the only grammatically defensible sense. In <450323>Romans 3:23, h{marton certainly does not denote such a definite past act filling only one point of time.? But we reply that the context determines that in <450512>Romans 5:12, h[marton does denote such a definite past act: see our interpretation of the whole passage, under the Augustinian Theory, pages 625-627.

C. It impugns the justice of God:

(a) By regarding him as the direct creator of a vicious nature which infallibly leads every human being into actual transgression. To maintain that, in consequence of Adam?s act, God brings it about that all men become sinners and this, not by virtue of inherent laws of propagation but by the direct creation in each case of a vicious nature, is to make God indirectly the author of sin.

(b) By representing him as the inflicter of suffering and death upon millions of human beings who in the present life do not come to moral consciousness and who are therefore, according to the theory, perfectly innocent. This is to make him visit Adam?s sin on his posterity, while at the same time it denies that moral connection between Adam and his posterity, which alone could make such visitation just.

(c) By holding that the probation which God appoints to men is a separate probation of each soul, when it first comes to moral consciousness and is least qualified to decide aright. It is much more consonant with our ideas of the divine justice that the decision should have been made by the whole race, in one whose nature was pure and who perfectly understood God?s law than that heaven and hell should have been determined for each of us by a decision made in our own inexperienced childhood, under the influence of a vitiated nature.

On this theory, God determines, in his mere sovereignty, that because one man sinned, all men should be called into existence depraved, under a constitution, which secures the certainty of their sinning. But we claim that it is unjust that any should suffer without race-desert. To say that God thus marks his sense of the guilt of Adam?s sin is to contradict the main principle of the theory, namely, that men are held responsible only for their own sins. We prefer to justify God by holding that there is a reason for this infliction, and that this reason is the connection of the infant with Adam. If mere tendency to sin is innocent, then Christ might have taken it, when he took our nature. But it he had taken it, it would not explain the fact of the atonement, for upon this theory it would not need to

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment