“The Error of Teaching That Original Sin Condemns the Entire Human Race” — The Rejection of Errors, Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1) - by KIM RIDDLEBARGER

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Dear reader, you'll need some background information in order to understand the author's article.

The Synod of Dort was a tribunal of sorts assembled in the early 1600s by Calvinists/Reformists to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. His followers were called Arminians. 

The Synod issued condemnation of Arminius' view (known as the Canons), thus affirming the doctrines of Calvin, including Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (TULIP).

The below article explores the issue of "original sin" from the Calvinist perspective, which ties in with "total depravity."

-------------------------------

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

(I) Who teach that, properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

For they contradict the apostle when he says: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death passed on to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12); also: The guilt followed one sin and brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16); likewise: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

____________________________________________

The first error of the Arminians addressed by the Canons under the third and fourth head of doctrine is the teaching that although the human race is fallen in Adam, Adam’s act of rebellion and the resulting “original sin” is not the basis upon which the unbelieving members of the human race will be condemned.

According to the Arminians, Adam’s sinful act plunged the human race into sin and condemnation, but the death of Jesus Christ (they contend) remits the guilt of that original sin. Since people are actually condemned to eternal punishment, however, it is not because of imputed (The author will use this word seven times and never explain it. To impute means to regard something as possessing a quality, status, or attribute it does not actually possess. For example, a US soldier might be regarded as noble and brave because he enlisted. But the soldier might be actually a reprobate and a coward. 

The Bible never uses the word [except the KJV one time in Ro. 4:22}], and it never means "to regard as."

Problematically for the author, if original sin is imputed, it is not a quality we actually possess, we're only regarded as sinful.) 

or inherited guilt from Adam’s sin that such punishment comes about. Having remitted the guilt of Adam’s sin and removed the grounds for God’s just condemnation of the entire human race, it is now left up to the individual sinner to believe in Jesus Christ (as enabled by prevenient grace secured by Jesus Christ) and thus be saved. Should the sinner reject the Savior, they are lost.

Arminians teach that those who are condemned, reject Jesus Christ and are punished for actual sins only, not because of the imputed guilt and inherited corruption resulting from Adam’s act. “Fairness” supposedly dictates that we can only be held responsible for our own acts, not for the actions of another. This denial of the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to all of his descendants sets up a very serious theological precedent, which, as we will see, has grave consequences for the gospel.

That this is the case becomes clear when looking at the efforts of several Arminian theologians in the period preceding the writing of the Canons in dealing with the question of the death of infants, and of those who never hear the gospel. These are two groups who, in the Arminian scheme, escape condemnation on the basis of Adam’s sin. Since neither infants nor those who don’t hear the gospel perish because of the guilt of Adam’s sin, the Arminians find the death of members of either of these categories to be problematic.

Regarding infant death, the Arminians argue that since all infants die without actual sin, they are saved since there is no guilt imputed to them for Adam’ sin. According to Arminius’s defense of his own controversial views: “since infants have not transgressed this covenant (that God made with Adam, Noah and Jesus Christ), they do not seem to be obnoxious to condemnation; unless we maintain . . . that it is the will of God to condemn them for the commission of sin” which they themselves did not commit.

This amounts to the long-standing accusation that it is not fair for God to punish someone for the sins of another—an argument which ultimately boomerangs on the Arminian, since it is on this same basis that Jesus Christ bears the guilt of our sins. (This is the money statement. The presumption that the Father punished Jesus in our place [Penal Substitutionary Atonement, a key Reformist doctrine] is used to impugn the Arminian idea that it is unjust to be punished for someone else's sin. 

But the Father did not punish Jesus for our sins. We discuss this at length here and here.)

Arminius goes on to say, “when Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will, God pardoned that transgression; there is no reason then why it is the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are said to have sinned in Adam.”[1].

There is no question then whether the Arminians do in fact teach what the authors of the Canons accuse them of teaching—that the human race is not condemned because of the guilt of Adam’s sin. This seriously undermines the teaching of Scripture regarding the effects of Adam’s sin upon the human race. (Well, actually, Adam's sin brought death to the human race: 

Ro. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death... 

