Back in 2020, I had a major turning point in my theology when I began to study the imputation of Christ's righteousness after realizing that I was unable to defend it from Scripture at the time. I learned much about the controversy that had recently occurred during the early 2000's regarding the same doctrine and its detractors like N. T. Wright and Robert Gundry. I knew there was no way I could be justified apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ, yet I could not prove the doctrine myself. After much study and reading much from men like D. A. Carson, Thomas Schreiner, G. K. Beale and Murray J. Harris, I grew confident in my ability to prove Christ's imputed righteousness from Scripture. Along with this, came the need that I felt to defend the imputation of Adam's sin from Romans 5 and became a 1689 Federalist. However, I would later come to the conclusion that Romans 5:12 simply cannot mean that "all sinned [in Adam]". I believe modern scholars like Schreiner and Longnecker are right in saying that this is an addition to the text. Nevertheless, I held to Schreiner's exegesis of Romans 5:16, 18-19 which still holds to imputed guilt.
Romans 5:12-19 has been the passage I have studied the most in my life. I read it multiple times a day, every day. Recent study has caused me to doubt whether Romans 5 actually teaches the imputation of Adam's sin. This is not to say that I have abandoned the doctrine, I think Schreiner's exegesis might be correct, but this is just to say that I have doubts. For that reason, I figured the best thing I can do is write out the alternate interpretation that has been gnawing at me in the back of my mind. If I can write this position out, then I have a position that can be publically argued with and hopefully debunked. I want to believe in the imputation of Adam's guilt. I want to agree with the later Reformers (it should be noted that the doctrine was not held, at least not widely, until the Post-Reformation era and this is part of my doubt. It is obviously true that the western tradition speaks of sinning "in Adam" but this almost never means imputation; see for example, Cyril of Alexandria's comments on Romans 5 where he explicitly considers the concept of adamic imputation only to reject it and instead posit that we "sinned in Adam" in a causal sense in a manner of speaking. Virtually all eastern fathers hold the view presented here that Adam's sin is not imputed and that we did not sin in him but nevertheless receive a sinful nature from him). I believe that the imputation of Adam's guilt is a completely theologically coherent position. The theological arguments against is have been answered successfully by the Reformed. God can, and indeed does impute sin from one man to another in some situations (Christ and Achan's family being the clearest examples). I just don't know whether it is actually taught in Romans 5. All this said, I will now provide the alternate reading that has been causing me to doubt the doctrine and draw some necessary systematic implications from it:
ҦBut the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died,
The many died due to Adam's transgression because all sin due to him (verse 12). My interpretation of v. 12 is what drives my proposal here. If in verse 12 we already have the connection between Adam's sin and our own sin being made in that his sin causes us to sin, then when it is said that Adam's sin "led to condemnation" it would seem most natural to assume that Paul is saying that it "led to condemnation" because it causes us to sin and therefore die, as verse 12 says.
much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Christ's work is given to the many. The gift is Christ's obedience. This gift (Christ's righteousness) is later said to be given to Christians (v. 17). Adam's transgression is not said to be received. It seems then that Christ's work is given (imputed) to men, but Adam's transgression is not explicitly said to be given or imputed to men.
And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation,
All people are condemned because Adam's sin inevitably makes them sinners. The judgment on Adam was that his descendants would be born sinners and condemned because of that. Notice this verse says that Adam's transgression resulted in condemnation, not that it actually condemned.
but on the other hand the gracious gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one,
Adam's sin resulted in death for everyone because all sin (v 12).
much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
The gift is Christ's righteousness which is received by faith. Again, there is an immediate connection explicitly mentioned here between Christ's righteousness and us in that we receive the gift of his righteousness. Such an immediate connection is not, however, brought out in regard to Adam's sin.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men,
Adam's sin resulted in condemnation to all men because as verse 12 says all sin because of him
even so through one man's righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Christ's righteousness imputed to us results in our justification.
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were appointed sinners,
Adam's sin causes us to inevitably sin and therefore concur the status of sinner
even so through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous.”
