Sin and the Human Nature of Christ

[makesends]

MOD NOTE: The following discussion was moved here from a thread on the Pelagian heresy which asserts that human nature is sinless until a person commits a sin.
​

Well, they are certainly both true, that’s for sure.

But I would say they’re true for different reasons. He was born of a virgin Mary for reasons of Davidic promise, and he was sinless because he wasn’t under the federal headship of Adam; rather, he was himself a federal head, the last Adam. When Paul says all those in Adam are constituted sinners (Rom 5:12-19), he is using covenantal language, not biological, as the contrast with Christ proves.

It is the difference that makes all the difference in the world. The genealogy is connecting Jesus to the Seed of Gen3:14-15, and to the royal kingship line. But the categories are distinct. Not to being born in Adam because he wasn't.

I have argued this before, so this won’t surprise anyone to hear: “Sin is not genetic.” It is not something in our genome. (If it were, Jesus would have inherited it from Mary—which is one reason why Roman Catholics dream up ideas like Immaculate Conception.)

Do you know this? Or does it just make sense to you? Are men not enough different in their genome (or whatever it is that is necessary for this notion) from women? Analogically, men are not the carriers of certain defects—women are the carriers of Hemophilia (last I heard). I don't know enough to say it is possible, but why would it not be possible that the sin nature be transmitted only through the man?

 

[John Bauer]

Do you know this? Or does it just make sense to you?

It is something inferred from things that are known.

We know that imputation is covenantal, not biological, for the righteousness of Christ is imputed to people who have no biological connection to him. Someone could suggest that Christ’s righteousness is imputed covenantally while Adam’s guilt is imputed biologically, but that not only introduces an asymmetry that would have to be defended but it creates the monstrous headache of trying to square a forensic concept with reproductive biology. (Imputation is God reckoning, crediting, or legally assigning a status [sinner] or liability [guilt] to a person on the basis of representation under a covenantal head. How is that transmitted by the gametes?)

If imputation were biological, then we have a problem with Jesus being born to Mary. If our guilt and sinful condition is transmitted biologically, and Jesus received 23 chromosomes from Mary, then Jesus was born a guilty sinner. One can emphasize that it was only 23 chromosomes, but I don’t think that is a distinction that amounts to a difference. Alternatively, someone could (like you) suggest that our guilt and sinful condition is transmitted only in the patrilineal line, but they too quickly forget that half of Mary’s genome came from her father, so she passed along Adamic alleles. Finally, someone could argue that Christ’s genome was not received from either Joseph or Mary, that it was an altogether new genome created ex nihilo by the Holy Spirit, but that would mean Christ was something other than human.

The dilemma is unavoidable: Tying guilt and sin to biology yields either a guilty Christ or a non-human Christ, both of which are heresies.

The position I argue is more defensible: Christ can assume a true human nature from Mary and yet be sinless because guilt is not biologically intrinsic to human nature but contingent upon covenantal solidarity with Adam—and Christ was not in Adam. He did not have a federal head; he was himself a federal head, the last Adam.

Are men not [sufficiently] different in their genome (or whatever it is that is necessary for this notion) from women?

Even if we suppose they are sufficiently different, half of a woman’s genome comes from her father. Mary is still passing along Adamic genes (so to speak).

Analogically, men are not the carriers of certain defects—women are the carriers of Hemophilia (last I heard). I don't know enough to say it is possible, but why would it not be possible that the sin nature be transmitted only through the man?

If guilt is genetically encoded—whether autosomal, X-linked, dominant, or recessive—then Christ’s true consubstantial humanity is still fatal to your view. Mary is not exempt from Adamic descent. If guilt is biologically present in her nature in any form, and Christ inherits that nature from her, then …

 

[Arial]

We know that imputation is covenantal, not biological, for the righteousness of Christ is imputed to people who have no biological connection to him. Someone could suggest that Christ’s righteousness is imputed covenantally while Adam’s guilt is imputed biologically, but that not only introduces an asymmetry that would have to be defended but it creates the monstrous headache of trying to square a forensic concept with reproductive biology. (Imputation is God reckoning, crediting, or legally assigning a status [sinner] or liability [guilt] to a person on the basis of representation under a covenantal head. How is that transmitted by the gametes?)

