that the atonement was unjust, any more than it follows that the declaration of original sin is unjust because Adam was the one who actually sinned. Justice is contained in the idea of union with the Federal Head. If the only valid way to look at Christ's death is as a substitutionary atonement (and this is valid), then what do we make of Paul's assertion, "I have been crucified with Christ"? As to Christ offering himself up, a judge is still unjust and no less of a tyrant if he allows such a thing.

As a point of clarification, if original sin is forensic, then we do not inherit Adam's guilt (although we do inherit human nature). Guilt is declared upon those who are in Adam, just as righteousness is declared, and not inherited, upon those who are in Christ.

In Darren's next post, he writes, "This by no means implies that there is some post-Fall state of nature that [Christ] did not possess, and therefore could not redeem -- for there is nothing different about post-Fall human nature other than the stain of sin, both actual and inherited." So far, my point that there is nothing different. However, in the next paragraph, he writes, "I still contend that the Fall brought about an ontological change to human nature, so that rather than being inclined to sin man is now unable to not sin..." But he can't have it both ways. If there is an ontological change in human nature such that man is unable to not sin, and if Christ does not assume this nature as it has been changed, then we're back to the problem that "whatever is not assumed is not healed." The change from inclined to sin to unable to not sin is due, not to a change in nature, but to the absence of the Holy Spirit.

Next, Darren asks if my suggestion necessitiates "that Christ had what we (at least in Evangelical circles) would call a 'sinful nature'." No, it does not. It only necessitates that he actually took on human flesh. The concept of a "sin nature" is, in my view, an overreaction to a perceived gnostic interpretation of Scripture. Paul often speaks in terms of the flesh vs. the Spirit. And he actually says "flesh." But, of course this can't really mean "flesh" because that would be gnostic. And so we substitute the concept of a sin nature. The NIV even goes as far as to translate sarx as "sinful nature." But it doesn't mean "sinful nature, " it means "flesh." I see no textual reason to assume that Paul does not mean exactly what he says when he speaks of the flesh. The flesh as created is corruptible. The intent was always that Christ would assume it and thereby glorify it.

Posted by kcourter at março 25, 2005 12:39 AM