Christ's obedience imputed to us causes us to concur the status of righteous
On this reading, though both groups of people are appointed to a forensic status, that status is not received in the same way. Adam's sin caused the many to become forensically sinful through them actually sinning, but Christ's obedience caused the many to become forensically righteous by the gift of his righteousness. Nor should this reading of v. 19 seem absurd, as Turretin himself, a strong defender of Adamic imputation remarks, "If Adam constituted us unrighteous effectively by a propagation of inherent depravity (on account of which we are also exposed to death in the sight of God), it does not follow equally that Christ constitutes us righteous by a forensic justification at the bar of God by inherent righteousness given to us by him. The design of the apostle (which alone is to be regarded) does not have this direction. He only wishes to disclose the foundation of the connection between being exposed to death and the right to life, from our union with the first and second Adam, as to the thing (although the mode is different on account of the difference in the subject)". This is exactly correct. Thus the two do not have to be equal.
Systematic Implications:
- It must be denied that the creation of a soul destitute of original righteousness is a punishment for us (it is certainly the result of the punishment of Adam, but it is not itself punishment in relation to his posterity). The propagation of sin nature cannot be called a punishment for us. The loss of original righteousness must be called a punishment only for Adam. After that, the propagation is only natural, God being bound to create a soul in the same state as its first parents by the law of nature. Turretin's argument at 1:622 necessarily follows if it is agreed that the propagation of sin is a punishment for us. Therefore, it must be denied that the propagation of sin is a punishment for us in order to avoid Turretin's conclusion which would in fact entail Adamic imputation. In denying this, my position is distinguished from the Arminian view and Peter Martyr's view, both of which deny imputed guilt yet affirm (somehow) that original sin is a penalty for us. In this way, I have made their position coherent, for bearing the penalty for a sin necessary implies bearing the guilt of it (rightly, Turretin and virtually all of the Post-Reformation Reformed Orthodox).
- Adam's hypothetical righteousness can still be imputed to his descendants (if one wishes to hold that it would be). A covenant does whatever God says it does. Noah and Abraham did not have the stipulation that their disobedience would be imputed to their descendants, but their obedience typologically would be. Thus asymmetry can be allowed. It is not contradictory to say that Adam's righteousness would be imputed to his offspring yet his sin would not be.
- Thus, the legal right of condemnation is in sinners themselves (a received sinful nature), but the legal right of justification is in another (Christ). In other words, Adam caused our condemnation to be in ourselves, but Christ caused our justification to be in Him.
If this is the case, then the imputation of Adam's sin would be superfluous and unnecessary because nature itself decreed that as soon as Adam lost original righteousness and thus was condemned, this loss would be passed on to his descendants and thus they would be condemned.
- There being no imputation of Adam's sin posited, there is no meritorious cause necessitating the transmission of sin nature. Therefore Christ's human nature was created with original righteousness not because he was not under the Adamic Covenant in being not subject to Adam's demerit (though it is true that it was because he was not subject to the Adamic covenant simpliciter since we should also hold that God bound Himself to create souls in accordance with their first parents' state under the Adamic Covenant ever since He gave the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and thus all human souls are created in Adam and under his covenant) but because God can choose to create souls with original righteousness should He so desire, making an exception to the normal order of things.
- This leaves only Eve to be accounted for. We must say that Eve was also judged for her sin and lost original righteousness due to her sin, not due to Adam's, in order for this position to work. This is indeed really what happened, for she died spiritually as soon as she ate of the fruit (indeed, as soon as she believed Satan's lie) before Adam ate it.
Another possibility would be to accept the proposition that the propagation of sin is a punishment on our part and thus accept the conclusion of Turretin's argument. Thus even though Romans 5 doesn't teach the imputation of Adam's sin, it is still true. This is a tough possibility for me to take because an entire doctrine is established solely by a possible implication rather than a necessary implication from Scripture's explicit statements. Nevertheless, if such a philosophical argument could be made, I am definitely open to it.
The position set forth here is somewhat comparable to Peter Martyr Vermigli's, who affirmed the imputation of Christ's righteousness explicitly in his comments on Romans 5 and, while also affirming that we "sinned in Adam" and that the inheritance of a sin nature is a punishment on our part, elsewhere explicitly denied the imputation of Adam's sin. I have simply made his position consistent and able to withstand Turretin's critique. This position is also likely the position of Calvin.
Again, I am open to the possibility of Adamic imputation, but I don't think Romans 5 teaches it. For now I want only to affirm what has been affirmed by men like Calvin and Vermigli and what Romans 5 states, namely, that it was through Adam's sin that all humanity has been condemned, and leave it at that. I am content with the 39 Articles here and I don't think anything else needs to be added beyond this:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
So there it is. That is the possible position that has been causing my doubts.