My speculations:

The covenantal aspect naturally enters into the equation as that is the manner Scripture shows us that God enters into personal relationships with people. Adam is a covenant head of all people of natural birth. Christ is the covenant head of those united to him through faith. In a right now, not yet, sense they are taken out of Adam and placed in Christ. For the elect, Christ undid what Adam did.

But are there more than two options---all covenant or biological? I don't think it is biological, but then, what I think, does not decide a thing. I propose another option. "God said, and it was." Having nothing to do with biology but also directly related to his covenant purposes.

After all, we have ample evidence in Scripture itself where the "natural order" of all creation, that is, those inner workers of biology and physics etc. God put in place, are utterly bypassed by him. Lazurus, wrapped in grave clothes and four days dead, walking out of the tomb perfectly whole--all biology restored at the command of Jesus, is a great example. The sun standing still and, on another occasion, moving backwards.

God declared Adam the federal head of all those born of natural birth, not Eve. He declared the seed of the woman would bring forth the God-man Redeemer. In God's economy biology needn't have a single thing to do with it. The only thing necessary and by God's decree, was that Jesus be human (therefore born) and at the same time not be born in Adam. Adam is the federal head of all mankind, but man (gender) is the means of being "in Adam." The Bibles shows that to be the case. It isn't genetic, it is spiritual and by order of the Creator.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Arial]

I meant to add one more line to post #3 but for some reason it won't let me edit.

God the Son simply came as one of us through Mary, and the Holy Spirit brought him into existence as his father.

 

[Arial]

​

MOD NOTE: The following discussion was moved here from a thread on the Pelagian heresy which asserts that human nature is sinless until a person commits a sin.​

​

Do you know this? Or does it just make sense to you? Are men not enough different in their genome (or whatever it is that is necessary for this notion) from women? Analogically, men are not the carriers of certain defects—women are the carriers of Hemophilia (last I heard). I don't know enough to say it is possible, but why would it not be possible that the sin nature be transmitted only through the man?

Sin isn't a genetic condition that exists in our genetic code. It is a spiritual condition of rebellion against the law of God. The Bible never ever indicates that it is genetically coded. Through the transgression of Adam, humanity gained something it did not have before the transgression. The knowledge of evil as well as good. It is this knowledge that changed our nature. We became corrupted by it. Not just a little bit but completely.

Eve also, and first, ate that forbidden fruit so she too had that same knowledge of evil, but God did not charge the crime to her as a federal head or co-head, but to Adam.

 

[makesends]

It is something inferred from things that are known.

We know that imputation is covenantal, not biological, for the righteousness of Christ is imputed to people who have no biological connection to him. Someone could suggest that Christ’s righteousness is imputed covenantally while Adam’s guilt is imputed biologically, but that not only introduces an asymmetry that would have to be defended but it creates the monstrous headache of trying to square a forensic concept with reproductive biology. (Imputation is God reckoning, crediting, or legally assigning a status [sinner] or liability [guilt] to a person on the basis of representation under a covenantal head. How is that transmitted by the gametes?)

If imputation were biological, then we have a problem with Jesus being born to Mary. If our guilt and sinful condition is transmitted biologically, and Jesus received 23 chromosomes from Mary, then Jesus was born a guilty sinner. One can emphasize that it was only 23 chromosomes, but I don’t think that is a distinction that amounts to a difference. Alternatively, someone could (like you) suggest that our guilt and sinful condition is transmitted only in the patrilineal line, but they too quickly forget that half of Mary’s genome came from her father, so she passed along Adamic alleles. Finally, someone could argue that Christ’s genome was not received from either Joseph or Mary, that it was an altogether new genome created ex nihilo by the Holy Spirit, but that would mean Christ was something other than human.

