016. Chapter 14: Original and Actual Sin
------------ CHAPTER FOURTEEN ------------ Original and Actual Sin
Sin Defined
Having broken the covenant, Adam did not only become sinful himself, but also all his descendants with him. We understand the word “sin” here to refer neither to the punishment of sin nor to the sacrifice for sin (even though these are occasionally denominated as sin), but to that which both in essence and in deed is contrary to God’s good pleasure. Scripture refers to this as: revolt, iniquity, wickedness, disobedience, unrighteousness, transgression, treachery, rebellion, etc. Each particular sin has its own particular name.
Sin is not something that has essence and exists independently. Whatever has essence has been created by God and as such is good. Furthermore, the essence of man’s personhood was not changed due to sin. Sin, however, has polluted and corrupted the essential, moral character of the faculties of the soul. The essential nature of sin also does not consist of the voluntary and immediate acquiescence of the will, as if sin were absent as long as there is no immediate acquiescence of the will -- an idea which has been construed to deny original sin:
(1) Lot was guilty of incest, and Paul blasphemed Christ and persecuted the congregations. They, however, did so without their wills acquiescing in the commission of incest and blasphemy, since they did it ignorantly.
(2) The sin of covetousness (Romans 7:7), prohibited in the tenth commandment, is already present in the soul prior to the will’s acquiescence.
(3) In fact, all sins which are committed ignorantly (which are many) are committed without the will’s acquiescence, for the will in the act of acquiescence responds to the application of man’s judgment. In tracing back this voluntary acquiescence to its origin, however, we conclude that man’s nature and will are not opposed to sin, but rather are favorably disposed towards it. This is already true from the very first moment of man’s existence, as yet having neither acquaintance with sin nor any real inclinations towards the same. The essence of sin also does not consist in guilt, that is, to be worthy of punishment, for guilt is a consequence of sin and as such can be removed, while sin remains. This occurs by virtue of the atonement of Christ for the sins of believers.
Sin also does not merely consist of actions, but is also inclusive of the propensity toward sin and a deviant disposition; that is, not having the faculties which ought to be present but instead having a disposition which ought not to be there. The essence of sin consists in anomia -- lawlessness, unruliness, and unrighteousness, “... sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). In relation to this a distinction must be made between man’s sinful nature and his sinful acts relative to the law. In this respect a distinction is made between inherited and actual sin. Inherited sin is that sin which, by way of inheritance, has been transmitted from Adam to his descendants, having come forth from him by natural generation. Christ is the exception here, who came forth from Adam, but not in the way of natural generation. Inherited sin is also referred to as original sin, having its origin in Adam; it is in man from the moment of conception and origin. The other type of sin is called actual sin, since it is committed either in thoughts, words, or deeds.
Original Sin
Original sin consists of imputed guilt and inherent pollution. We do not understand imputed guilt to mean that man, due to his inherited corruption, must be viewed as being in the same condition as Adam; that is, as if he in actuality had committed the same deed which Adam had committed. This would not be the imputation of someone else’s crime, but rather of one’s own. This would be nothing more than a comparison between specific sins of specific people, and a comparison between sins as far as guilt and punishment are concerned. Then our sinfulness could just as well be measured against the sins of others, instead of against Adam’s sin. Rather, by imputed guilt we understand the imputation of the original breach of the covenant itself, as was committed by Adam. By denying or distorting this truth the foundation is laid also to deny the pollution of sin as inherited from Adam, and thus of all original sin. This in turn leads to the denial of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
Imputation occurs because of a personal crime, whereby he who personally commits a sin by virtue of the deed righteously makes himself worthy of punishment commensurate therewith; or, this imputation occurs because of the crime of another person with whom one exists in a relationship, and thus by virtue of this relationship participates in the same sin. The sin of someone with whom we have no relationship whatsoever can also not righteously be imputed. The relationship with someone else can exist in three different aspects. (1) There can be a natural relationship, such as between a father and his children. (2) There can be a civil relationship, such as between a government and its subjects. (3) There can be a voluntary relationship, such as is established by a contract or mutual agreement between a creditor, debtor, and guarantor. The latter relationship is not applicable here. The second relationship, that is, the civil relationship, when viewed per definition, is also not applicable here. It is true that Adam, by divine ordinance, without any necessity that descendants designate him as such, was the head of the human race. However, to say that Adam in sinning brought eternal condemnation upon his descendants solely on the basis of being head of the human race, places us before a dilemma, since Adam, also after the fall, remained the head of the human race. Consequently, in addition to the first covenant breach, all sins which Adam committed after the fall should then for the same reason also be imputed to his descendants. The apostle denies this when he speaks of one offense in Romans 5:18. This leaves us with only the first type of relationship, that is, the natural relationship. This relationship, when considered in and of itself, is also not applicable to this situation. It is true that all men have come forth from Adam, who as it were was the trunk from which the human race has proceeded. With Adam, all are partakers of the same nature. To maintain, however, that Adam’s sin is imputed to us solely because we are partakers of Adam’s nature presents us with the same difficulty. Since Adam is the father of all men both prior to and after the fall, and all are therefore partakers of the same nature, then by the same argument all Adam’s sins which he has committed after the fall would have an equal effect upon man as the original breach of covenant. This would be contrary to Romans 5:18. Then why wouldn’t all the sins of our ancestors subsequent to Adam be imputed to us, since we were also in their loins, they also being our ancestors as well as Adam? Here it holds true, however, that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20).