Adam sinned, and his wages were his own physical death and the death and corruption of all creation, including humans.)

The same kind of argument is offered by Arminius in response to the Reformed accusation that the Arminians teach that God condemns those who do not hear the gospel on the ground of actual sin only, because the guilt of original sin, having been forgiven, cannot be imputed to them. Arminius argues that according to Romans 1-2, all men and women without exception have a knowledge of God upon which they can and must act. Arminius gladly accepts the Pelagian (Pelagius was a theologian in the late 300s to the early 400s. His belief that human choice was involved in salvation was opposed by Augustine, another theologian who was a contemporary, and who invented the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius, therefore, is viewed as a heretic by Reformists/Calvinists.)

dictum with but a slight modification—“God will bestow more grace upon that man who does what is in him by the power of divine grace which is already granted to him, according to the declaration of Christ, `To him that hath shall be given’”[2]

According to Arminius, natural revelation does not serve to condemn–contrary to the apostle Paul, who teaches that it does (Romans 1:18-25). (Let's quote this: 

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is for ever praised. Amen.

Does this say what the author says it says? Well, it's certainly true that the testimony of creation means men are without excuse. But does that bring them condemnation? Paul doesn't tell us this, it is presumed. 

In addition, Paul also wrote that these men suppressed the truth, that they knew God but exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and that they exchanged his glory for idols. Paul was not talking about the sinful state of every man, but rather a very specific group of people, people who already knew God way beyond the level of the testimony of creation. 

But more to the point, Adam's sin brought death and decay. All men are born dead, so "original sin" doesn't really enter the picture. Unless Jesus makes a man born again, he's condemned already [John 3:18]. Sin is what dead men do. Death is the real issue.)

Rather, says Arminius, those who know God from natural revelation do indeed receive a measure of grace. But they must act upon this grace and seek additional grace in order to respond in faith. If not, they will perish in unbelief because they choose not to take avail of God’s prevenient grace–which Arminius connects to general revelation.

This is a synergistic scheme in which salvation results not from a sovereign and gracious act of God in saving the sinner while the sinner is dead in sin, ("Irresistible grace.") but one in which salvation flows from cooperation between the grace of God and the fallen human will. 

At its fundamental point, Arminianism is not a religion of sola gratia, ("Grace alone," a Reformist/Calvinist doctrine. Well of course. Armininism is not Calvinism!)

but is a religion in which humanity and God cooperate in such a way that fallen humans must themselves act to be saved, with God’s help. (Is this the author's characterization, or what Arminians believe?)

In the case of infant death, as well as in the case of the death of those who do not hear the gospel, the Arminians must argue that the ground for any condemnation is actual sin only. ("Must?" The author previously us that Arminians DO argue this.)

According to the Arminians, infants go to heaven then because they cannot sin, and must be regarded as innocent before God. People perish because they do not act upon natural revelation and universal prevenient grace made available to them, not because they are guilty in Adam. If they do not act upon God’s prevenient grace, they will not receive additional grace and will perish. Nevertheless, such people are only punished for their actual sins, especially the supreme sin of rejecting Jesus Christ. (As we noted, the problem is death. Death can only be remediated by new life. So infants and those who have never heard the gospel are not spared as Arminians believe, but neither are they condemned by Adam's sin. They are dead until made alive.)

In this synergistic conception of salvation, God contributes an impersonal but universal prevenient grace, (Prevenient grace is God's unmerited favor and working that precedes human decision to follow Him) 

and then waits for the sinner to take avail of that grace. God responds in turn, by giving the sinner even more grace. In any case, such grace is not seen as effectual as it remains to the sinner to act, and for God to merely respond. (Again, does this accurately convey Arminian doctrine, or is it the author's disapproving characterization?)