The dilemma is unavoidable: Tying guilt and sin to biology yields either a guilty Christ or a non-human Christ, both of which are heresies.

The position I argue is more defensible: Christ can assume a true human nature from Mary and yet be sinless because guilt is not biologically intrinsic to human nature but contingent upon covenantal solidarity with Adam—and Christ was not in Adam. He did not have a federal head; he was himself a federal head, the last Adam.



Even if we suppose they are sufficiently different, half of a woman’s genome comes from her father. Mary is still passing along Adamic genes (so to speak).



If guilt is genetically encoded—whether autosomal, X-linked, dominant, or recessive—then Christ’s true consubstantial humanity is still fatal to your view. Mary is not exempt from Adamic descent. If guilt is biologically present in her nature in any form, and Christ inherits that nature from her, then …

Maybe we're talking past each other, or maybe I missed something. I'm not talking about guilt (imputed). I'm talking about the sin nature. (Not that the sin nature does not make us guilty also, but that's beside the point). Adam's sin imputed to us by God, is one thing. The sinful nature is not imputed, I don't think. But maybe I've moved outside the original OP, here.

 

[John Bauer]

God declared Adam the federal head of all those born of natural birth.

It sounds like your entire argument hinges on the claim that Adam is the federal head and covenant representative of “all people of natural birth.” But there is some ambiguity there, so I must seek clarification: When you say “all people of natural birth,” do you mean those only who descend from him genealogically?

If so, then I would need to see the scriptures that define his headship and representation in terms of genealogical descent. I know Scripture includes under his headship those who descend from him genealogically, but I’m not aware of any scriptures that constrain it thus. In my reading of Scripture, Adam’s headship is defined covenantally, not in terms of biology or genealogy; at best, it is simply coincident with genealogy. When Scripture speaks universally in saying “all sinned” and “death spread to all men,” that universality is neither tied to nor argued from genealogy, but rather covenant inclusion.

One certainly may insist that Adam’s headship requires a genealogical connection while Christ’s does not, but then one would owe a textual argument for the asymmetry—which is an uphill battle, for Scripture provides none.

I propose another option: "God said, and it was."

I would counter by pointing out that this actually isn’t another option, for both the covenantal and genealogical claims affirm that idea. “God said, and it was,” that is true—but usually through means. For example, God declares us justified and so we are—but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ which is ours by imputation through covenant union. So, covenant inclusion is one of those means. Another is genealogical inclusion. If there is a third option, what is it?

Adam represents old humanity condemned under the covenant of works (bringing death). Christ represents new humanity redeemed under the covenant of grace (bringing life). Union with either head is covenantal and forensic, not biological or genealogical.

God the Son simply came as one of us through Mary, and the Holy Spirit brought him into existence as his father.

I have no objection to this, as I affirm the same thing. But, admittedly, I don’t see how this relates to my argument, which already accounted for Mary being the only human contributor of genetic material (23 chromosomes).

Sin isn't a genetic condition that exists in our genetic code. It is a spiritual condition of rebellion against the law of God. The Bible never ever indicates that it is genetically coded.

Agreed—obviously.

 

[John Bauer]

Through the transgression of Adam, humanity gained something it did not have before the transgression: The knowledge of evil as well as good.

More than that, I believe, what humanity “gained” wasn’t moral knowledge Adam didn’t already have but rather a rebellious, God-defying posture of autonomous judgment, subjugating God’s word to the bar of human reason. Under the temptation of the serpent, both Adam and Eve had the gall of putting God in the dock, as it were—the primal inversion of Creator–creature distinction, a fundamental act of rebellion. The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” is covenantal–judicial, not merely cognitive, denoting the prerogative to define, authorize, and adjudicate moral reality—a prerogative that belongs only to God. The fall represents an ethical and epistemological revolt against God’s absolute authority, the original suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

In reality, then, there is nothing here that humanity “gained.” This was actually a profound, even cosmic loss. Adam and Eve did not advance in wisdom; they fell from it. What was forfeited was not mere innocence but the integrity of their relationship to God and the clarity of moral vision that comes from trusting his word. The tragic irony is that they didn’t become more like God but less human, exchanging the light of obedience for the darkness of human autonomy. What the serpent held out as gain was, in truth, the loss of righteousness, fellowship, and life itself.

It is this knowledge that changed our nature.

I believe what changed our nature is losing that communion with God. Our original communion with God was established in the context of a covenant relationship. When Adam broke that covenant, our communion with God was severed. Man was thus spiritually cut off from God and the power by which we were enabled to live righteous lives in the enjoyment of his blessings. We were regarded from that moment as covenant-breakers (i.e., sinners), the sinful condition which produces our actual sins, and in need of being reconciled to God (or saved). And that is where the last Adam comes in, of course, who represents all those in covenant union with him. Saints are henceforth regarded as covenant-keepers who are reconciled to God and once again enjoy communion with God—which likewise changes our nature.

Eve also (and first) ate that forbidden fruit so she too had that same knowledge of evil, but God did not charge the crime to her as a federal head or co-head, but to Adam.

Again, fully agreed.

 

[John Bauer]

The sinful nature is not imputed, I don't think. But maybe I've moved outside the original OP, here.

Agreed. The sinful nature itself is not imputed. What is reckoned to all those in Adam is status (sinner) and liability (guilt)

Corruption, although not imputed, follows from that covenant rupture and alienation, the loss of covenantal communion with God that resulted from Adam’s breach. Once humanity is cut off from God—the source of life and righteousness—moral corruption necessarily ensues. Both guilt and corruption are distinct but inseparable consequences of the same covenantal transgression.

 

[John Bauer]

NOTICE: I just want to thank you both for the theological pushback. I genuinely appreciate, enjoy, and benefit from it.

 

[makesends]

My speculations:

The covenantal aspect naturally enters into the equation as that is the manner Scripture shows us that God enters into personal relationships with people. Adam is a covenant head of all people of natural birth. Christ is the covenant head of those united to him through faith. In a right now, not yet, sense they are taken out of Adam and placed in Christ. For the elect, Christ undid what Adam did.

But are there more than two options---all covenant or biological? I don't think it is biological, but then, what I think, does not decide a thing. I propose another option. "God said, and it was." Having nothing to do with biology but also directly related to his covenant purposes.

After all, we have ample evidence in Scripture itself where the "natural order" of all creation, that is, those inner workers of biology and physics etc. God put in place, are utterly bypassed by him. Lazurus, wrapped in grave clothes and four days dead, walking out of the tomb perfectly whole--all biology restored at the command of Jesus, is a great example. The sun standing still and, on another occasion, moving backwards.

God declared Adam the federal head of all those born of natural birth, not Eve. He declared the seed of the woman would bring forth the God-man Redeemer. In God's economy biology needn't have a single thing to do with it. The only thing necessary and by God's decree, was that Jesus be human (therefore born) and at the same time not be born in Adam. Adam is the federal head of all mankind, but man (gender) is the means of being "in Adam." The Bibles shows that to be the case. It isn't genetic, it is spiritual and by order of the Creator.

I hope that makes sense.

I meant to add one more line to post #3 but for some reason it won't let me edit.

God the Son simply came as one of us through Mary, and the Holy Spirit brought him into existence as his father.

LOL, I love it when, what I do to people, happens to me! I'm reading, going, "—wait, huh?" over and over, and realizing my eyes are beginning to glaze over! I guess a nap would help.

 

[makesends]

If guilt is genetically encoded—whether autosomal, X-linked, dominant, or recessive—then Christ’s true consubstantial humanity is still fatal to your view. Mary is not exempt from Adamic descent. If guilt is biologically present in her nature in any form, and Christ inherits that nature from her, then …

This is a little like how I can't swallow Darwinian Evolution. I don't even know enough to take your word for it, here, nevermind to argue against it. I can't assess it.

Oh, btw, it is not my view. It is just one of very many things I carry with me to bring to bear on a subject. It is supposition, not presupposition.

 

[makesends]

This is a little like how I can't swallow Darwinian Evolution. I don't even know enough to take your word for it, here, nevermind to argue against it. I can't assess it.

Oh, btw, it is not my view. It is just one of very many things I carry with me to bring to bear on a subject. It is supposition, not presupposition.

Lol, I just realized, @John Bauer , this is saying, 'guilt'. I already answered this. Man, I'm getting old.

Ok, the supposition is that the sin nature, not the imputed guilt, is transferred. But, like I said, it's not a presupposition with me.

 

[Arial]

More than that, I believe, what humanity “gained” wasn’t moral knowledge Adam didn’t already have but rather a rebellious, God-defying posture of autonomous judgment, subjugating God’s word to the bar of human reason. Under the temptation of the serpent, both Adam and Eve had the gall of putting God in the dock, as it were—the primal inversion of Creator–creature distinction, a fundamental act of rebellion. The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” is covenantal–judicial, not merely cognitive, denoting the prerogative to define, authorize, and adjudicate moral reality—a prerogative that belongs only to God. The fall represents an ethical and epistemological revolt against God’s absolute authority, the original suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

In reality, then, there is nothing here that humanity “gained.” This was actually a profound, even cosmic loss. Adam and Eve did not advance in wisdom; they fell from it. What was forfeited was not mere innocence but the integrity of their relationship to God and the clarity of moral vision that comes from trusting his word. The tragic irony is that they didn’t become more like God but less human, exchanging the light of obedience for the darkness of human autonomy. What the serpent held out as gain was, in truth, the loss of righteousness, fellowship, and life itself.

Just to be clear, when I say they "gained" something I mean it in the sense that they had something they didn't have before, though it was not good to have it. I like the way you worded the above. As far as the recorded information goes. it does not say that Eve told Adam anything that the serpent had said to her. So, when he ate, it was like a rebellions child saying, "I know God told me not to but I am going to do it anyway!" Do you think he had any idea what exactly he was breaking? That he was breaking a covenant and a relationship, and what that would mean?

I believe what changed our nature is losing that communion with God. Our original communion with God was established in the context of a covenant relationship. When Adam broke that covenant, our communion with God was severed. Man was thus spiritually cut off from God and the power by which we were enabled to live righteous lives in the enjoyment of his blessings. We were regarded from that moment as covenant-breakers (i.e., sinners), the sinful condition which produces our actual sins, and in need of being reconciled to God (or saved). And that is where the last Adam comes in, of course, who represents all those in covenant union with him. Saints are henceforth regarded as covenant-keepers who are reconciled to God and once again enjoy communion with God—which likewise changes our nature.

Agree.

 

[Arial]

It sounds like your entire argument hinges on the claim that Adam is the federal head and covenant representative of “all people of natural birth.” But there is some ambiguity there, so I must seek clarification: When you say “all people of natural birth,” do you mean those only who descend from him genealogically?

Humanity as a whole. A person could say genealogically but that, in my opinion, sets a focus on genealogy, and I don't think that is the focus. By natural birth I mean come into being the natural way. A human mother and a human father and the God-designed means of procreation. It puts all humanity in exactly the same boat as Adam---estranged from God. In my argument, genealogy plays no pertinent role.

If so, then I would need to see the scriptures that define his headship and representation in terms of genealogical descent.

I don't believe the scriptures do so, and neither do I in my presentation. It is being read into what I am saying, and I will take full responsibility for that. It is somewhat of an elusive as to language, concept and one almost has to be inside my head to see it. So, I will try to unfold it better as I continue responding to your post.

Scripture includes under his headship those who descend from him genealogically, but I’m not aware of any scriptures that constrain it thus. In my reading of Scripture, Adam’s headship is defined covenantally, not in terms of biology or genealogy; at best, it is simply coincident with genealogy. When Scripture speaks universally in saying “all sinned” and “death spread to all men,” that universality is neither tied to nor argued from genealogy, but rather covenant inclusion.

In my thinking, I not only don't constrain it genealogically, genealogy, although it exists, does not enter into the picture at all as part of the equation of how sin is transmitted. It is transmitted by being human as Adam was human, and according to what he became as our representative. Sinners. God ordained it to pass through the first man. Adam. Not the first woman. That did not make Eve and all other women, not sinners. That does not mean that the transmission is biological. I agree, Adam is a covenant head. I agree that Adam became a covenant breaker and all his offspring then are also covenant breakers. But covenant isn't the means of transmission either. The means is God's ordaining it so.

That being the case, the fact that Mary herself was a sinner did not transmit to Jesus, only Joseph, the father, was the conduit. Not through geneaology but by fiat. God's ordaining that the male was "head of the woman". To me, that is the only thing that explains why Jesus could be fully human, borrn of a woman. but not be a sinner. He was not born in Adam.

To me, the expression "in Adam" is no more genealogically or biological than the expression "in Christ" is. It is a spiritual category.

One certainly may insist that Adam’s headship requires a genealogical connection while Christ’s does not, but then one would owe a textual argument for the asymmetry—which is an uphill battle, for Scripture provides none.

I refer you to my last statement above. I think that deals with what is being perceived as an asymmetry.

I have no objection to this, as I affirm the same thing. But, admittedly, I don’t see how this relates to my argument, which already accounted for Mary being the only human contributor of genetic material (23 chromosomes).

It pertains by what I meant by

God the Son simply came as one of us through Mary, and the Holy Spirit brought him into existence as his father.

The genetic material Mary contributed had nothing to do with it other than it was human and female as he promised. We might just as well wonder how Jesus could be male or even exist. if there was only female genetic material. One way I have seen and said it in conversations on the apostolic union, which may be right, or may be a wrong way of saying it, but at least it may convey a point. All species produce after their own kind---have the same natures. Jesus had the nature of his Father (divine) and the nature of his mother (human) and the two natures can't mix.

 

[makesends]

John Bauer said:
If guilt is genetically encoded—whether autosomal, X-linked, dominant, or recessive—then Christ’s true consubstantial humanity is still fatal to your view. Mary is not exempt from Adamic descent. If guilt is biologically present in her nature in any form, and Christ inherits that nature from her, then …

Lol, I just realized, @John Bauer , this is saying, 'guilt'. I already answered this. Man, I'm getting old.

Ok, the supposition is that the sin nature, not the imputed guilt, is transferred. But, like I said, it's not a presupposition with me.

So, does your same reason why guilt would not be transmitted by genetic defect (which thing I agree with, though I'm too ignorant to follow your explanation) still apply to why the sin nature would not be transmitted by genetic defect?

 

[John Bauer]

In my thinking, I not only don't constrain it genealogically, genealogy (although it exists) does not enter into the picture at all as part of the equation of how sin is transmitted. It is transmitted by being human, as Adam was human, and according to what he became as our representative. Sinners. God ordained it to pass through the first man, Adam. Not the first woman. That did not make Eve and all other women "not sinners." That does not mean that the transmission is biological. I agree, Adam is a covenant head. I agree that Adam became a covenant breaker and all his offspring then are also covenant breakers. But covenant isn't the means of transmission, either. The means is God's ordaining it so.

That being the case, the fact that Mary herself was a sinner did not transmit to Jesus; only Joseph, the father, [could be] the conduit—not through geneaology but by fiat, God's ordaining that the male was "head of the woman." To me, that is the only thing that explains why Jesus could be fully human, born of a woman, but not be a sinner. He was not born in Adam. To me, the expression "in Adam" is no more genealogically or biological than the expression "in Christ" is. It is a spiritual category.

I think we are actually closer than it might sound at first, and I want to be careful not to corner you into defending something you don’t really intend to say. I understand that you’re not grounding Adam’s headship in biology or genealogy and I appreciate that clarification. I also hear you insisting—rightly, I think—that Adam is a covenant head and that sin is not a material substance passed through the human genome. On all of that we are agreed. So far so good.

Where I am struggling is here: If sin isn’t transmitted biologically, genealogically, or covenantally, if sin is applied by divine decree alone, then I don’t see what explanatory work “being human” is doing—other than naming the scope of God’s decree. In other words, when you say that sin is “transmitted by being human”—that is, post-lapsarian humanity—exactly how is that a means of transmission? You said it’s not biology or genealogy, and “covenant isn't the means of transmission, either.” It seems, then, that being human is no longer explanatory but merely descriptive: humans are sinners because God decreed that humans would be sinners. At that point, Adam’s role starts to feel incidental rather than constitutive.

But that is not how Paul argues. He presents a mediated, representative act: through one man’s trespass, condemnation came to the many. Paul gives Adam’s federal headship not only explanatory but even constitutive weight (Rom 5:12-19). There is a means of transmission at work in Pauline theology.

Relatedly, then, I am trying to understand how Joseph or any male would function as a “conduit” in your view. A conduit implies some form of mediation. But if sin is not biological, genealogical, or covenantal in transmission, then I don’t know what males actually mediate. If sin is purely decretal, it would seem that God could have decreed Jesus to be sinless even with a human father. So I find myself wondering whether the appeal to male headship is quietly doing more work than you have explicitly named. I mean, it must be—but what?

I do appreciate your point about “in Adam” and “in Christ” being spiritual categories. While I agree that neither is biological or genealogical, I do believe they are covenantal categories, which is where we might differ. Being in Adam or in Christ are real covenantal unions established by God, even his decree, that explain why representation applies. They do not simply name outcomes of a decree. And that covenantal structure seems to preserve both God’s sovereignty and the intelligibility of Paul’s symmetrical Adam–Christ parallel.

I am not trying to force you into genealogical language, and I’m certainly not denying divine fiat. I am just trying to see whether we can articulate the means God uses in a way that preserves Adam’s role as genuinely representative, rather than collapsing everything into decree alone. If covenant is not that means, then I’m still trying to understand what is.

 

[John Bauer]

So, does your same reason why guilt would not be transmitted by genetic defect … still apply to why the sin nature would not be transmitted by genetic defect?

Neither “sin” nor “sin nature” are biological categories, so they are not transmitted genetically (which includes “genetic defect”).

Herein lies the contribution of my view, arguing that sin is not something transmitted genetically but is rather a forensic reality of those represented in Adam. In other words, sin is covenantal, not biological. According to Reformed theology, Christ stood apart from or outside that representation, not arbitrarily but by divine ordination through the eternal pactum salutis (covenant of redemption). From all eternity, the Father appointed the Son as Mediator, he willingly assumed that office, and the Spirit pledged to apply the salvific benefits of his obedience to the elect of God. Thus, when the Word became flesh, he entered human history not under the headship of Adam but already bound to that prior covenantal purpose and mission, namely, to establish a new and better headship and constitute a new humanity in himself. That is why Paul can write, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The incarnate Son is the unblemished Lamb precisely because sin is covenantal, not genetic (thus no concerns about Mary), and he was not in Adam (thus no concerns about fallen nature).

 

[makesends]

Neither “sin” nor “sin nature” are biological categories, so they are not transmitted genetically (which includes “genetic defect”).

Herein lies the contribution of my view, arguing that sin is not something transmitted genetically but is rather a forensic reality of those represented in Adam. In other words, sin is covenantal, not biological. According to Reformed theology, Christ stood apart from or outside that representation, not arbitrarily but by divine ordination through the eternal pactum salutis (covenant of redemption). From all eternity, the Father appointed the Son as Mediator, he willingly assumed that office, and the Spirit pledged to apply the salvific benefits of his obedience to the elect of God. Thus, when the Word became flesh, he entered human history not under the headship of Adam but already bound to that prior covenantal purpose and mission, namely, to establish a new and better headship and constitute a new humanity in himself. That is why Paul can write, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The incarnate Son is the unblemished Lamb precisely because sin is covenantal, not genetic (thus no concerns about Mary), and he was not in Adam (thus no concerns about fallen nature).

