Info

person, and was propagated to all. It is truly sin, and it is imputed to all, since it makes all condemnable. Placeus believes in the imputation of this corrupted disposition, but not in the imputation of the first act of Adam, except mediately, through the imputation of the inherited depravity.? Fisher, Discussions, 389 ? ?Mere native corruption is the whole of original sin. Placeus justifies his use of the term ?imputation? by

<450226> Romans 2:26 ? ?If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he reckoned [imputed] for circumcision?? Our own depravity is the necessary condition of the imputation of Adam?s sin, just as our own faith is the necessary condition of the imputation of Christ?s righteousness.?

Advocates of Mediate Imputation are, in Great Britain, G. Payne, in his book entitled: Original Sin; John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity, 1:196-232; and James S. Candlish, Biblical Doctrine of Sin, 111-122; in America, H. B. Smith, in his System of Christian Doctrine, 169, 284, 285, 314-323; and E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology. The editor of Dr. Smith?s work says: ?On the whole, he favored the theory of Mediate Imputation. There is a note, which reads thus: ?Neither Mediate nor Immediate Imputation is wholly satisfactory.? Understand by ?Mediate Imputation? a full statement of the facts in the case, and the author accepted it; understand by it a theory professing to give the final explanation of the facts, and it was ?not wholly satisfactory.?? Dr. Smith himself says, 316 ? ?Original sin is a doctrine respecting the moral conditions of human nature as from Adam--generic and it is not a doctrine respecting personal liabilities and desert. For the latter, we need more and other circumstances. Strictly speaking, it is not sin which is undeserving, but only the sinner. The ultimate distinction is here. There is a well grounded difference to be made between personal desert, strictly personal character and liabilities (of each individual under the divine law, as applied specifically, e. g., in the last adjudication), and a generic moral condition ? the antecedent ground of such personal character.

?The distinction, however, is not between what has moral quality and what has not, but between the moral state of each as a member of the race, and his personal liabilities and desert as an individual. This original sin would wear to us only the character of evil, and not of sinfulness, were it not for the fact that we feel guilty in view of our corruption when it becomes known to us in our own acts. Then there is involved in it not merely a sense of evil and misery, but also a sense of guilt; moreover, redemption is also necessary to remove it, which shows that it is a moral state. Here is the point ofjunction between the two extreme positions, that we sinned in Adam, and that all sin consists in sinning?. The guilt of

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment