John Calvin on Original Sin (Part 1)

In my revised course of study on the doctrine of Original Sin, I did not include any reading from John Calvin because I believed the key features of his thought would be represented by later Reformed theologians. While this may be the case, I have realized that in studying Original Sin I would be doing myself a disservice if I entirely neglected the writings of the preeminent Systematic Theologian of the Reformation era. Over the next two days I plan to study Calvin's writings on Original Sin found in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Sections 4-11.

Institutes 2.1.4-7 are summarized [in the Beveridge translation] as follows:

4. In considering this latter part, two points to be considered; a. How it happened that Adam involved himself and the whole human race in this dreadful calamity. This the result not of sensual intemperance, but of infidelity (the source of other heinous sins), which led to revolt from God, from whom all true happiness must be derived. An enumeration of the other sins produced by the infidelity of the first man.

5. The second point to be considered is, b. the extent to which the contagious influence of the fall extends. It extends, i. To all the creatures, though unoffending; and, ii. To the whole posterity of Adam. Hence hereditary corruption, or original sin, and the depravation of a nature which was previously pure and good. This depravation communicated to the whole posterity of Adam, but not in the way supposed by the Pelagians and Celestians.

6. Depravation communicated not merely by imitation, but by propagation. This proved, a. From the contrast drawn between Adam and Christ [confirmation from passages of Scripture]; b. From the general declaration that we are the children of wrath.

7. Objection, that if Adam’s sin is propagated to his posterity, the soul must be derived by transmission. Answer. Another objection—viz. that children cannot derive corruption from pious parents. Answer.

NOTES [from the sections outlined above]:
4. The first sin must have been heinous indeed. The first sin can not be identified with sensuality. Augustine spoke of the first sin as originating in pride. Calvin quotes Paul in concluding that the first sin is disobedience, and considers this disobedience rooted in a disregard for the Word of God. The first sin sought to annihilate the glory of God, not trusting Him and following His commands.

5. "Original Sin" is defined as "hereditary corruption." Original Sin is "innate from the very womb," and not due to mere imitation (Calvin quotes from Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4).

6. Calvin examines the parallel between Adam and Christ found in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Scripture does not teach that we are saved by an imitation of Christ, but by a renewed nature brought about by the Holy Spirit. Calvin also quotes Ephesians 2:3 to demonstrate the doctrine of hereditary, natural corruption.

7. From a corrupt root, corrupt branches proceed. "Children come not by spiritual regeneration, but by carnal descent." There is a "primary and universal curse" over the whole human race. "Guilt is from nature, whereas sanctification is from supernatural grace."

"Grumpy"

When I'm tired or feeling stressed out, every once in a while [Abby will laugh at that last phrase], I can be a little grumpy. Sadly, I tend to express my grumpy attitude by speaking in a harsh tone to Abby or the children.

Within the last few months, Abby and I have started helping Christian work on improving his attitude through focusing on the characteristics of love found in 1 Corinthians 13 (this was Abby's idea). So, for example, when Christian demands things be done his own way, Abby or I say to him, "Love does not insist on its own way; you are not being loving; you need to have a better, more loving attitude," etc.

In thinking about 1 Corinthians 13:5, I've recently realized that what I've been excusing in myself as "grumpiness" is biblically defined as "irritability," which is contrary to love and is, therefore, a sin. By God's grace, I am seeking to put off this irritable attitude and to replace it with godly love toward others.

I encourage anyone who may be reading this post to take a moment to look at 1 Corinthians 13 and to consider ways in which you too may need God's forgiveness and help in reflecting His love.

Witnessing: An Application of Exegetical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology

Yesterday I drove for about seven hours to get from the Atlanta area to Louisville in order to work my shift at UPS. I arrived at work early and sat in the break room, rather selfishly planning to 'chill out' after the drive and not talk to anyone. Graciously, however, God gave me an opportunity to bear witness concerning the good news of my Lord Jesus Christ as a non-Christian friend began talking to me and he raised the subject of different religions.

In speaking to my friend, I realized that I was applying what I learned in Seminary concerning exegetical, biblical and systematic theology. Exegetically, I discussed the meaning of particular verses in the Gospel of John with my friend; biblically, I helped him to see what John was trying to show about Jesus throughout his Gospel account in relation to the other Scriptures; systematically, we discussed questions that he had about how the Cross relates to God's forgiveness and what happens to people who do not believe in Jesus.

Certainly Christians do not need a degree in theology in order to witness about Jesus, but I was glad to see that my education seemed to be helping me in a conversation with a non-seminary-graduate. Also, I think that with or without a degree, every Christian needs to pursue some form of education in exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology in order to understand the Bible and to accurately declare the good news from the Bible to others.

Christmas Celebration

Recently I read a comment by a Christian arguing against celebrating Christmas, in which he wrote, "what about even the 'most conservative' celebration is not an adaption of unbiblical practices?"

In responding, I noted the following activities normally associated with Christmas celebration that have direct biblical support:

Hymn singing (Col 3:16), gift-giving (Matt 2:11), reading the Christmas story from Matthew and Luke, giving thanks to God for Christ's birth (1 Thess 5:18).

To the above list, I should add, "Giving to the needy and to missions" (1 Cor 8).

Certainly, none of the activities mentioned above should be limited to Christmas, but due to limited resources of both time and money, people cannot necessarily give the same amount every day of the year and we cannot proclaim and explain the story of Christ's birth in equal detail every week. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that Christians should use the Christmas season as a reminder to serve Christ in these specific ways.

"How Many Kings" by Downhere

Mine and Abby's favorite Christmas song:

The Twelve Doctrines of Christmas

A few of my friends have posted the following video, and I finally got around to watching it; (it's pretty good):



I confess that I had to look up "dichotomy" because, without context, I could not think of what that term might mean; (it refers to the biblical-anthropological idea of Man being composed of two parts-- body and soul, with "spirit" being an aspect of "soul"-- rather than three parts).

Also, "salvific monergism" is an awkward phrase at best; ("monergistic regeneration" is preferable because some other aspects of salvation may be, in a sense, synergistic).

Thomas Aquinas On Original Sin: Compilation.

Notes I took while reading sections of Summa Theologica:

Part 1: Whether the first sin of our first parent is contracted by his descendants, by way of origin?

Part 2: Whether also other sins of the first parent or of nearer ancestors are transmitted to their descendants?

Part 3: Whether the sin of the first parent is transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men?

Part 4: Whether original sin would be contracted by a person formed miraculously from human flesh?

Part 5: Whether original sin is a habit?

Part 6: Whether there are several original sins one man?

Part 7: Whether original sin is concupiscence?

What does it mean that God is "sovereign"? (Part 3)

God's Sovereignty and Man's Rebellion

In Part 2 I contrasted God's sovereignty and Man's sovereignty; Man has "sovereignty" in the sense that he is established by God as the sovereign over all lower orders of creation.

In relation to God, however, Man cannot exercise sovereignty, but he is to act in submission to the divine will. Sadly, we fail to recognize our proper limits and we seek to place our desires over God's commands. Apart from God's grace, we all act as if we are owners rather than stewards, ultimate rather than subordinate authorities, and masters of our fates. This has been the natural situation of mankind from the first sin recorded in Genesis 3 until today.

Christmas

As noted in the statement of 'worship philosophy' from Grace Heritage Church, where Abby and I were members when we lived in Auburn:

Because the distance between God and His creatures is so great, the only acceptable way of approaching God in worship must be revealed to us by God Himself.

Acceptable worship for the Church is prescribed through commands and examples found in Scripture.

The teaching mentioned above is called the "Regulative Principle of Worship."

I've had two friends-- one Reformed Baptist, and one Presbyterian-- who have tried to apply the Regulative Principle in such a way as to argue that Christians should not celebrate Christmas. At first I thought that they might be making a valid point in their arguments, but upon further examination I find their arguments to be almost entirely without merit.

Christmas is a national holiday. Christians are not forbidden to celebrate national holidays. Moreover, Christians-- following the example of Jesus-- are permitted to celebrate holidays instituted by people.

Jesus celebrated Purim (the feast mentioned in John 5, when one examines the chronology of John) and Hanukkah (John 10:22-24; "The Feast of the Dedication" is another name for Hanukkah), which were Jewish national holidays with religious significance that were instituted by the people after the giving of the Law was already completed. Purim is given by the Westminster Confession of Faith (a document written by theologians who were committed to the Regulative Principle) as one example of proper "thanksgivings upon special occasions."

Above, I wrote that the arguments against Christians celebrating Christmas are almost entirely without merit. The reason that I wrote "almost" is because Christians can certainly take Christmas celebrations to ungodly excess; also, churches can introduce pageantry or ceremonies in worship around Christmastime that clearly violate the Regulative Principle and distract from the gospel.

But if Christmas is truly used as a time of thanksgiving for the Incarnation, then it is an entirely appropriate holiday for Christians, who should use our society's rather superficial mentions of Christ's birth to introduce people to Jesus Himself through the proclamation of the gospel.

Did Jesus Ever Get a Stomach Virus? (My Response.)

Dr. Russell Moore responds, "Yes," based upon Jesus' full humanity.

I say, "No," for reasons mentioned by some in the "comments" section of Moore's post:

1. Sickness is not a necessary element of humanity; Adam, before the Fall, would not have gotten sick.

2. Human weaknesses of Jesus are specifically mentioned in the Gospel accounts; He hungered after fasting, He was sleepy, etc. But the Gospels never mention Jesus being sick, which, if He had gotten sick, would have been similarly notable.

3. Sin, sickness, and death appear to be related in the Bible (for example: Isaiah 53:4; Matthew 8:17); just as Jesus, being sinless, would not have "naturally" died as we "naturally" die-- rather, He laid down His life on His own accord (John 10:18)-- Jesus wouldn't have "naturally" fallen ill.

4. In so emphasizing the Incarnation, I fear we run the risk of under-estimating the uniqueness of the Cross. We may miss the idea that Jesus, at a specific point in His ministry, began to bear the sins of His people upon His own body and endure divine wrath on our behalf. Jesus did not experience the wrath of God against sin throughout His entire life; He would not have cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" at His baptism.

What does it mean that God is "sovereign"? (Part 2)

God's Sovereignty and Man's Sovereignty in Contrast

In Part 1 I quoted from Dr. Zaka, who wrote, "'Sovereignty' indicates ownership, authority, and control."

When seeking to understand God's sovereignty, it is helpful to contrast the sovereignty of God and the sovereignty of Man. Because, like God, Man exercises sovereignty, though in a limited sphere. And so we can speak of a king being the sovereign over a nation. Or we have the old saying that each man's home is his castle (the idea being that a man is sovereign over his own household). But God is sovereign over the whole creation.

We can see God's sovereignty contrasted with Man's sovereignty in terms of the defining elements of God's sovereignty.

In terms of ownership, people may own many things (I am typing this on my computer), but according to numerous Bible passages, God is the owner of all. (To give one example: "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it: the world, and all who live in it." [Psa 24:1]) Therefore we are really only stewards, taking care of things that God has alloted to us, for His glory.

In terms of authority, people in general have been created to rule over the lower orders of creation (Gen 1:26-29), and God has established rulers among people (Rom 13:1). But ultimate authority belongs to God, with all human authority being derivative (Rom 13:1-7).

In terms of control, people make all manner of decisions, exercising control over various aspects of our lives (I chose to write this blogpost tonight), but God is ultimately in control of everything and can over-rule our will at any time. (In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. [Prov 16:9])

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 3)

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 1.1.2.

• Edwards asserts that proof of universal sinfulness and universal guilt provide evidence for a universal natural tendency to sin.
• Several arguments by analogy are given; for example, if a person were to cast dice repeatedly and always get the same number, then it would be reasonable to assume that there was something in the nature of the dice that caused them to tend toward that number.
• Those who seek to argue against the idea of a universal natural tendency to sin end up using language that assumes such a tendency anyway.
• It is not sufficient to argue that people sin due to external circumstances rather than a natural tendency; the circumstances of this world may be so corrupt that people everywhere, who would otherwise be naturally good if they were not in this corrupt world, fall into sin. But sinfulness is characterized by a wrong relationship of people to the world in which God placed them, and if they consistently fall into sin, then they must be thought of as having a naturally tendency to sin.

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 2)

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 1.1.1b.

• Having demonstrated the universal sinfulness of humankind from Scripture, Edwards next shows that “all sin deserves and justly exposes [sinners] to everlasting destruction, under the wrath and curse of God.”
• To prove universal guilt from Scripture, Edwards quotes Gal 3:10, 22, Rom 4:14, and 2 Cor 3:6, 7, 9. The clearest text from this list [in my opinion] is Gal 3:10b, 22, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them… the Scripture hath concluded, or shut up, all under sin.” From these passages Edwards irrefutably concludes: “So that here we are plainly taught, both that everyone of mankind is a sinner, and that every sinner is under the curse of God.”
• Universal guilt must be affirmed by anyone who confesses the immutable character of the moral law and God’s requirement of perfect obedience.
• Edwards concludes this section: “That mankind are all naturally in such a state… that they universally are the subjects of that guilt and sinfulness, which is, in effect, their utter and eternal ruin, being cast wholly out of the favor of God, and subjected to his everlasting wrath and curse.

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 1)

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 1.1.1a.

• Edwards defines "original sin" as "the innate depravity of the heart;"Edwards notes that "original sin" is commonly understood as the imputation of Adam's sin. [Edwards apparently intends to argue in favor of both definitions.]
• Edwards sketches some objections to the doctrine of original sin.
• Edwards's first method of argument is to demonstrate by example that all mankind is under the effects of sin (arguing from the effects of sin to the cause of those effects: i.e., original sin).
• Edwards writes, "That everyone of mankind, at least such as are capable of acting as moral agents, are guilty of sin (not now taking it for granted that they come guilty into the world), is most clearly and abundantly evident from the Holy Scriptures:" Edwards refers to many passages; some of the most obviously relevant are: 1Kin 8:46b, "there is no man that sinneth not;" Ecc 7:20, “There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not;” 1 John 1:8, 10, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us... If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us;" Jas 3:2a, "For in many things we offend all." [These passages and others prove universal sinfulness.]