I remain unconvinced either way. That God sees our 'defect' forensically does not preclude that God —(here I'm thinking in terms of the Romans 9 "vessel marred in his hands")— can take righteous offense, (which we might consider a clinical judgement), at the defect. The thought here is something along the lines of the command not implying the ability to obey.

Also, I consider the notion of it not being merely genetic, but a genome(?) inhabited or controlled by or otherwise describable by "You are of your father the devil." (Not that I know what I'm talking about there, either, lol.) I will admit that this would be a 'stretch', as an argument. But there is an awful lot that I don't know about the source, nature and power of sin. Even the things I do know are not well logically arranged, for lack of a holistic understanding.

I still see no concerns about Mary, but, again, I do admit to ignorance concerning genetics and genetic defect, and passing on a genetic defect.

Sin is an infinite defect (only in that it is against infinite God).

 

[Arial]

Where I am struggling is here: If sin isn’t transmitted biologically, genealogically, or covenantally, if sin is applied by divine decree alone, then I don’t see what explanatory work “being human” is doing—other than naming the scope of God’s decree.

I agree that we are closer than it might sound. When I read your first post, I wondered if we might actually be saying basically the same thing from different angles. And those angles I believe are likely a matter of the difference between male and female concept processing. Or maybe just different personality types. But I wanted to explore to find out.

The divine decree is always linked with covenant. It is a part of it. And maybe that is the position you are coming from when you say Adam's sin and guilt are transmitted by our Covenantal solidarity with him. If so, then I agree. I simply say the same thing with because God said so. To me, then, covenant is the reason, but not the conduit.

It seems, then, that being human is no longer explanatory but merely descriptive: humans are sinners because God decreed that humans would be sinners. At that point, Adam’s role starts to feel incidental rather than constitutive

How so? What God decreed was that Adam would be the federal head of all mankind, and that Adam would sin. As Adam goes, so go all his progeny (and not in a biological sense but as being humans like Adam and, yes, because his covenant headship.)

But that is not how Paul argues. He presents a mediated, representative act: through one man’s trespass, condemnation came to the many. Paul gives Adam’s federal headship not only explanatory but even constitutive weight (Rom 5:12-19). There is a means of transmission at work in Pauline theology.

Yes, I agree. And if I were debating original sin I would use that scripture, because when I say we are born in Adam (but Jesus was not) I mean the same thing that Paul is saying. I just never used the "covenant transmission" argument or thought of it in exactly that way. It is the same thing I mean when I say it is transmitted by being human, but without the details.

Relatedly, then, I am trying to understand how Joseph or any male would function as a “conduit” in your view.

OK. I think this may be where we differ a bit. Joseph or any other male is not a conduit, but God did not only confer head ship to Adam. He conferred federal covenant headship on Adam, but he also appointed males head of a family. So, Joseph was a type of headship. Males are a type of headship. I don't entirely disagree with your statement in another thread that the reason Joseph was not his actual father was because of the curse on that line. But I don't think that is the whole story and to go into it would change the subject. Jesus didn't have a different human father, he had no human father, and I think that was to avoid being born human with a sin nature.

I do appreciate your point about “in Adam” and “in Christ” being spiritual categories. While I agree that neither is biological or genealogical, I do believe they are covenantal categories, which is where we might differ.

I absolutely believe they are covenantal categories.

They do not simply name outcomes of a decree.

I did not mean to imply that they were "simply" outcomes of a decree, but they are outcomes of a decree.

I am just trying to see whether we can articulate the means God uses in a way that preserves Adam’s role as genuinely representative, rather than collapsing everything into decree alone. If covenant is not that means, then I’m still trying to understand what is.

I think I covered it in the above responses. Let me know if I didn't.