According to Romans 5:12-18, all humanity inherits Adam's guilt through federal headship, meaning we are legally counted as sinners in Adam because he represented all humanity as our federal head; this is evidenced by the past tense 'in Adam all sinned' and the parallel between Adam's one transgression resulting in condemnation for all, and Christ's one act of righteousness resulting in justification for all.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Do We Inherit the Guilt of Adam? (Guests Peter Sammons & Jacob Trotter from Founders Seminary)Añadido:
anyone who's had children can tell you you don't have to teach them to disobey you.
>> Yeah.
>> It's one of the uh unfortunate byproducts that you have to witness is with a newborn very quickly. They are insistent on their own way. They're disobedient. They're rebellious. They say no. It's one of the first words they learn. Um and you don't have to teach them that. You're trying to teach them the opposite. And yet always they respond that way.
Sometimes I feel the weight of the world fall down on me so he need a friendly voice with some good speaking. So I mix a manly drinks and shoe page and I hit the YouTube. Don't say hit that sounds violent and I feel my troubles all melt away. Oh, it's your podcast with Keith B.
Beers and f laugh till sunrise.
It's your podcast with Keith.
He's not like most cattleist. He's nice.
and welcome back to your Calvinist podcast. My name is Keith Fosski and I am your Calvinist. And today I am welcoming two of the professors from Founder Seminary. We have Peter Sammons and Jacob Troder. And we're going to be talking about the doctrine of imputation. Specifically, we're going to be addressing the issue of the imputation of Adam's guilt to all of his posterity. Peter, thank you for coming in today. And Jacob as well, thank you guys for coming and being a part of the show.
>> Yeah. Thanks for having us. It's good to be with someone who's proudly a Calvinist. I'll tell you.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. A lot of guys hide it. A lot of guys >> Yeah. Just lead with lean into it. Why not?
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Uh but real quick before we begin, can you guys talk a little bit about who you are? I I've already mentioned that you're both seminary professors, but I want to talk a little bit about where you come from, sort of your background and uh you know, why why this particular subject might be of interest to you.
>> Yeah, it's a great question. Um I'm always asked to talk about the most downer issues. So the doctrine of repbribation, the doctrine of Adams and guilt. Um I'm a real lively person to invite to bring on about that. But um so I grew up in Missouri um and was you know saved at a when I was a teenager and just you know felt the call into ministry went out to seminary. I went to the master seminary and uh graduated from there and started teaching and um so this doctrine along with you know all the doctrines of imputation um the three-fold doctrines are near and dear to my heart um because it really is one of those defining issues with regard to I think all of Protestant theology. Um, you know, we could talk about what makes someone authentically, you know, Christian with regard to their doctrine of the Trinity, their doctrine of Christologology. Um, but really the doctrine of imputation is what I think makes Protestants um, you know, faithful to scripture in a way that many other traditions aren't. And so the doctrine of imputed guilt is just one of those topics that are vital to understand the world we live in and the connection of doctrine really throughout the whole of scripture. So >> great. And you wrote a book on this particular subject, which is another reason why we're talking about it.
What's the title of your book?
>> Yeah. So, it's called What's Missing from the Evangelical Gospel?
>> And when I was coming up with the title and and working through the work, the literature on it is one of those things I started to look at, okay, what makes an evangelical an evangelical. And, you know, that's a whole another bag of worms on its own. But really, I think one of the things is the doctrine of of justification, how we're saved. Um, and what you'll find, interestingly enough, is in modern Protestant circles, we're so eager to be just friendly to everybody and and inviting everybody with the big conference movement and just uh and again, not that we should be mean or unkind or uncharitable to people, but we've let a lot of people in under the banner of evangelicalism that according to really the traditional definitions of it coming from Luther and the Protestant Reformation would not fit within the Protestant world. Um, and so those three doctrines would be the imputation of Adam's sin to us or his imputed guilt. Um, the imputation of our sin to Christ with penal substitution, which we've seen that attacked many, many times and just came back up again recently to deny imputed uh, sin to Christ. And then finally, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, which really is one of the focal points of the of the book. And that's one of the things that you'll find though among evangelicals, there are many well-known, respected scholars who have denied one if not all of those doctrines of imputation. And it's shocking when you start to realize the schools that we've entrusted to train our pastors, the books that are being published by large evangelical publishers are willing to redefine or deny one of the three imputations. Um, and I think when you think about like what's missing from the evangelical gospel, it's often one of those things. Either men are afraid to talk about the bad news that we have inherited the guilt of Adam and we live in a world after the fall that needs to be redeemed as men. We need to be redeemed. And so either people want to sugarcoat that, say we're really not all that bad. Um, or they want to deny that Christ was crucified for our sins, which is a very, very different, you know, doctrine to deny. But I think it's cosmic child abuse or all sorts of things.
>> Um, and then finally though, the one if you ask someone like, "Give me the gospel," >> they oftenimes leave out the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, which is, I think, one of those vital aspects of justification. Um, that really highlights the doctrine of God, the doctrine of what man was intended to be in relationship to God as sons. Um, and then the reward of what Christ accomplishes in his complete work. Like he didn't just come to die. He also came to fulfill the law for us, too. So, again, that's what the book covers is all three of those and and different approaches exeetically, historically to how people have questioned one or all of those doctrines.
>> Awesome.
>> Yeah. And Jacob, uh, tell us a little bit about your background and specifically, uh, what you do at the seminary.
>> Yeah, I grew up in the Midwest. I'm a Midwesterner at heart even though I'm in Florida now under the Florida sun but went to Moody Bible Institute for College then on to the Master's Seminary where I met Peter and then perpetual student. So I'm now a PhD student writing a dissertation on Peter Martyr Vermigli who is the Italian reformer and I am the lone champion of Peter Martyr Vermigley as the greatest reformer of all time.
>> Yes. Yes. Um, and and it's interesting that you mentioned that. Uh, so you're a PhD student, but you're also a teacher as well. You're you're teaching at the seminary.
>> That's right. Yeah, I'm an associate professor of historical theology.
>> Okay. Yeah. All right. And of course in this regard uh you know I want to I'm going to want to ask you some questions too as we're walking through this because not only is the doctrine of imputation often uh maligned as a sort of a Protestant imagination like like this isn't biblical right this is just something the Protestants sort of came up with these this this doctrine of imputation but a lot of times we'll we'll hear that it's not historical either. We we we'll hear people say, "Well, you know, this is something that didn't exist more than 500 years ago.
This was the uh the invention of the reformers or or at least the the trifold imputation that you're referring to, Peter, which was the imputation not only of Adam sin to us, but our sin to Christ and then his righteousness to us, which I think is >> is an important >> uh three-legged stool, if you will. I mean, I I think the three work together.
Um but each one of those is attacked in one way or another. Uh, in fact, this this week coming up, I'm going to be doing a debate at uh or or on my show.
Uh, it's going to be online uh on the subject of do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam. Now, that's not even referring to inherited guilt necessarily. Um, because I do think I think there's a I think there are steps to I think someone could say we inherit a sinful nature without saying we inherit necessarily Adam's guilt. Um, I think there there are some distinguishing things that can be said there. Um, but you would go out and full out say and I would agree that we inherit Adam's guilt.
>> Yeah, I think it's both. It's we inherit his guilt and because we inherit his guilt, we also inherit a corrupted nature.
>> Okay.
>> And there's a lot of positions on that historically from how Charles Hodgej used it different than Jonathan Edwards.
Even in the reformed tradition, there's a lot of different opinions on h how is it or when is it that the influence of imputed guilt affects the corrupted nature. Um, and so that's where you get the seminal headship view versus the federal headship view. And there's a lot of different groups in between on those.
>> For for a minute, would you mind uh addressing the distinction there?
Because I uh s I would believe the federal headship view. Um, but obviously there are those who would hold to a seminal headship. Uh so could you give the distinction between those two views?
>> Yeah. And to try to be fair, there are some who believe in imputed guilt but think that the corrupted nature is passed on simil. So just because someone affirms seinal headship doesn't mean they have to deny imputed guilt. It's kind of a separate issue like as you mentioned they are closely related. But just real briefly. So seinal headship would say that our the sinful corruption of Adam is passed on genetically through the semen through offspring. Um so it's biologically passed on um not necessarily forensically passed on um and then imputed to us with a corrupted nature. Um which would be more of the federal position that we are counted as sinners in Adam. And so because we're counted as sinners in Adam, we now have a corrupted nature which because all of creation was cursed by God at the, you know, at the fall. And so the federal position would be more that the the result of guilt is a corrupted nature.
Whereas the seinal position would say that it's passed on genetically rather than imputed each time to a person or to humanity.
>> Yeah. And uh if I remember correctly and and this is uh you can correct me if I am incorrect. Uh sometimes an argument is made from the Hebrews passage where it talks about uh the patriarch paying tithes through his father. I think it was Levi paid tithe to MelkiseDC through Abraham being in his seed or being his seed. Is that is that often the text that's used to argue for seinal uh for that seinal view?
>> Yeah, that's the main text I hear. A lot of times the arguments though I see stem from the same reason that people deny imputation altogether and that is that they have their own idea that representation is not fair.
>> Okay.
>> That you have to somehow have a realist presence >> in the guilt of Adam. You participated in some real way.
>> You were in his loins >> there. Yeah.
>> Which is kind of funny because just being present doesn't make you a participant in something either.
>> Yeah. No, that's true. So, it doesn't doesn't pay off that way either.
>> Yeah, >> there were a lot of people present at the assassination of JFK, right?
>> But they weren't all guilty in the assassination.
>> Sure, it's a good point.
>> Page 50 is a marketing company that's committed to helping you build your brand with truth, goodness, and beauty.
They do web design, videography, search engine optimization, content creation, branding, and consulting. And for a limited time, you can get a free website audit, which can help you discover how your website is performing and what you can do to improve it. Just go to page50.com/yyoucalvinist to get started. Also, be sure to check out our other sponsors, Squirrely Joe's Coffee, that gives you some of the best coffee in the world delivered directly to your home and Dominion Wealth Strategist, which we'll have a video to tell you about here in a little while.
But yes, certainly Romans 5 is is one of the texts that I'm going to address in my debate. Yeah. Because I think at the very bare minimum, it tells us that our relationship to Adam has had an effect on us in regard to sin.
>> And I think and again there's I mean even seinal guys and federal guys, you know, they can at least agree that there's representation going on there in Romans 5. What's different between the Augustininian guys which would be any of the Protestant camps or orthodox camps um because even Catholics will affirm imputic guilt um or but not Augustinian not Eastern Orthodox they would not Yeah. Yeah.
>> So so Roman uh Augustinian would from more Pelagian thinking or non or guys who are non Augustinian is the issue of Romans 5:12 and and any English version you read. Um, so you know, you don't have to be a nerd in Greek, which I recommend, you know, learn Greek a little bit, at least have a working knowledge of it. Um, God inspired the Greek autographs of Paul, you know, for the New Testament. Um, but you'll find in all the additions that we have in English is Romans 5:12 says that in Adam all sinned. And we translate that in English with a past tense. Well, why a past tense? Why not a present tense? or future tense, which is what the non-agugustustinian position would demand. The non-agugustinian position would say in Adam all sin, like present tense, like we currently sin because we're following after our father Adam or like he's an imitator and we're just kind of imitating him, right? That kind of connection. But you'll notice it's always in that past tense and that's because it's reflecting what God inspired to be said and that in Adam we actually sinned. Um, so there is a representation taking place um, which now has an impact on me legally before God. Um, and that doesn't matter if you're seinal or federal, you know, you're you're both going to hold to a version of that that there was real representation taking place where the uh, more Pelagian or non Austinine guys have to differ is they have to say that no, Adam doesn't represent you. That's not fair. You get to represent yourself.
You sin when you sin, not when someone else sins. And it's just alien to natural theology in scripture. Everyone understands there's a level of representation in the real world, right?
Um parents represent their children.
When parents make bad decisions, their children are the ones who reap the consequences. We see that in the Bible.
It tells us that, you know, um look at King David. When King David was living in a way that was obedient to God, the whole nation flourished. everyone was blessed. It it was all uphill, you know, all all good. Um but then whenever David is being disobedient, the whole nation gets punished because there's a level of representation that we understand. And every Christian has to affirm that Jesus represents his people, right?
>> Yeah.
>> And that goes back then, okay, well on that basis, if Jesus can represent me, why all of a sudden am I offended that Adam represented me? You know, couldn't God who controls and all things, who knows all things, who's determined all things, doesn't he have the wisdom to know, to give a the best representative of humanity for humanity, which was Adam? Adam was better than me. He was created unfallen, untainted by sin, and he was put in the place in relationship to God to uh to obey or disobey and he chose disobedience. And we see the ramifications of that.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Let's quickly let's walk through uh Romans 5 again since you had your Bible open and uh and I did want to at least just have you since you wrote about this in the book and and I'm sure you'll have thoughts on it as well, Jacob. I did want to just walk through um and and I'm going to I'm going to play the student here. I'm going to uh ask a few questions, maybe maybe say a few things or thoughts of my own, but I want I want to hear your thoughts. This is people hear my thoughts all the time.
I'd rather they they get a chance to hear what you guys have to say. Um, but we know that in Romans 5:12, uh, is where this this section sort of opens with, uh, you know, through one man sit the world. So, would you read that? And I I'd say maybe read down to maybe verse 18. I think that's where it sort of terminates the argument there.
>> Yeah. Romans 5 starting in 12.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one, the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift of grace by the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 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. But on the other hand, the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in.
Should I start at verse 17? Maybe.
>> Oh, yes, please.
>> Restart. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then, as through the one transgression, there resulted condemnation of all men, even so, through the one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men.
>> Awesome. Thank you so much. Now, the the text that that often is is debated first obviously is the very first verse of that passage, which is uh Romans 5:12 because it says, "Therefore, as one uh through one man sin into the world and death through sin." And at that point, uh most everyone, even my debated opponent this week coming up, would agree that we inherit our mortality from Adam. They would say that that that if nothing else, that text certainly teaches that death entered the world because of sin. Now, it was interesting. I listened to William Lane Craig this few weeks ago as I was preparing for the debate because Craig doesn't believe we have a sin nature.
And that was surprising to me, but but he said that because he he believes in penal substitution. He wrote a book about it. Uh but he doesn't believe that we inherit a sin nature. Right. Um and it was interesting because hearing him say that uh he did at least say you know we inherit our mortality from Adam. So he would say there's has to I guess the word language would be a physical corruption because that's what brings about our mortality. But something that I have heard from that position that that some have said was Adam was always mortal but God was God kept him alive by grace and he forfeited the grace by eating the fruit of the fruit of the tree. So that was a whole other sort of view that Adam was already already subject to death, but God was keeping him alive through grace. So there's all kinds of different views, but at least I would say this, we all agree that there was one man who brought sin, that was Adam, and that's what the text says. And uh and that death came through that one man, you know, and death through sin.
But the idea that death spread to all men because all sin, this is where the argument ramps up because people say, "Okay, death spread to you and to you and to you and to me because you sinned, not because Adam sinned."
>> And so, how do you deal with that argument from someone who says, "Well, yes, you die, but it's because of your sin, not because of Adam's sin."
>> Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of interesting things there. I mean, first the thing I'd want to press your opponent on and ask him about is, okay, let's say there's the idea of mortality, was he already, if he was already mortal before, >> then that goes against what Genesis says when it says the day you eat of it, you will die, >> which he didn't immediately die.
>> So, we'd have to suspect that mortality at least entered at that moment because he died spiritually. I would say spiritually, then eventually physically, but the idea of death did not enter into the world at all until Adam sinned, >> which is what I think Romans 5 is.
>> And I wasn't saying my just just to be clear because I know he'll watch this. I wasn't saying that was the position of my opponent. I'm just saying there's other who who have. Yes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, I think that's it goes true with also, you know, all the evolution stuff out there, right?
They all >> Yeah. There was all kinds of death in the world.
>> All kinds of death. Well, that's contrary to Genesis, which is also contrary to Romans 5. Romans 5 is very clear that death any kind entered into the world through Adam. So Adam sinned, now there's mortality, now there's death. Which it's it's encouraging to hear that at least um you know someone like William Lane Craig would affirm at least mortality is a condition of of corruption that comes through Adam.
That's that's at least good. Um but the ne the next question is with the end of that phrase in Adam all sinned. The question becomes are how are we sinning?
Are we just sitting in imitation to Adam or are we actually sinning in Adam? And >> I I want to press you on something just because I know what the opponent would say. Yeah.
>> It doesn't say in Adam all sinned. It says therefore death spread to all men because all sinned. And you're you're finishing that with with what I would agree with. The sinning that's happening there is happening in Adam. That we all sinned in Adam. But the text doesn't explicitly say that. What it goes on to say is that um death was not in the world or death was in the world before.
Read again for me. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah. Verse 12 ends because all sinned kind of with an unfinished thought. And then 13 jumps in with for until the law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam. And we would say, at least I think we would all agree that that indicates that when it says all sinned, they send in Adam. Would you would you agree with that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. There's a number of reasons in the text, I think, to think that. One just kind of preliminary one is that verse 12 ends with an unfinished thought because all sinned. So if I were to say just as X and then I don't give you a so also, you would know that I've withheld part of my thought. And that's what Paul does here. He says, uh, so death spread to all men because all sinned. And then he picks up in verse 18, so then through one transgression. So the the so that following the just as in verse 12 comes in verse 18, bringing it back to the one transgression. Not the many of us, but the one of Adam.
>> But even then with the sinned, you have to ask, well, when did I sinned in the past?
>> Before I was.
>> Yeah. you know, and I can't have sinned before I was unless I'm represented in some way, whether it be materially or federally in Adam. And so, there has to be some kind of a representation there, which is what we see later. Paul comes to in verses 15- 18 when he picks back up his sane line of reasoning. He talks about death spread to all men because all sinned in in him. So it's uh I have to look at 17 or 18 where it talks about that for in Adam through one transgression death spread to all men.
>> Would you >> We should have all brought Bibles. I know somebody's going to say these people they're not even serious. They got one Bible reader. Well, you know what? You're our >> I'm the reader guy.
>> Yeah. So verse 18, I think is where he picks up the thought he opens in verse 12. And verse 18 says, "So then, as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men."
>> And that that's a big because it doesn't say just that corruption. It doesn't say just that death, but it says condemnation, which is guilt was to all men.
>> And condemnation is a legal word for judgment.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, we're we're held guilty.
>> Yeah.
>> And according to the standard of the law in Adam because of verse 18. And that's why it's paralleled with the opposite of but in Christ, >> yeah, >> we're held righteous.
>> One one other reason that I think this text clearly is talking about Adam's one sin and the result of that rather than our sin is throughout the passage, the emphasis on the one. So verse 12 is one man, verse 15, the one, the one man, verse 16, the one, verse 17, the one, verse 18, the one transgression. So really Paul's arguing from the one man's one transgression. He's not arguing from our sins.
>> Sure.
>> So that's another reason I think it's clearly talking about the effect of Adam's sin, not the effect of my sin on myself.
>> And the one transgression there is really important because I'm not held accountable for the rest of Adam's life where he sinned many, many more times, you know. So there is something that took place in the one act of transgression that severs him as being my federal head or my representative.
>> He represented me >> until he fell and then after that he's not representing me anymore. Um that's important to make a point too because you won't find that in scripture either.
So we're not saying that all of Adam's sinful life is that I'm accountable for.
Certainly there are effects of Adam's sinful life that have trickle down effects onto his children and his children's children for generations to come. Same thing with us. When we sin as adults and parents, we affect the culture. We affect our children and all that. But here at a different level, there's a there's a representation taking place where in this one transgression, I am condemned before God.
>> Yeah.
>> So, in my debate and and what's funny is um Gavin, who the gentleman I'm debating, we are we are very friendly with one another and we've actually even talked about what we're going to say. so that the debate is as fair to the other side as we can be. The I hate in debates when people just lob straw men or burn straw mens and lob, you know, un unfounded accusations at the other. And so I know he's going to watch this. And so uh so Gavin, we can all wave. Uh uh and and my my approach is going to be a three-fold approach for my opening statement. It's going to be I'm going to the scriptural support for inherited uh sinful nature. uh the um the historical approach for an inherited sinful nature.
We're going to talk about that in a minute, Jacob, because I know that's your your uh your your historical theology person. U but also uh I I'm I want to speak also to the anecdotal evidence, the fact that there has been no there's been no one outside of Jesus Christ who has ever uh not been a sinner.
>> Um and and we experience this in our life. Uh and so so Gavin, if you hear it now, you know that that that's the three areas I'm going to approach. Of course, scripture is most important. Of course, scripture is the the um you know, is the Norman norm, right? It's the it's the standard of standards and and we know everything has to be standardized against that. But history agrees with it. Historical theology, I think, agrees with it. But also, so too does my experience. Uh as I forget the man, I'll have the quote in the debate, but there's a debate in my notes. One of the men that I'm quoting said uh that um the inherited sinful nature is the easiest to believe because it doesn't have to be proven. It just has to be observed.
Yeah. It just has to be seen, right?
Like we see this in people.
>> Yeah.
>> But I do want to ask you though with that with those kind of those things laid out. We're going to walk through each of those. The first thing I want to ask is other than Romans 5, and obviously this is the sort of the the verse that most of us would go to first.
What are some other passages that you would say? Here is an example of where I believe the Bible teaches an inherited sinful nature. And uh and and if someone were saying, I don't believe that we inherit a sinful nature. I believe each of us are born essentially a new Adam.
We we're born not uh not having any sinful inclinations that are inherent in us. Uh what are some other passages that you would cite to support what Paul's saying here?
Yeah, I mean it's it's almost like you can't really go too far in scripture without running into it. I mean, Genesis obviously is a a key text to talk about, which obviously is why Paul's citing is, you know, quoting that parallel between Adam and Christ. Um I mean, Christ is called the second Adam.
>> Yeah.
>> Why is he called the second Adam if there's not a first Adam? If there's not a a same level of representation >> and if each of us are Adams.
>> Yeah. if each of us are then wouldn't Jesus be how many Adams down the road? I mean, you know, um >> yeah, >> so I think that's a key key point to make as well. Um >> but yeah, I I mean, at what point do children start sinning?
>> For most people, their finances aren't one big problem. It's a hundred small ones. A retirement account from a job 5 years ago. A budget that lives in your head, but never on paper. Life insurance that you meant to look into. a will half-finished or not even started. And the longer you leave those loose ends untied, the harder it becomes to move forward with peace of mind. At Dominion Wealth, we walk with you step by step to help you tie it all together. We meet you where you are. We listen. We get your financial picture out of your head and into practice. Then we build a strategy to meet your needs now, prepare for your future, and bless the next generation. We don't pressure you. We give biblical, honest guidance. Let the strategy follow your values and help find the right solutions. If your financial path feels uncertain, let's get together one on-one and get you on the right track. Book a free consultation today. We are here to help you get your finances in order so you can feel confident about the future.
From baptism to burial, Dominion's got you covered.
You can find us at reform.money.
>> Yeah. So, the question I would oftentimes ask people is anyone who's had children can tell you, you don't have to teach them to disobey you.
>> Yeah.
>> It's one of the uh unfortunate byproducts that you have to witness is with a newborn very quickly. They are insistent on their own way. They're disobedient. They're rebellious. They say no. It's one of the first words they learn. Um and you don't have to teach them that. You're trying to teach them the opposite. And yet always they respond that way. Um the other issue is is why then do children die? Like which is a fair question. If death spread to all men because all sinned, then that would reason for if I had to be the first Adam to commit my own sin, then why would any child ever die? Naturally, you would think, well, if you have to sin before you die, then for example, why does an unborn child die? They certainly haven't sinned. They haven't done anything. They haven't even thought or acted. I mean, they move and things, you know, but they're not committing any vition in the womb.
>> Um, I mean, they move their limbs and things, but none of these things are violations of God's law to warrant death.
>> So, why would an unborn child die? Why would a child of one month or two months or whatever? Sure, >> why does why do any children die? And it's one of the gravest things that pastors have to help people to understand is why children die. And it's not an issue to be taken lightly or to just flippantly, you know, throw out there. It's a very serious issue. And I think the only way to make sense of it is because Adam sinned and represented all men and so desperate to all men, which includes children. Um, so they still die as a consequence of Adam's sin because they're guilty in him. They don't have to commit any valitional acts to sin or to die, sorry. Um, and they don't. And that's why, you know, they die is because of Adam. So and that was early church they debated that that was the question that came up uh which is ultimately why infant baptism started being practiced because we have to find a way to remove the guilt of the children so they can go to heaven and because they can't act in faith they baptize children and that's where it originated in with Augustine and others.
>> Yeah. So, >> and interestingly enough with that that that is a that's one of the arguments that is used is that um there shouldn't that we that that shouldn't have happened because children don't inherit a sinful nature. Therefore, they they shouldn't have needed to be baptized as infants. I mean, one of the arguments sometimes that's used by certain people that that >> then why do they die?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. If if you want to argue that the corruption is there and that's why they die, you have to argue that the sin is there because death is the effect. So you can't have the effect without the cause. If death comes through sin, if the wages of sin is death, >> then the idea that death could get passed along but not sin somehow it it removes the cause but keeps the effect of death. And this is where I think and again I'm I'm only I'm I'm I'm trying to understand the other positions just so that I'm able to engage with them properly. I do think the argument is something to the effect of we inherit corruption mort mortal corruption but not um not sinful inclination.
>> And so this and guilt we don't inherit guilt. So that's why I think it's worth kicking back a little bit and just saying, okay, well the wages of sin is what?
>> Death.
>> So if the wages of sin is death, then like he was saying, you can't have the effect of death. Which you could say, yeah, we inherit corruption. We inherit you mortality. But what is the corruption, mortality that leads to death? The Bible only acknowledges one, and that's sin. Sin is what leads to death.
>> Sin is what leads to our ultimate mortality.
>> Yeah. Um, so you could argue that, oh, we're created mutable. So, because we're created mutable, that means we have the propensity or the capability of dying.
But that that's just assuming assuming then you have to input a lot into the text that's not there to say, well, God just upheld him miraculously by grace in a state of non of of life because he was already mortal and prone to death anyways.
>> Um, that's something that is imputed into the text.
>> Yeah.
What are some of the texts, Jacob, that you might cite if if someone were to ask, well, you know, other than Romans 5? And and when I say other than Romans 5, I'm not saying that I think Romans 5 is somehow insufficient to teach.
>> Yeah. Well, but I I'm thinking more along the lines of we we are we are people who are all Bible people. We're not just our favorite passages.
>> And so, we have to look at what does the whole Bible teach? And as Peter said, you know, he would be inclined to go to Genesis and say, "Here are these things." But are there some other passages that you would say would uphold this idea of an inherited sinful nature and imputed guilt?
Uh sin nature, you could say 1 Corinthians 15:21, "For since by man came death, and by man came also the resurrection of the dead." 22, for as in Adam all die. Mhm.
>> So there I think if we're dying in Adam, you have to explain that somehow. And I think this is just in seed form what Paul explains back in Romans 5. Yeah. So it's kind of restating it more succinctly.
>> And then the issue of guilt. Yeah.
Romans 5 uses that word condemnation. So any scriptures that speak of us as condemned, they can speak of it on account of actual sins, sins that we commit or that we're condemned on account of original sin, which is, you know, Adam's sin. And throughout the New Testament, throughout the epistles, you see both where we're condemned just in that we're sinful or condemned because of some specific sin that we we use. So that distinction between original and actual sin I think is helpful because whenever we see the word condemned uh it could be for both or it could be for one or the other. So all of the condemnation language I think supports the idea of original sin.
>> I mean what about you know with Romans 3 right? No one is good.
>> So if we're all original Adams Adam was created good right?
>> Yeah. Genesis 1, we're told, "God saw Adam and he say he was very good." You know, very pleased with with the creation of man who was made in his image. Um, and yet in Romans 3, it says, "No one is good. No one does does righteous. No one seeks for God." Well, if no one does good and no one is good, which there's many texts talk about, you know, the depravity of man. I think any text you could argue from the depravity of man, you could ultimately argue back to where does that come from? And you're going to end up at Adam. Um, but if we're all new at Adams, as some might propose, then what do you do with the texts that talk about us being sinful, uh, you know, from the womb as, you know, children of wrath, uh, even as the rest, that kind of language? Um, is that just something that I my environment gives me?
>> Um, I don't think so. Um, yeah, you kind of referenced a couple other passages.
That's Ephesians 2 that you're children of wrath.
>> Yeah.
>> And then also Psalm 51, obviously David being sinful in the womb. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And even, you know, you were dead in your trespasses and sins. Again, another reference to death, which is the product of sin and death spread to all men because all sinned. Um, where does that originate? You know, um, so those kind of questions of looking at the text and seeing it in its whole canonical context, you'll see, yeah, like even with David in the uh, was it Psalm 50, I think, is what it is, where he talks about him being, you know, a sinner in the womb. Yeah. Is key. And Ephesians 2:3 is a really helpful one because it says we were by nature children of wrath. Yeah.
>> Even as the rest. So that that ties it not into an action but into what we are.
>> Yeah.
>> By nature.
>> I know that text is going to come up because ultimately that uses the word nature.
>> And of course there are going to be different interpretations of what it means to >> be something by nature. And I think the argument is going to be something along the lines of um you become that when you sin. That's the nature you assume is the nature of Adam according to your sin.
But I would of course uh see that differently. I would say it's it's the nature in fact we have inherited from Adam that inher and again the Baptist faith and message agrees with this where it says that we inherit a nature and environment that is inclined towards sin. Uh, I would also, and I want to get your thoughts on this because again, I'm still in my preparation phase, even though I only have less than a week. I'm still putting everything together as a as a full-time pastor, podcaster, and uh, just all-around busy father and husband. Uh, sometimes I'm working up until the very last moment to prepare things as you guys probably are doing that as well in your own life. Um, one of the areas that I want to touch on and again showing my hand a little bit to my opponent who will see this uh is I want to touch on the noetic effect of the fall. Uh, and and this is this is something that I think is sometimes overlooked in in this discussion because obviously we discuss the noetic effect as being the effect on our mind or our thinking. Um, but what is it that what is it that causes us to behave sinfully?
is because we think wrongly. We think wrongly about God. We think wrongly about the world. We think wrongly about ourselves leads to pride and arrogance and even I mean lust and everything else comes from wrong thinking. And and and so I look at texts like uh 1 Corinthians 2 which says that the natural man does not receive the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned. And and John 3 which says that we must be born again. Why must we be born again? Because our first birth is inherently there's something wrong in our first birth. There's a corruption.
There's a there's something there that is uh inclined us towards sin. So what are some of those on with that as the background? What are some thoughts that y'all might have about that?
>> Yeah, I mean it I think it's pretty clear when Jesus talks about where sinful inclinations begin. And really, this actually comes back to a recent discussion that's been had even among well-meaning evangelicals who tried to make room for the samesex attraction issue. I don't know if you remember that.
>> Sure. The the concupence I can't say the word. What's it called?
>> Concupensence or I can't say it right.
You have to like do a video thing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Concipenc I think. Yes. But what they tried to argue and tried to make room for was to say that you could have sinful thoughts that were not sinful essentially that you could be a Christian and have homosexual desires without ever acting on them. And Jesus makes it abundantly clear that where does sinful thoughts come from the heart from from the nature that's corrupted.
>> Um which is something that Jesus makes clear when he's talking about how Satan has nothing in him right with which to tempt him. So there is a distinction of Adam's uh sinful nature that we all have which is true of of all men and yet ad yet Jesus by virtue of the virgin birth does not have that sinful nature.
>> No. Um, and that's why he can be tempted in all arenas that mankind are tempted and yet not sin because he doesn't have a well first it would involve his person sinning which would mean the whole godhead could sin which James tells us God cannot um sin and because persons act by means of their nature and so if the second person of the godhead could act according to a sinful nature then you would have to say that the person is sinful Jesus is sinful in order for him to act in a sinful ful manner which he can't do you know he makes I mean that's got to be one of the the hopes of the Christian faith is that there was a sinless man who came and lived in my place died in my place and and fulfilled the law in my place um we need that sinless man so if you want to distinguish um between the rest of humanity's corruption and what they need I mean I just don't see what gospel there is to say that well we're all made second Adams and so there has to be somebody who didn't need Jesus because they didn't have any corruption that they had to have taken away. Um or they didn't have any sin they needed to have taken away. Um and they didn't have a need for righteousness beyond what they could achieve. Um and so yeah, >> and just on that point too, the Bible never addresses such a person.
>> Yeah.
>> None of Paul's letters, no one Jesus speaks to in the Gospels, they never start out by saying, "Have you sinned yet?" Okay. You they assume that >> Jesus says, "You being evil, >> right?" Yeah. Yeah. So, the Bible never even assumes such a category that a person exists without sin.
>> And Jesus didn't need anybody to tell him what was in man because he knew he knows what's in every man and that is that they're sinful, you know, from the womb. So, yeah, I think that that's a key. you said something earlier and uh this this has actually been on my mind as one of the questions um and it's the question of the necessity of the virginal conception of Christ. Uh one of the arguments that I would tend to agree with is that the virginal conception of Christ kept Christ from any of the taint of original sin. Much like Isra believed in Roman Catholicism happened with Mary.
They believe that Mary was kept from the taint of original sin because of the immaculate conception of Mary, which is not a doctrine that I would affirm. But the idea is the same. Christ is kept from what we would say is the and some people that that's that's another argument for seinal transmission of sin because of the belief that the father transmits it to the son. But but but we you would say it's federal, not seinal.
Yeah.
>> But you would still hold to the necessity of the virgin birth because of that.
>> Yeah. I mean it it's one of the cardinal Christian doctrines. So just like the trinity, the virgin birth, I mean we see it in the the apostles creed, the nian creed. I mean it's it's vital. And it's for that reason because you have to explain how there is a man who's one qualified to pay the penalty for my sin and who is able to fulfill the righteousness I needed to achieve. Um Adam was made that way. Adam was made with no corruption of nature. Adam was put in a position to obey God's law and earn righteousness. Right? And yet he failed on both accounts. Well, where's the new Adam? Where's the the next person like that? And the only person it can be is Jesus Christ. And so we see in that it's it's triune act, right, of the incarnation. It's it's the father, the son, and the spirit. And the it's what is it? Um in Luke, it tells us very clearly that the holy spirit overshadowed um the virgin Mary, and she conceived and brought forth the son Jesus. Um, so there's something unique happening obviously and it's it's symbolized to us in the you know what's happening the whole thing and we're not told the biology of it. We're not told you know and that's not what ultimately it's trying to communicate. What the authors are trying to communicate is is that this is a man who was made just like Adam was made by miracle. Adam was made from dirt. His wife was made from his rib. you know, Jesus was made the the product of the work of the Trinity, you know, the Holy Spirit. Um, and so because of that, we have something very unique happening in the virgin birth to protect him from and to not just to protect him from corruption, which certainly it did that like absolutely.
But also, it's telling us he is a new Adam. He is a new covenant. The old covenant had a head. The new covenant has a head. And so it has to start by means of proclamation of the new covenant head and it's done by way of miracle. And I mean we see it throughout Jesus's entire earthly life ultimately.
And it's it's interesting when you start to really probe it and look at you know Christian literature and realize you know Jesus unlike us never had a sinful habit. I think about that all the time as I've been studying it more recently um teaching seminary and things. you you oftentimes come across stuff you want to study more and you learn and it's like whenever I learned to spell my name I made create a lot of bad habits like if you ever watched me hold a pencil it's pretty brutal I taught myself to write as a kid and so I have a lot of bad habits with my handwriting not good you know >> Jesus never had a bad habit when he learned to write he wrote perfect the first time I mean that's I mean could you imagine like that would be wild to imagine um he he never had a bad habit he he never had a bad habit he had to break like the rest of us Um because there's something about his nature that is an unfallen nature.
>> Adam didn't have bad habits when he was made >> fresh from the dirt. Um he didn't have bad habits to overcome.
>> And so it wasn't that his habits like or the things outside of him caused him to fall. Um you know, he willfully violated the law of God. Um was he tempted? Yes.
Was Jesus tempted? Yeah, certainly.
Wasn't that the point of the wilderness for 40 days? um he was led by the spirit out to be tempted. Um and yet he never fell. And I think that that's again one of those key things of okay, if all men are made that way, then do all men need an external tempter to cause them to fall? No, they don't. You know, um most of most of all people, every person I've ever seen will sin without anybody making them sin or trying to tempt them into sin. And that that goes almost to the anecdotal part of my argument is just the experience. I remember a few years ago we we we we do a thing where we'll go out and put a booth up at a fair or something and we'll do evangelism and we'll have a a whiteboard that will ask questions and one of the questions was um do why do why do men do evil things? And the question and the answer was because they have evil hearts or because society makes them evil. And almost everybody, it was society made them evil. And police officers, I remember very specifically four police officers walked by and we were talking and they all pulled out the marker and said society makes them evil. It's society that does it. It's not within them. It's without. It's not from within.
>> It's from without. Um, Jacob, you uh, you know, we haven't really addressed a lot on the on the issue of the historical side and um, I know that one of the arguments is going to be that among the or at least I don't know what arguments my opponent will make, but I know one of the arguments against this is that no one believed in any type of inherited corruption or inherited guilt uh, prior to Augustine. And um and I just as a as a fellow lover of history and teacher uh what are your thoughts when someone makes an argument like that?
>> Uh kind of twofold. One is how we approach historical theology in general.
Uh I think of historical theology as a type of the discipline that's called intellectual history or the history of ideas like the development of ideas. And in a secular practice of that you can have a historian who studies political thought and they can study when a certain political idea came into being.
So like before this point there was not this concept of liberty or whatever.
Christian development of ideas is different because the ideas existed before they were articulated historically. The doctrine of the trinity existed before it was articulated at Nika or by Tertullia or by someone else. So that's the first thing is that Christian doctrine doesn't come into being in the same way that secular ideas come into being. So what we have historically is not the creation of doctrine but the articulation of doctrine. The doctrine is already there and we see it become articulated better over time. So just because you don't have the statement of calcedon two days after the end of the New Testament doesn't mean that doctrine wasn't there.
just means it's articulated better at calcedon or you know more clearly at calcedon to argue other than that to say that Christian doctrine as we think of it came into being like the trinity or or the hypothatic union is how heretics argue that's how Mormons argue and Jehovah's Witnesses they say well the trinity didn't really come about until whoever so number one I would say you want to be really careful to not argue like a heretic >> from historical theology And then the flip side of that is just to say that in the early church we have fragments of most writings. So someone like Clement who's supposedly the fourth pope, you know, there's all this thought about Clement and who he was in Rome, we only have one little letter that he wrote. We don't have a full body of doctrine of everything that that guy believed. So the point number two uh we don't have the full system of doctrine that everyone in the early church held to.
And then three to say that there were kind of precursors to what Augustine taught. So even if you don't have original sin in its clearest form until post Augustine, there were ideas of sin needing to be washed that we see in different doctrines of baptism in the early church. So there was something there, but it's it's in development.
It's coming over time.
>> Yeah.
>> And and to add to that, you know, it's interesting about the fragmentation of the documents that we have in the early church fathers is many of them existed in a time where Christian Bibles were burned, where Christian writing was burned, Christians were persecuted. It really wasn't until um Charlemagne or you know, and that we really get an acceptance of Christianity.
>> Constantine.
>> Constantine. I like Charlemagne.
>> Mixing up the greats.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
to Constantine that we really get a preserv more preservation of Christian bodies of literature. So Augustine had the benefit of much of his literature, not even all but obscene amount of his literature was preserved. Um so we have more of his body of writings. But we don't even know everything he thought about everything because he didn't write it all down. A lot of it he taught and orally spoke that doesn't all get put into paper. Um but the early church, especially the first couple hundred years, was that way. And one of the things you said earlier that I think is important is you know with regard to historical theology is we have the New Testament which is part of Christian history. It it is the first century of the Christian church.
And so if we have it in Paul then it it does predate Augustine because it's in the Apostle Paul. Um and I thought when you made that point it's really really key in cardinal. But again you see a lot of the other guys arguing the same way.
And so we have it in second clement. Um and we have it in other things. Again, it's in fragmentaryary forms because that's not all that was preserved for us to have. Um, but it really doesn't become a massive issue until a guy comes along and he says, "Well, I'm just reading the Bible." And he makes these arguments, which is really what Pelagius did. He just claimed to be using the Bible. And Aras did the same thing as well. And so ultimately now we have to put into new words things that are in the Bible to help argue against those who claim to be Christian and claim to be using the Bible but are using it in a way to deny other biblical truths. And so there's really a system of doctrine in the Bible, the whole cannon that we're trying to preserve. We don't want to, you know, get so and that's what happens a lot of times with biblical, you know, studies ultimately is we'll hyperfocus on one text to the detriment of the rest of the Bible and then we'll try to say, "Oh, well, here it says that the chief thing that Paul is concerned about is that Jesus died for sinners." I would say yes and amen. That is a chief thing that we must be known for. That is a cardinal Christian doctrine that Jesus died for sinners. That's not all that there is to being a Christian in for Christian doctrine. Um you cannot claim to be a Christian and deny the doctrine of the trinity. Just can't historically.
Um you cannot be a Christian and claim to deny the virgin birth or the uh sinlessness of Jesus. Um and so that's we have to be really careful not to let someone hijack what it means to be a Christian. Say, "Well, I'm a Christian."
and then teach all these things contrary to what the Bible says and to what Christians have traditionally taught. Um we don't get to get to run the world or run what Christianity says. No person single person gets to do that. And so I think that's important point to make as well.
>> I want to ask uh Jacob about your thoughts on uh on the council of Orange uh because I know it's not an ecumenical council.
So it's not a council that would be affirmed and and we wouldn't affirm all of the of the cannons that came out of Orange, but I think it's relevant to this discussion because it addresses the fact that even and we would say the broader western church but within Roman Catholicism um that there was a recognition that not only was Augustine correct >> in his views against plagiius uh because that's a issue right now. There are a lot of people who say Augustine was wrong and some even go as far as to say he is a heretic who destroyed the western church. I mean there there there are people who have really who have come out and just completely said Augustine was the worst thing you know to happen since Lucifer himself. Right.
>> But um but the the issue of Arange I think uh causes us to say okay well there were other godly men others who took to the task of addressing the issue of man's nature and particularly and they weren't even addressing pelagianism they were addressing semipolagianism. So what are your thoughts on orange and and its usefulness in this discussion? Yeah.
Well, I call it orange just because.
>> Well, I may be saying it incorrectly and you know what? Somebody out there is going to hear that and they're going to make fun of me and they will and I will say, "Well, my friend Jacob corrected me." So, >> in Florida, it's allowed to be orange.
>> Is it allowed to be orange? Okay.
>> I wasn't there, so I don't know.
>> Okay.
>> But yeah, you're right. It it says, I think almost explicitly, it's an anathema against anyone who says we are not affected by Adam's sin. It's something something as blatant as >> very clear. Yes.
>> Yeah. That's a great point just to say it's not like Augustine swindled the church, right? Yeah. It's not like he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes against Pelagius.
>> It was a doctrine that he was the chief champion of. Not that he made up, but that he was the best champion on the >> just like we would say Athanasius did not make up the trinity. Yeah. Right.
But he was certainly at a certain point it was Athanasius contraon, right? It was seemingly him against the world because he had the Aryans >> to to >> to fight against. So yeah, and Augustine was a mixed bag. So if you want to throw him out altogether, you've got to throw out some great stuff to Well, and I wonder too, okay, so let's say Augustine was wrong, which I won't say, but let's say they say what >> someone else will say.
>> Yeah. Well, okay. What do you do with all of the spiritindwelled godly men that Jesus or that God used from Augustine through let's say even let's go up to Luther. Let's just go to Luther. Um, why is it that it is still anatomized to be Pelagian in the 600s, in the 700s, in the 1100s, and even by Luther?
>> Yeah, >> Lutheran anathematized Pelagianism and semipolagianism.
Um, same thing with Calvin. That was a chief thing that they used against guys like Cervitus and others was because these guys were teaching doctrines that the church historic universal had understood scripture demands of us to affirm. Scripture demands so so you'd have to say 21st century you know YouTube star pop philosopher who whatever that you figured out something >> you just defined me but go ahead.
>> It's a personal thing. I took that as personal shot. Okay, Peter, cool.
>> Last time I said that, last time I said I got in trouble, but you know, all of a sudden you figured it out. Let's all praise your brilliance that nobody else that the spirit indwelled and understood scripture properly got it right and they all just, you know, blindly followed Augustine. I mean, that's a hubris and a pride that I I don't think is safe to be comfortable with in yourself and let alone with others. Um, how is it then that God just skipped over 2,000 years and let everyone believe what Augustine taught? I guess we'd say, what would it be? 1600 years. I'm not good at math, you know. Um, that's something that needs to be accounted for, too. And I think that the burden of proof rests on the other side. You have to prove to me how God who has preserved his word through trial and persecution and preserved his church through just as much somehow left something so important to be misunderstood from Augustine till today without ever being addressed by someone and affirmed positively by the church. Like has that ever happened on any doctrine? Like even things like misunderstandings of let's say the perpetual virginity of Mary, let's give that as an example. Um, there are Protestants who affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. I think uh um Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Maybe I'm slandering Calvin, but I think >> No, I I think Calvin left it as an open-ended I taught on this recently. I I think I think Luther certainly did I think left more opened, >> but but but that has been, you know, refuted or affirmed by multiple people throughout church history. You know, Thomas held one view, Luther held a different view. You know, Protestants hold different views. like if there was an error as big as the imputation of Adam's guilt or inherited sinful corruption um or you know I would say you know but like for example that's why the doctrine of imputed righteousness is so vital because it was affirmed I would say justification by faith was affirmed in different forms and at different levels of of v you was vocalized different levels throughout church history until it became a point to where it had to be articulate ulated most clearly which is why we have the Protestant Reformation. Um but it wasn't that it was alien before that um or that didn't exist which is why I thought your point on the intellectual development of doctrine is that it's always there just how is it being articulated against errors. Um you would think that one though from Augustine if that was the position why was it never challenged by anyone ordain conceived as orthodox it was always challenged by people who also denied the trinity who some denied the inherency of scripture I mean at some point it's like are these your champions is that who you want to side with you know we we've talked about the the scriptural support for it we've talked about the uh historical discussion which is what we just finished and earlier we talked some about the anecdotal sin and children and things like that.
Um is there is there any other thing that when we when we come to this discussion about inherited guilt uh that you would say this is something people often miss or forget or or or or don't think about and maybe we'll leave it with that if there's anything that you could maybe drive the nail in.
>> Yeah, I mean it's one thing I don't think we should um ever do is study doctrine in isolation.
what you believe about Adam has ramifications for what you believe about everything, but it ultimately stems from what you believe about God.
>> Can I I hate to interrupt you, >> but it's interesting that you say that because the >> we mentioned William Lane Craig >> at lunch. I don't remember if we mentioned it on the show yet, but William Lane Craig is one who has said that he doesn't believe in inherit sinful nature. Yeah. But he also believes that the historic Adam was an evolved creature virginious or whatever.
>> Yes. And was in was was uh the the image of God was placed upon him, but that he already exist. He wasn't created from the dust of the ground and Eve did not come from his side in his rib as as as we would believe. That's a miraculous actual event. Yeah.
>> And so I I think that plays into at least and and again I wouldn't say that everybody who denies original sin denies the miraculous creation of Adam, but >> I think with Craig especially, we're looking at someone who has a fundamentally different view of who Adam was.
>> Well, and I think it stems from he has a fundamentally different view of who God is >> and who Christ is.
>> He's he's on record being Neopolinarian.
So he doesn't believe in the traditional view of Christ and his two natures. He doesn't have a Calcedonian definition of Jesus. Um he also is fundamentally flawed on the doctrine of the trinity.
So it's interesting because he's a very very you know popular and vocal figure.
He has a big YouTube channel and um but you have to what I was saying about doctrine isolation like there's a fact that he begins his doctrine with a denial of the inherency of scripture.
He starts there. His doctrine of the trinity is wrong. His doctrine of Christ is wrong. Which you're going to see ramifications of his doctrine of man.
His anthropology is going to come out in that as well. So, and it's not just him.
That's that's true of everybody, which is the, you know, kind of the point I was trying to say is that what you believe about Adam here has one to one correlation for what you believe God is able to do according to his authority with regard to you and Christ. Like, let's just bring it home, you know? If you don't think that God can hold you accountable for what Adam did, then you have no place believing that God can hold Jesus accountable for what you did or on the other side, the good news is that he can actually hold you accountable for what Jesus accomplished and giving you a place uh you know at his table in his house. And so the doctrine of representation is cardinal to this. And so, you know, you you can't just say, "Oh, well, I'm just denying this thing about Adam without it having a ramification for what you ultimately believe about Jesus."
>> Um, and that's where I think guys have to realize on the academic side, it's easy to study a doctrine in isolation.
But I think if you're fair systematicians, which we all should be, we want to look at how does what I believe here affect what I believe about everything. So, we can make sure that we're wholly in all of our thoughts governed by the word of God in its entirety, not just what I studied in this one verse. in this one verb and what I think that one verb means.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Just to sharpen the point on that back to Romans 5, Paul argues from the imputation of Adam's sin, guilt, corruption to us to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And so the imputation of of corruption and guilt from Adam is is Paul's proof of concept to then explain how we are saved by Christ's righteousness. So if you if you deny imputation in this first sense, you're sawing off the limb that you're on that connects you to justification.
So if if you deny this concept as Paul uses it, you're missing the conclusion of his argument which is the same concept of how we are declared righteous on or yeah on the righteousness of Christ. So that that's what I would say is just Romans 5 the payoff of justification is missing if you mess up that first half of it. And that's why another point to add about Romans 5:2 is is not Romans 5:2, but Romans 5 as well is that it's not about just to go with the physical corruption stuff. It's not just about physical representation because nobody's physically in Jesus. He had no offspring.
>> He never got married, never had children. I'm not physically in Jesus.
So the connection Paul's making is clearly there's a way that you're in Adam and it's the same way that those who are in Christ are in Christ.
What way is that? Well, I would say it's by federal representation. Um, it's it's not physically. It's not just by my seed, which again, even if you wanted to grant to the seminal headship guys of, okay, we're we're in Adam similarly, which I do believe we're all descendants physically of Adam.
>> I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that the higher level of representation is what is necessitated by Romans 5 because that's the same way that we're in Christ, which is the point Paul's making. If you just isolated the part about Adam from the parts about Jesus, you have a whole different doctrine that's going on there and you can actually interpret it in a way that doesn't do justice to all of Romans 5.
>> So, good thought. Well, gentlemen, I appreciate this. Uh, if for nothing else, we had the opportunity to study the Bible together and talk about an important doctrine both from scripture and history, but also to get to know each other better. And I've enjoyed you guys coming up today and having this conversation with me. And I know that you're also here on behalf of the seminary. Not here with me, but you're you're you're doing business for the seminary this week. So, for the last few minutes of the show, just tell everyone, give them an update about the seminary and what's going on there. Obviously, there's a crushing blow with the passing unexpected passing of Dr. Buddy Bacham.
And um and uh I know that since then, I'm sure some things have moved and changed. And so, give a give us an update and talk a little bit about what the future holds for Founder Seminary.
Yeah, one of the things I want to say about seminary, we get asked a lot like why another seminary. Um, and that's a great question and I could spend a whole show talking about why another seminary.
Uh, one is that we're not producing enough faithful pastors to replace the ones we currently have as they're retiring and dying and things like that just across all the evangelical conservative seminaries in the country.
Um, the other thing I would say is there's not very many confessional Baptist seminaries. There's a few.
Praise the Lord for the work they're doing. We're all on the same team here.
Um, but there's we need more. Um, and one of the things I think that makes us unique compared to the current trends in education is that we're dedicated to training men for pastoral ministry in a residential setting. So, while a lot of schools are kind of trying to get you through quicker, lowering their credit hours, um, letting you do it online, remote, and look, there's some people where that context works, and I'm not saying that that's illegitimate in all circumstances, but we're uniquely focused exclusively on residential training because we believe that while our program is intended to be academically rigorous, there are things in character and there are things in conviction that are caught more than they're taught. God. I can teach you all sorts of wonderful things about the Trinity and about predestination and justification, but you're really going to catch a lot of the convictions of your professors, the hills to die on by living life with those people. Uh certainly any of us who went to a residential seminary would amen that.
Yes, that is what rubbed off on me and Lord willing what rubs off on others.
And also doing it in the context of a local church is vital. Uh so many seminaries are disconnected from the um accountability that comes with a local church.
I mean, I went to seminary. Many other my friends went to seminaries across the country and their professors don't have the slightest clue where they go to church.
>> Wow.
>> Or their church members because the schools aren't they don't think they're accountable to making sure these men are in churches. Well, we're removing that from being a possibility at our school.
Um, and some of the things that's going on there. Um, it's really exciting. We just finished our first academic year.
Um and so we have close to 30 guys residentially who relocated down to you know southwest Florida um and have been begun the training and we the Lord has brought some amazingly remarkable guys and when we started doing this you know um me and and Dr. Rascal and we were thinking, okay, we want to prepare men in a way and in a context that we were not prepared in. And kind of looking at the history of Christian education, you kind of see this shift where there was a time in America and a time in Christian education where the culture was very pro pro-Christianity. I would say the 1940s was a time where Christianity we, you know, sung the pledge of allegiance. We prayed prayer in schools. Um there was a time whenever Christian morality was the norm of the nation and so because of that Christian education was very positive and Christian pastors were trained in a positive environment. Then there's a shift in I don't know let's say the 60s to the 90s uh where it's very neutral like you do you I'll do me type of approach to the society's approach to Christianity. As long as what you believe doesn't affect me you can believe what you want. And so then pastors are trained in an environment where it's neutral, you know, with regard to Christianity. Take it or leave it. Uh it's more apathetic. And so now you have another different obstacle to overcome. Again, each one of these presents obstacles. Certainly in a world where Christian morality is expected, you have some superficial Christianity you have to overcome. In a neutral world where there's apathy, you have a different set of circumstances to overcome. Um it also produces a different kind of pastor. Well, now we live in a world where society is anti-Christian, and we need to produce pastors who have binds of steel, who can withstand the assaults of the world, who won't bend whenever Christian doctrine is being um, you know, argued for.
They're going to stand strong on the truths of the Christian faith. And we think that that's something that we're trying to bring to the education that is more caught than taught. And Dr. Bacham Voodie Bacham was in, you know, uniquely gifted to pair perfectly as our first president. Um, you know, he's one of those dream scenarios where if someone asked me, hey, who would you, you know, if you're putting together a baseball team and you wanted to put together this this winning group of guys to to really have a good uh school, you know, Vod was at the top of the list of guys who matched what we were doing um and wanted to embody. And so when he came, it was a wonderful pairing. But obviously in divine providence it was short-lived. Um but it's the same thing you know that we're still doing the same things. Um our vision hasn't changed. Our commitments haven't changed. Um if anything we want to see more men like him come out from our school who have that same kind of conviction that will fight the world regardless of what it costs them and even if it costs them everything. And so that's kind of one of the unique things. We just brought on a couple new faculty members. We're really excited about the the level of just academics that our guys are have been doing, the guys we're bringing on. Um, I mean, they're great that are super sharp in their fields. And but the thing is, they're men of conviction. That's what I think is really unique. These are guys who have all suffered in fighting for truth. And so, that's kind of another unique quality that you can't really measure on a resume. Um, and so that's another thing that, you know, I think sets Founders Seminary on a unique trajectory.
Amen.
>> Well, brother, any additional thoughts before we close?
>> I I would just echo all that. I really appreciate the breakdown of the the positive, neutral, negative world from Aaron Ren and the idea that we're living in a world where it's a negative attribute to be Christian and that we are uniquely training pastors for that.
How to minister well, how to be faithful in this context. And just one final point that uh the education and specifically theological education is more than just transmission of data. You know, it's not like the matrix where you can just plug your head into the thing and I know kung fu. You know, that's that's not how education it's formation.
And one of the reasons we believe that is in 1 Timothy 6:3 where Paul references doctrine conforming to godliness. It's the doctrine that conforms you into the image of Christ.
And as he said, the partnership with the local church, training in the local church is really a key aspect of forming pastors with steel spines, warm hearts, sharp minds, ready to go out into any context.
>> Amen.
>> Yeah. Well, gentlemen, thank you again so much for coming and being on the show today. I really appreciate it and appreciated getting to know you better.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Keith. Thanks for having us.
>> Absolutely. All right, guys. Guys, I want to thank you guys for watching the show today and just remind you that uh if you have questions, you can certainly leave them in the comments or you can go and send the questions to me. Just go to keithfoski.com or you can look there.
You'll also see our phone number that you can call 904-469-0761.
You can leave us a voicemail or text message and we answer all of those questions on our Tuesday night live show every Tuesday night. I want to also remind you that one of the ways that you can support the channel is by hitting the subscribe button and don't forget to hit the thumbs up button if you like this video. And if you didn't, hit the thumbs down button twice. All right, guys. We want to thank you for watching your Calvinist podcast. My name is Keith Fosski and I've been your Calvinist. May God bless you.
Videos Relacionados
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