But this is not what the Scriptures teach. As the authors of the Canons make plain, in Romans 5:12-19, (Let's quote it: 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Notice the close tie between death and sin. Adam's sin entered the world, and through his sin death came to all men [vs 12], and death reigned until the law came [vs. 14]. Many died because of the one sin [vs. 15], and the judgment of one sin brought condemnation. Because of the trespass of one man's death [vs. 17] and condemnation [vs. 18] reigned through that one man. The result of one's man's sin meant many would be sinners [vs. 19].

Does the reader see it? The problem is death.) 

Paul teaches that through the disobedience of the one man, the many were declared (or regarded as) sinners. (Or "imputed?" But where does Paul tell us this? Neither "declared" nor "regarded as" appear in the text.)

In fact, sin enters the world through Adam’s act, and as a result the entire human race comes under condemnation. (!! The author gets it...)

How can the actions of the one man (Adam), render “all” of humanity to be sinners (...but immediately reverts back.)

unless Adam’s guilt is imputed, or reckoned to all of his descendants. (No, nothing was imputed. there is not a single Bible verse that tells us this. Rather, we all died because of Adam's sin. It's so plain and simple, yet the author badly wants to complicate it.)

Romans 6:23 is also illustrative here, since death is said to be the wage of sin. (We quoted it above: 

Ro. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death... 

Adam sinned, and his wages was death for the human race.)

Death results from human sin, (Adam's sin...)

not finitude or defect, which is, as we will see, the logical conclusion of the Arminian teaching.

In Psalm 51:5 we read these words: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” While the Arminian will agree with the Psalmist’s assertion, they will argue that Christ’s death removes this guilt. The problem with this is that there is not a single text anywhere in Scripture which teaches such a thing! (Interesting that the Psalmist never says he was born guilty.)

In Psalm 58:3, we are told, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” (But what about the innocent, what is their status from the womb?)

Moses tells us in Genesis 6:5 that the reason for the cataclysm known as the “flood,” stems from the fact that “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Was that a condition from the womb? The verse doesn't say... Where is the original sin?)

 If the wickedness of the people’s hearts brought about the flood and judgment, it is clear that we are guilty for the sinful condition, as well as for our own actual sins. (But the verse doesn't say that! It only refers to wicked people without specifying how they came about their wickedness! Where is the original sin?)

The New Testament is equally clear. In Romans 3:9-20 (especially v. 11), the apostle Paul, citing a litany of Old Testament texts, tells us that “no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Again begging the question...)

In Ephesians 2, Paul speaks of the human race as “dead in sins and trespasses,” (Again begging the question...)

and that we are by nature objects of wrath, (Ro. 9:22) 

because we are enslaved to our sinful cravings (Tit. 3:3). 

In Colossians 2:13, Paul speaks of God making us alive in Christ when we were dead in sin (The author stumbles on the truth again...)

and in the uncircumcision of our sinful nature. In John’s gospel, the apostle makes plain that, “no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), and that “no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65). How does that bad tree become a good tree? Does the bad tree will itself into a good tree? How does Lazarus prepare himself for resurrection? Does Lazarus begin unwrapping the bandages and chiseling away at the inside of the tomb! (It's a mystery how this connects to the Father drawing sinners, or original sin for that matter.)

Even from this short survey of biblical passages, it is obvious that the Arminian position has no basis in Scripture. (!!!)

The human race is guilty for Adam’s sin and original guilt is not a figment of the Reformed mind (as Arminius contends) but is the clear teaching of Scripture. (!!!)

But the most obvious refutation of the Arminian view, unfortunately, is the grim fact of infant death. If infants cannot sin—which leads to death—why, then, do infants tragically die? The Arminian must contend that infant death results from human finitude or defect, or from the sins of another against the infant. Yet Scripture clearly teaches that death is a result of sin! (Adam's sin...)

If infants cannot sin, why do infants die? (Because they are born dead due to the corruption of nature caused by Adam's sin.)

Tragically, infants die because of the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to the entirety of the human race, and this point alone, thoroughly and utterly refutes the Arminian notion that the human race is not under universal condemnation for Adam’s sin.

[1] James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986,) II.11.

[2] Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, II.16.