The Imputation of Adam’s Sin due to Our Covenant Relationship to Him The relationship with Adam consists in this, that the human nature of the human race, at that moment solely existing in Adam, was created as being in the covenant of works. Adam did not enter into the covenant of works subsequent to his creation, but was created in this covenant, being in this covenant from the very first moment of his existence. At the very moment that he formulated his first thought, he was conscious of God and the covenant, and could not but approve of this covenant. Therefore, the human nature in its totality, as well as the entire human race in Adam, were created in that covenant. For this reason all men are still born within this covenant of works discussed above. Upon Adam’s breach of covenant, the human nature in its totality, that is the entire human race, broke the covenant. It is therefore righteous that this nature of the human race is rendered guilty, and that every human being, every person, by virtue of having this same nature, has the covenant breach imputed to him, and is deemed worthy of condemnation. From this it is clear that only Adam’s breach of covenant and not his subsequent sins are imputed to his descendants. This is not merely because they are partakers of the same nature but because they were created in the covenant of works in Adam and have broken it in him.
Question: Is Adam’s deed, that is, the original breach of covenant, imputed to the entire human race, and thus to every human being which has naturally proceeded from him, so that they are considered guilty of the covenant breach?
Socinians and Anabaptists deny this. They maintain that Adam’s sin only affected him and not his descendants. Arminians also lean in that direction. We maintain, however, that this is certainly and irrefutably true. The righteous imputation of the covenant breach to all men is evident from the following: First, it is confirmed in Romans 5:12
Proof #1: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).
(1) We do not read that all men are sinful, but that all men have sinned. The reference is not to propensity, but to the commission of an act. This text therefore can not be applicable to the corruption of the human nature, nor that man by means of his corruption would be subjected to the same punishment. Since the reference here is to a deed, that which follows also refers to this one deed (or offense).
(2) It is clearly stated here that sin is the cause of death, also of corporal death, and it is therefore not true that death is the result of man’s sinful nature, even if no sinful act had been committed (cf. chapter 10).
(3) It is thus evident that little children prior to birth also must be guilty of sin, for they die. According to verse 14 they are not guilty of actual sin. They are therefore guilty of a sin which has been imputed to them, and no other sin is imputed to them than Adam’s covenant breach.
(4) All men have sinned “in him,” eph hoi. These little words can have numerous meanings, depending upon the manner in which they are used. In a context such as this, they mean “in him.” Consider the following examples: ep autois -- ”and in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias” (Matthew 13:14); ef hoi -- ”the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay” (Mark 2:4); epi toi onomati -- ”in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38); epi bromasi -- ”in meats and drinks” (Hebrews 9:10); epi nekrois -- ”For a testament is of force after [Note: The Statenvertaling translates this as “in de dooden,” i.e., “in dead men”.] men are dead” (Hebrews 9:17). Such is also the case here, that is, men having sinned in him. All men were comprehended in Adam in the covenant, and therefore when he sinned, all men sinned in him in consequence of being in him.
Some might ask why these words ef hoi could not be translated as “therefore,” or as “because,” since they are translated as such in other texts. My reply is: The reference is here to the antecedent noun “man,” which is a masculine word. The relative pronoun hoi, refers to this, and therefore it may not be used in the neuter (such as “that,” “because,” “therefore”), but rather in the masculine gender, in him, that is, in a man (a human being). It is also evident that these words, “for that all have sinned,” are part of Paul’s argument, namely, that by virtue of Adam’s sin, death has come upon all men. It cannot be Paul’s argument here that death, due to Adam’s sin, has come upon all men because all men have personally sinned. This would merely prove that every man must die because he has sinned, which is not the argument of the apostle. Rather, the apostle argues that all men die by virtue of Adam’s sin. If men die due to Adam’s sin, however, there must be participation in Adam’s sin as well as in his punishment. The apostle establishes the fact that all men are partakers of Adam’s sin by these words, “for that all have sinned.” The apostle first of all asserts participation in Adam’s punishment, and then gives the reason for this: participation in his sin. All men die in Adam, and therefore all have sinned in him. Since no one has personally committed Adam’s sin, however, there is therefore an imputation of Adam’s sin by virtue of being comprehended in the covenant in him.
Proof #2: The imputation of Adam’s covenant breach is also confirmed: “For if through the offence of one many be dead” (Romans 5:18); “For the judgment was by one to condemnation” (Romans 5:18); “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one” (Romans 5:18); “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Romans 5:18). It is clear that the reference is here to one single sin, and thus to a deed rather than a propensity, and that sin was committed by only one man. By that one sin committed by one man, that is, Adam, judgment to condemnation has come upon all men. Since these are the very words of the text, this point needs no further proof. In what manner does all this transpire?
(1) Not by imitation, for no one witnessed Adam’s sin, for according to Romans 5:14 small children, who are also “men,” had not sinned after the similitude of Adam. Imitation does not render anyone guilty of the sin of the person he is imitating. He is guilty of his own personal sin, which he commits by way of imitation.
(2) “Judgment to condemnation” is also not the result of natural corruption, which we receive from Adam for the same reason. This corruption does not render one guilty of the commission of Adam’s sin, from which this corruption arises. Rather, one incurs guilt by virtue of personal corruption.
(3) “Judgment to condemnation” is also not due to the actual and personal activity in conspiracy with Adam. We did not then exist as yet and it would also not have been the one offense of one, but the offenses of many.
(4) Judgment to condemnation upon all men is rather due to the one offense of the one Adam by way of imputation, since they were created in the covenant in Adam.
Proof #3: It is clear beyond all controversy that in this chapter the apostle continually contrasts Adam to Christ. Adam is the cause of judgment to condemnation for all who are in him. Christ is the cause of redemption and salvation for all who are in Him. Since justification through Christ occurs by imputation (which we will prove at the appropriate moment), therefore, by virtue of the contrast, judgment to condemnation comes upon all men by imputation of Adam’s breach of covenant.
Secondly, the imputation of guilt is also confirmed by 1 Corinthians 15:22, where we read, “For as in Adam all die ...” It is not merely stated here that all men die. We also do not read that they die in their fathers or grandfathers, but only that all die in Adam. To die “in someone” means to be a partaker of the judgment resulting in the death and condemnation of this individual. If all men die, all have also sinned, “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Furthermore, if all men die in Adam, they have also all sinned in him. Since they are punished, they must necessarily have sinned. If all men are justly subject to the threatened punishment -- that is, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” -- they are also truly guilty of the same sin upon which the punishment was threatened. Since it is evident that all men are subject to the threatened punishment and not only die, but are also all subject to all the miseries due to the breach of covenant as enumerated in Genesis 3:1-24, all men are guilty of that sin. It is true that no one, neither by imitation, nor due to having inherited his corruption, has committed this sin personally along with Adam. In this manner no one can be said to sin or to die in someone. It thus remains certain that since all men die in Adam, they have sinned in him by way of imputation.
Thirdly, if all men were not guilty of Adam’s breach of covenant, sin thus not being righteously imputed to them, each man would necessarily enter this world as perfectly as Adam did, that is, adorned with the image of God. Such would have to be the case since God creates the soul immediately, and in creating an innocent rational creature, does so in harmony with His holy nature. What relationship would then exist between Adam and subsequent human beings, since every one would be on his own? All men would then have a perfect existence as Adam had, and thus every man would be able to remain in this state of perfection. What reason would there be that many could not continue in this state of perfection? How can it be explained that all men, without exception, are in the same sinful state? Their corruption could not be derived from Adam if they had not sinned in him, for how else could they derive their corruption from him? It does not emanate from the body, for when viewed strictly in a physical sense, it is not subject to sin; otherwise the Lord Jesus could not have been formed in a holy fashion from the seed of the woman. This corruption also does not proceed from the soul, for the soul is created by God, and if there were no guilt, men would enter this world in a holy state, adorned with the image of God. Where then, I ask, does sin originate? Since man, however, is corrupt in his very nature and enters this world in a sinful condition, it is certain that he is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam.
Fourthly, add to this that the sins of the fathers’ nearest of kin would be visited upon the children, and they would be punished for their fathers’ sins. “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me” (Exodus 20:5); “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:35). This is also confirmed by the examples of Achan (Joshua 7:24-25); Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:9-10); Ahab (1 Kings 21:21); and Manasseh (2 Kings 24:3). This is also confirmed by a proof to the contrary when Levi, who was still in the loins of his father Abraham, paid tithes. It is true that the children themselves were sinful, and thus worthy of all manner of punishments. It is recorded here, however, that they were punished with temporal punishments for the sins of their forefathers. This is much more true then for all men, who, being in the loins of Adam, were comprehended in the covenant of works in him.
Objection #1: It is contrary to God’s will that earthly judges should punish the son for the crime of the father. God even declares that He Himself does not do so. “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16); “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20). Thus, the sin of Adam cannot be imputed to his descendants.
Answer: Deuteronomy 24:16 is a law which God has given to man. From this we may not draw a conclusion as far as divine justice is concerned. The text refers to violations of the law and not to a breach of covenant. The one is not a necessary consequence of the other. The text refers to the sins of specific individuals. Adam, however, was the head of the covenant which was established in him with the entire human race. This sin was the sin of the entire human race, for outside of Adam and Eve there were no other human beings. The entire human race was comprehended in Adam, and thus that same human race bears the punishment of their own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 also speaks of specific sins of specific people, and is therefore not applicable to Adam and his descendants who are in covenant relationship with him. The text refers to adult children who do not follow the footsteps of their parents. God convinced them that they themselves were committing these sins, and thus would be punished for their own sins with the same manner of punishment. It is incontrovertible that God punishes children for the sins of their parents, as is to be observed in the flood, in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the children of Eli. God very expressly states the following about Himself: “... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5).
Having considered original sin as far as the imputation of guilt is concerned, we will now proceed to consider the inherited corruption. The Corruption of Sin as it Relates to the Absence of God’s Image
Inherited corruption consists in the absence of the image of God and in a propensity towards sin. Let us first of all consider the absence of the image of God. Man is without the image of God, not merely by way of denial, nor due to a lack of original righteousness, but due to being deprived of something which presupposes the prior possession of a propensity to the contrary. All men, having sinned in Adam, are robbed of the image of God, so that every man is born void of spiritual light, love, truth, life, and holiness.
All glory and holiness are absent in man. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (Romans 7:18); “... dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1); “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God” (Ephesians 4:18).
Secondly, this is confirmed by the fact that the image of God is restored in regeneration. Whatever is restored was once lost, and whatever is given was not previously in possession. “And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Colossians 3:10); “And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:23-24). This inherited corruption also consists in a propensity towards sin. Original sin does not only consist in the absence of original righteousness, but also in the possession of a propensity to the contrary. As an illness does not merely consist of the absence of health and good circulation of blood, but also in having an indisposition of character and mobility, such is also the case in the realm of the spiritual. In view of this, original sin is called the old man (Romans 6:6), flesh (John 3:6), sin (Romans 7:23), the law of sin (Romans 7:23), covetousness (Romans 7:7), lust (Galatians 5:17), uncleanness (Colossians 3:5), filthiness (James 1:21), and filthiness of the flesh and spirit (2 Corinthians 7:1). This original sin, found in all men who have proceeded naturally from Adam, is present from the moment of their conception. There are no exceptions -- not even Mary. Even though God’s children are born again, they are not regenerated to perfection in this life, but much corruption still remains within them.
Question: Do all men, by virtue of Adam’s fall, have a propensity towards sin and a corrupt nature from the moment of their conception and birth, entering this world in a sinful condition?
Answer: Socinians and Anabaptists deny this entirely. Even if they are convinced by corruption manifesting itself in small children before they can learn by imitation of an evil example, they resolve this by saying that something is evidently present, but refuse to acknowledge this “something” to be sin. Arminians minimize original sin and lean towards denial. We, however, wholeheartedly answer this question in the affirmative. That all men from the moment of their conception are in a state of degeneracy and corruption is evident: First, from clear passages of Scripture which express this truth in a variety of ways.
(1) “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalms 51:5). There is no evidence that David here referred to the sin of his mother. This is equally clear in both the original text and in our translation. David was referring to himself: “I was.” He humbled himself before God about the commission of his sin. However, in order to view the nature and magnitude of this sin and be humbled even more by it, he focused on the origin of this deed, confessing that his sin was not an incidental act, but that it proceeded from the wicked condition of his heart. He confessed to having this wicked condition already from the first moment of his conception, and thus was naturally inclined towards this sin. He acknowledged that from this evil condition nothing but pollution could come forth, and he was thus abominable in nature and in deeds. He was a man as all other men, and all other men are as he. Together they have the same origin, and therefore are in the same sinful condition. Each person must therefore say the same about himself.
(2) Add to this such texts in which it is demonstrated that it is impossible to enter this world in any other condition but a sinful one. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one” (Job 14:4); “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). Adam was sinful, and therefore could not do otherwise than bring forth a son in his own likeness rather than in the likeness of God (Genesis 5:3). All men are sinful, and no cause is capable of generating something which is superior to itself. Consequently, a sinner will bring forth a sinner: “neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18).
(3) This is also confirmed by those texts which declare that man from his earliest childhood is nothing but evil in thoughts and deeds. “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5); “For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Such evil thoughts are very clear evidence that the fountain is corrupt (James 3:11).
(4) This is also confirmed by the apostle: “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Ephesians 2:3). There we see that all men are children of wrath, being so by nature. They are therefore not children of wrath only due to their sinful deeds, but are already the objects of wrath prior to that. Man’s nature, as soon as it comes into existence, is the object of and the reason for divine wrath. Since they have this nature, they are children of wrath. However, no one is an object of God’s wrath but by virtue of sin. Man is therefore by nature sinful, guilty in Adam, and has in himself a propensity towards evil.
Secondly, experience teaches that man by nature is corrupt. One can detect crossness and anger in children when they cannot have their way even prior to the use of their intellect. They also manifest vindictiveness before they can understand language, and before they can be taught even what it is. Children are pleased when others are scolded or receive corporal punishment -- yes, they will even show delight by laughter. When it is admitted -- since this cannot be denied -- that something like this does exist, I respond that this is sin (Romans 7:7-8). They are rational creatures and are subject to a law, and this law forbids wrath and vindictiveness. Moreover, if a child were to be educated without seeing any evil example, yes even if such were done by a holy person in a desert, this child would spontaneously commit every kind of sin, as experience will verify.
Thirdly, it is a known fact that children die even prior to their birth. However, death is a judgment upon sin, as is confirmed in Romans 5:12 and has been demonstrated above. It is therefore a certainty that they are sinful.
Fourthly, it is also confirmed by the fact that children are in need of Christ, for without Christ there is no salvation. All who are in need of a Redeemer are of necessity sinful, and this is therefore also true for children. Circumcision was a clear proof of this, for this sealed the putting off of the body of sin (Colossians 2:11). This is also confirmed by the necessity of the new birth, for if all were well at the first birth, there would be no need for a second birth. This second birth, however, is a necessity if one is to be saved (John 3:5).
Objection #1: All sin must necessarily be committed consciously and with the acquiescence of man’s free will. Original sin is not committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. It can therefore not be considered a sin.
Answer: It is not true that all sin is committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. Not only is this idea extra-biblical but it is also contrary to Scripture. It is one thing to do something against one’s will and another to sin without the conscious acquiescence of the will; and indeed, the first sin was committed with the full acquiescence of the human nature.
Objection #2: It is written in 1 Corinthians 7:14, “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Children are therefore without original sin.
Answer: This text expressly declares all children to be unclean, and thus as having original sin. It also states, however, that children of members of the covenant are holy. This holiness is not the holiness of God’s image, but consists in being separated from other children, and in being incorporated in the church and the covenant of grace, so that they must be viewed as true members of the covenant until the contrary manifests itself. [Note: To understand this statement correctly it is advisable to read à Brakel’s treatment of infant baptism in chapter 39. [Vol. 2, p. 487]] In Ezekiel 16:21 they are called, “My children.”
Objection #3: Children are harmless and cannot discern between their right and left hand (Jonah 4:11). They are innocent (Psalms 106:38), and have done neither good nor evil (Romans 9:11). The man who was born blind, was blind neither because of his sins nor the sins of his parents (John 9:3).
Answer: These texts refer to sinful deeds and not to the sinful nature which already begins to manifest itself from the very outset. Neither the man born blind nor his parents were without sin, nor were they perfectly holy. It was not the Lord Jesus’ intent to infer this, but He wished to state that they were neither greater sinners than others, nor that it was for that reason he was born blind. The Transmission of Original Sin from Adam to His Descendants
We have thus considered original sin relative to its imputed guilt as well as its inherited corruption. This surfaces the following question: How is original sin transmitted from Adam to his descendants? The manner in which guilt is imputed we have already demonstrated earlier so that the only question remaining is to show how man’s natural corruption is inherited. One could be of the opinion that this cannot occur via the body, since it is not the actual object of sin. It also cannot occur via the soul, which, having been created by God, is good. It can also not occur via both body and soul, and thus not by generation. Since the soul is not generated, and since whatever is not true for either part can also not be true for the whole, it could not have come forth in this manner. My answer is: First, why do we need to know how sin is transmitted, since Scripture and experience confirm so clearly that such is the case? A fool can ask more questions than many wise men are able to answer. Tell me then how the body is formed with all its component parts; how the soul is united with the body; how by generating sound with the tongue one can cause someone else to understand abstract concepts; and how high and low tides return at a set time? You will reply that you do not know this, and that you cannot comprehend the “why” and “how.” Who would be so foolish to deny something which he can visibly confirm, simply because he cannot understand it? Such is also the case with original sin.
Secondly, it is certain that God neither is nor can be the author of sin. It is also certain that souls are not reproduced, but are created by God.
Thirdly, the obscurity of this matter is often the result of separating the generation of soul and body too much, as if God created a soul apart from the body, causing it to exist externally to the body for some time, and then uniting it with the body subsequent to this. God, by virtue of His cooperative providence, being the energizing cause of man’s generation, forms the soul in union with the body so that it does not exist for one moment apart from the body. From the very first moment of the soul’s existence, a man exists -- a man who is guilty of the covenant breach in Adam. From this it is clear how the imputation of guilt is transmitted to descendants.
Fourthly, the soul, being formed during the generative process in union with the body, has the essence of a soul and thus is very good and without sin. However, the soul, coming into existence in union with the body and from that first moment forming a human being, is not more noble than the souls of the generating parents and thus is without the image of God. God was not obligated to restore this image to the soul after man had cast it away. It is therefore written in Genesis 5:3, “And Adam ... begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” and thus not after the image of God.
Fifthly, man now being guilty of the covenant breach, not having the image of God according to his soul, and the body (which influences the soul and is united to the same) by generation having an evil state of mind, is in a state of separation from God. As such, man is subject to inner emptiness, and being dissatisfied with himself, is unfulfilled, miserable, craves for something, is restless, and lacks purpose in his activities. He is desirous, but not after God, for he has separated himself from Him; his desires are without restriction, focusing on whatever may appear to be desirable. Such a condition cannot but spawn a variety of lusts as man grows and develops. These lusts in turn spawn self-love, sorrow, wrath, hatred, and envy, which focus on a variety of wrong objects without restraints. Thus one human being generates another human being of like passions, and one sinner another sinner; in like manner the sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants.
Actual Sin
Original sin produces all kinds of actual sins. This is confirmed in James 1:14-15, where we read, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin.” Since lust draws away, entices, and brings forth sin, it is sin itself. That which is not sin cannot generate sin. The apostle also expressly denominates covetousness as sin (Romans 7:7). When covetousness is said to bring forth sin, this refers to actual sins.
Actual sin is unrighteousness or a deviation from God’s law by an internal or external act of omission or commission. Relative to this sin a variety of distinctions are made.
First, there are sins against the first table of the law, requiring love towards God, and against the second table of the law, requiring love towards our neighbor.
Secondly, there are sins of omission and commission. A sin of omission is committed whenever one does not perform that which is commanded. Although many neither give heed to this nor are disturbed hereby, it is a great sin, for it proceeds from unwillingness and lovelessness in relation to the will of God. The apostle denominates both omission and commission as sin. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). It is noteworthy that only sins of omission are recorded as causes for damnation in Matthew 25:42-43. A sin of commission is committed when one does that which is forbidden, or whenever one performs that which is good in and of itself in an evil manner or with an ulterior motive. “He that committeth sin is of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
Thirdly, there are sins which are committed:
(1) in thoughts, which are not concealed from the all-seeing eye of God, and are hated by Him: “An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Proverbs 6:18);
(2) in words, “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36);
(3) in deeds, “Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23);
(4) in gestures made with eyes, face, hands and feet, “A naughty person, a wicked man ... winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers” (Proverbs 6:12-13).
Sins committed in thoughts are the most numerous; however, those committed in deed excel in magnitude, since they occur in conjunction with the thoughts, doubling the magnitude of the sin. They are committed with more premeditation and are injurious to others.
Fourthly, there are sins which are committed presumptuously, and those which are committed ignorantly. “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will ... shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not ... shall be beaten with few stripes (Luke 12:47-48).” In a certain respect all sins can be said to be committed in ignorance, since no one -- unless he is a devil -- commits sin with the perception of it being sin, but does so under a pretense of necessity, honesty, advantage, and delight. By ignorance we understand here that darkness in and carelessness of the sinner by which no attention is paid to whether his actions are sinful or not -- that inattentiveness which fails to reckon with God and gives no heed to his actions. This is the reason that there is neither acknowledgement nor remorse concerning the committed sin. However, ignorance does not provide one with an excuse. He should have had knowledge concerning the matter, and in many instances he could have been knowledgeable about a particular sin, but with ignorant passion, yielded to his lust. “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Psalms 19:12); “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8). “... because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Timothy 1:13) -- otherwise it would have been the sin against the Holy Ghost. Such is true for all heresies.
There are degrees of wickedness relative to sins which are committed consciously, this being contingent upon the measure by which the light of either nature or Scripture illuminates the sinner. The most grievous of sins is committed when God immediately reveals His presence and omniscience, thereby discouraging and warning the sinner who is inclined to sin, and when, in spite of this, he proceeds with the commission of this sin.
Fifthly, there are secret sins which one commits either alone or in the presence of a few. There are other sins which are committed publicly, that is, in the presence of many. “For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun” (2 Samuel 12:12).
Sin’s Dominion over the Ungodly
Sixthly, there are sins which have dominion over a man, and sins which are committed due to weakness. Only the unconverted are under the dominion of sin.
Sin, first of all, has dominion whenever there is no union with Christ by faith. When one is without Christ, he is without God (Ephesians 2:12), dead in trespasses and sins (vs. 1).
Secondly, sin has dominion when there is not that internal resistance of the heart towards sin resulting from union with God in Christ -- and thus not proceeding from true faith, love, fear, and obedience; and thus in turn not from the Spirit. “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body” (Romans 8:13). Natural man can be controlled and be resistant towards the commission of a specific sin as the result of the illumination of the conscience, and also due to a love for natural virtue. This virtue is truly desirable to someone who sees but a glimmer of it, although he neither perceives the spiritual dimension nor the required spiritual parameters. This love for natural virtue may also be due to fear of punishment, fear for shame and disgrace, or upbringing and habit. All of this can result in a virtuous life in the natural sense of the word. Those who know of no other virtue but this, consider it to be godliness. Hence proceeds the illusion that one is capable of converting himself. However, a heartfelt resistance towards sin, proceeding from the mentioned union and advancement in this area, which would restrain them from the commission of sin, is not to be found in them. They are then not motivated to be virtuous, and therefore all is of no value, and they are thus under the dominion of sin.
Thirdly, sin has dominion when the heart fully and willingly acquiesces to a life without God and Christ, being ignorant thereof and not desirous for nor seeking this union. It is satisfied without this union, and thus is united to the world and sin. All life outside of God and Christ, which from a natural perspective may appear to be as civil and religious as one could imagine, is purely sin. From such a frame proceeds lust, love, desire, and sinful meditation -- the measure thereof being dependent upon one’s state of mind, inclination, habit, and opportunity. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh” (Romans 8:5); “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).
Fourthly, sin has dominion when there is an outpouring of sinful lusts, a succession of sinful deeds, and a complete and voluntary yielding to one’s lusts as far as possible, and when one is not hindered even by the natural motives mentioned above. Peter refers to this as “the same excess of riot” (1 Peter 4:4). Consider also the following texts: “Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Ephesians 4:19); “Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope” (Isaiah 5:18); “And they ... sold themselves to do evil” (2 Kings 17:17). This is referred to as being “servants of sin,” and to yield “your members servants to uncleanness” (Romans 6:20
Fifthly, sin has dominion when there is immediate inner resistance towards those who are genuinely godly, who give evidence that they neither belong to this world nor are under the dominion of sin, but who are united with God in Christ and walk in the light. Natural men do find delight in natural virtue, this being consistent with their own nature. Even if one corpse appears to be more attractive than the other, death remains death. When, however, the regenerate not only lead a virtuous life, but in their speech reveal their light -- it being the basis for and the essential nature of their virtue, as well as their excellency above others -- then the heart is at once repulsed by this and there will be hatred towards this first and foremost by temporal believers, and in those who lead a civil life. Scripture states this plainly, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (John 3:20); “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19). This hatred and heartfelt opposition is clear evidence of the dominion of sin, for it uncovers a contradiction as that which exists between light and darkness, and between life and death. By way of the five matters we have presented, the unconverted can examine themselves and be convicted of their unconverted state. They may also serve to the discovery of the converted in order that sin may not have dominion over them.
Sin Has no Dominion over the Godly The converted detect much of the old Adam within themselves. They observe how they frequently fall -- indeed, even continue in sin, being captured and captivated by sin. By this their faith easily falters, fearing that sin still has dominion over them. In order that they may know that sin has no dominion over them, but that it merely battles them as an enemy, we will further demonstrate when sin does not have dominion.
(1) Sin has no dominion when there is a union with Christ by faith, be it that this union manifests itself more clearly, strongly, and sensibly; or that it primarily manifests itself in activity to be reconciled with God in Christ consisting in desires, prayers, embracing, believing reception, and wrestlings, so that the soul cannot be at peace apart from the sensible enjoyment of this reconciliation and union, even if it cannot attain to the sensible assurance of this union. Since truth, love, and spiritual exercise manifest themselves, however, the essence of this union exists. Christ is the life of the soul (Colossians 3:4). Being thus united to life itself, death has no dominion, but rather life, as feeble as it may be.
(2) Sin has no dominion when this union results in lively, spiritual exercises. All exercises which do not proceed from this union are deemed of no value by a converted person. All his efforts are focused on living by virtue of this union, be it in the enjoyment of this union, or in seeking after and focusing upon this union. Such a person desires to do everything out of God, through God, for God, before God, and unto God. They are only refreshed when all their deeds “are wrought in God” (John 3:21). This union cannot be passive, for faith “worketh by love” (Galatians 5:6), purifies the heart (Acts 15:9), “overcometh the world” (1 John 5:4), resists the devil (1 Peter 5:9), and is fruitful unto good works (James 2:17). The issue here is not the measure of faith, but its genuineness.
(3) Sin has no dominion when this union brings forth internal opposition and hatred towards all that is sin (by virtue of its very nature) whether it be great or small. This attitude does not only pertain to that which is external, but especially concerns itself with what they perceive in their own heart. As a result of this they abhor themselves more than anyone else. “For that which I do I allow not. ... If then I do that which I would not ... it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:15-17); “I hate vain thoughts ... I hate every false way” (Psalms 119:113
(4) Sin has no dominion when, due to said union, internal resistance and hatred towards sin translates into actual opposition and strife against sin. Time and again there is a new resolve to do battle against sin; there is prayer for strength, and, desiring to be strengthened, there is a receiving of Jesus by faith unto sanctification. The godly fear that sin may take them by surprise and thus they seek to be watchful. They seek to avoid opportunity to sin, resisting it when it does occur. At times there is victory and at other times they will be overcome by one particular sin. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Galatians 5:17). It cannot therefore be denied that where there is a battle against sin, sin has no dominion.
(5) Sin has no dominion when this union results in a delight, a love for, and a desire to do whatever pleases the Lord. This opposition towards sin is all-inclusive, no sin being excluded. Similarly, the acquiescence with the will of God is also all-inclusive. “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Romans 7:22); “O how love I Thy law!” (Psalms 119:97). Yes, not only is there a love for and acquiescence with the will of God, but also a love for all those whom one deems to be loved of God and who love God. They are repulsed by and displeased with those that belong to the world, since at heart they are separated from the world. “In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4); “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (1 John 3:14).
Consider all these evidences together and compare them with those which are evidences of the dominion of sin. If someone comes to the conclusion that the evidences of being under the dominion of sin are not present, but perceives those evidences to the contrary, be it not in the measure which he would desire, he can be assured that sin has no dominion over him. Such a person should rejoice and not permit his faith to falter due to the power of internal corruption which still remains. Rather, he will persevere in that inner life -- however feeble it may be -- with sincerity and cheerfulness in order that he might increase in sanctification. The Unpardonable Sin: The Sin Against the Holy Ghost
There are pardonable and unpardonable sins. Some sins are called pardonable, but not because their nature is such that they neither merit punishment nor can be forgiven without complete satisfaction. Such a sin does not exist, however seemingly insignificant it may be. Even though sins differ in degree and merit punishment commensurate with this degree, the least sin is worthy of eternal damnation. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23); “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10); “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Galatians 3:10). They are called “pardonable” simply because they are forgiven to all who believe and repent.
Unpardonable are all the sins of those who have lived in sin and die in it. For them there is no ransom, and thus eternally no forgiveness. Such sins are unpardonable in view of the ultimate outcome. In addition to these sins, however, there is one unpardonable sin, called the sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31). The sin against the Holy Ghost is spoken of in Matthew 12:31, where we read, “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:29-30); “There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he (someone other than the person who has committed it) shall pray for it” (1 John 5:16). Thus a godly person, in praying for others, ought not to pray for a sin unto death, (that is, if he knows that someone has committed such a sin). This can be none other than the sin against the Holy Ghost, even though it is not identified as such in the last text. The sin against the Holy Ghost is not so much against the Spirit’s Person, but against His operation; that is, His illuminating, sanctifying, and comforting work in God’s children, as well as His mighty operation in the occurrence of miracles, by which true doctrine and personal convictions are confirmed. This sin does not consist in lack of repentance, as every sinner who dies in sin did not repent of even one sin. It also cannot be said that there should be no prayer for such a sinner, since there is no prior knowledge whether such a common sinner shall repent or not. From 1 John 5:16 it is evident that this sin was not only committed during the time of Christ, but also afterwards. This sin consists in a complete rejection of confessed truth and in hatred and opposition towards the truth and godliness, all proceeding purely from bitter enmity. A truly converted person can never commit this sin, since he is kept by the power of God unto salvation (1 Peter 1:5), and it is impossible for the elect to be deceived (Matthew 24:24), the foundation of God being sure (2 Timothy 2:19).
It is also not a sin commonly committed by the unconverted, but is of an extraordinary nature and thus infrequently committed. We nevertheless believe that some take a step or two in the direction of that sin, even if not perceived by others. It is believed to be most frequently committed where the power of the Holy Ghost in the conversion of sinners manifests itself the most. In order to understand the very nature of this sin, take notice of the following propositions.
First, there is clear knowledge and conviction in such a sinner that what he opposes was of God and was the truth. I do not dare to maintain that for the commission of such a sin there needs to be a clear and powerful conviction of the heart concerning all points of true religion. Neither do we maintain that such a sinner is a professor of this truth and a member of the church. I do maintain that at least there must be a knowledge and conviction of the heart that the doctrine and life, as well as the religion of those with whom he has fellowship, is according to truth and godliness, and thus from God. As far as we know, the Pharisees and scribes who committed this sin never were disciples of Christ. They also did not know that Christ was truly the Messiah (1 Corinthians 2:8). It is also not certain whether they had a proper knowledge of the divine persons. The Holy Spirit, however, had convinced them that Christ’s doctrine, life, and miracles were from God and performed by God. Christ was acknowledged to be “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke 24:19). Pilate himself “knew that the chief priests had delivered Him for envy” (Mark 15:10).
Secondly, such a sinner becomes filled with wrath and hatred against those in whom God’s Spirit works mightily by granting them illumination, joy, holiness, zeal, and much opening in speaking, etc. This wrath and hatred can express itself against the congregation of Christ in general, a specific congregation, a specific company of godly persons, or a specific person, be it a minister or a member. This opposition is neither related to temporal matters nor to a general or specific difference of opinion, but is in response to the truth and to that life and activity which this sinner knows to be from God and to occur by His agency. This was evidently the case in the entire behavior of the Jews towards Christ recorded throughout the gospels (cf. Matthew 12:1-50; John 8:1-59). This enmity also manifested itself towards Stephen. “When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth” (Acts 7:54).
Thirdly, in such a sinner there is an evil opposition towards and a desire for the persecution of those in whom the Holy Spirit is so mightily at work. If this person previously functioned within the community of the church or within a specific fellowship of godly people, he will depart from them, not being able to endure them any longer. He wickedly opposes them, and persecutes them as much as possible because of the truth, godliness, and activity manifesting themselves there. This he accomplishes by slander, defamation, offending, contradiction, and by calling the work of the Holy Spirit in them the devil’s work, the work of the flesh, hypocrisy, pride, etc. If he is in a position of authority, he will oppose them, try to root out the work of God, rob them of their good name, their possessions, and even life itself. All of this can be observed in the Pharisees and scribes as they continually slandered and tempted the Lord Jesus, and sought to kill Him -- in which they finally succeeded. To this the apostle refers when he writes, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29).
Fourthly, this is followed by an irreversible absence of remorse and a refusal to repent. I have stated that this is a consequence of this sin, for it does not belong to the nature of this sin. They do not come to themselves, for God gives them over to themselves and to their evil inclinations. Their anger propels them as a turbulent sea, and as chaff driven by wind, and they proceed in the manifestation of their hatred as long as they live or have the opportunity. Even if they settle down to some extent (which will cause them to perceive their sin), this is immediately accompanied by a feeling of despair. They perceive that heaven is closed for them and that Christ is not for them. For this reason there is no sorrow, no seeking, and no prayer. Instead, they feel the pangs of hell, and the terror of God consumes them. They either end their lives as Judas did, or they die, as Julian, with curses upon their lips.
Fifthly, added to this is the fact that this sin is unpardonable. This is neither due to the sin viewed in itself, nor because the mercy of God or the merits of Christ are insufficient, but solely because God wills not to forgive this sin. “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31); “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness” (Mark 3:29).
One may wonder: how is it possible that someone can fall into such a sin -- that man can behave himself thus in response to revealed truth, godliness, and the operation of God’s Spirit?
I answer: It is indeed true that no one either will challenge the truth as truth, or commit sin as sin, for then he would have to be the devil in the flesh. However, it can be that a graceless person, who is nevertheless illuminated by and convinced of the truth as the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit, may join himself to the godly, giving the impression of being one of them. However, when he perceives that his deception is evident and that he, contrary to his will and to his grief, is not accepted when he perceives that, due to the light by which he becomes acquainted with himself, he is not honored and esteemed as others or above others, but that his influence is curtailed, so that others are esteemed and loved above him; when others reckon him to be ignorant of spiritual mysteries, to yet be unconverted, and to be in a state of misery as a hypocritical, temporal believer and an imposter; when he is continually rebuked and is of the opinion that everything which is spoken applies to himself, or that people, whenever he speaks or acts, despise him in a nasty and provocative manner, ridiculing and continually correcting him -- then, I say, his wicked heart will stir itself in anger and envy, will be stimulated, will begin to manifest itself, and he will engage in active opposition. Such a person will first take issue against persons as having been wronged by them, after which he will take issue with these persons for the matter at hand and the power of the Holy Spirit which manifests itself in them. From this proceeds the avoidance of God’s people and of the truth of God he confessed and it is followed by slander, defamation, opposition, and persecution -- due to the light, truth, godliness, and activity of the godly. Thus the first cause of this sin is generally self-love, and a desire to be honored and esteemed. If the latter is not attained, and such a person instead is discovered, rebuked, and rejected, his wickedness gradually increases until he commits the sin described above.
People may think that since all the unconverted hate the light of truth and oppose it, that therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost is something different from what we have explained. My answer is:
(1) The seed of all sin, and thus also of the sin against the Holy Ghost, is to be found in all men by nature. If circumstances were favorable and if the restraining power of God were not to prevent it, this sin would be committed by all. The sin against the Holy Ghost is therefore a sin which in principle is rooted in the nature of man.
(2) All men do not come to the acknowledgement of the truth and of godliness, neither do they become acquainted with the powerful operation of God’s Spirit, nor come to the conviction that this is of God.
(3) This hatred and the inclination to oppose all these do not burst forth in every person, but is controlled, either due to absence of opportunity, to other natural convictions, or to the restraining power of God.
(4) The sin against the Holy Ghost is not common hatred and opposition, but an extraordinary explosion of hatred and wickedness, accompanied by slander and persecution.
Instruction for Those Who Fear They Have Sinned Against the Holy Ghost. From that which has been said, the misunderstanding of some concerning this sin becomes evident. Being ignorant of the nature of this sin, and perceiving within themselves that they frequently sin against better knowledge and a speaking conscience, they imagine that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore they do not dare to pray for forgiveness, their reason being that prayer for such a sin is not permitted, and that this sin is unpardonable. All this greatly terrifies them, causing much anxiety. Such persons need to be instructed on the basis of what has been stated.
(1) The sin against the Holy Ghost is not directed to the sinner himself as being the object, but it focuses upon others who manifest truth, godliness, and the powerful operation of God’s Spirit, all of which humbles the godly, but grieves such a sinner.
(2) The injunction forbidding prayer for such persons does not pertain to oneself, but to others. Yes, even he who commits this sin remains under obligation to pray and to repent, but is not willing to do so.
(3) This sin is accompanied by a great explosion of hatred and anger towards others due to the light emanating from them, as well as by persecution of them through slander and oppression.
(4) There is neither sorrow over this sin, nor a seeking of forgiveness and repentance. Therefore those who are concerned can perceive from this how mistaken they are, and that they have thus not committed this sin. They are merely being deceived by their darkened heart, even though their concern proceeds from a tender disposition. Moreover, the devil joins in to cast such souls to and fro and if possible to bring them to despair.
How each person ought to take warning in view of all this -- that when meeting with opportunities which could give rise to this sin, he ought not to give free reign to his heart. One must refrain from impetuously assaulting someone who has spirit and life, or appears to have, but whose behavior may perhaps be unbecoming, lest by way of gradual progression one would come to the commission of this sin. Under such circumstances a person should always remind himself of the dreadful judgment upon those who commit this sin. In view of this, how careful everyone ought to be of dealing imprudently by neither continually rebuking a person who opposes him, nor by despising and provoking him. One should also not attempt to passionately and forcefully bring such a person to repentance, whether this be one’s spouse, children, parents, relatives, or others with whom one has a familiar relationship, lest they be afforded an opportunity to commit this sin. The application concerning the doctrine of sin in general, which ought to humble all men, will follow in the next chapter.