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 (Rom 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 Ανομία (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 Rom 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 Rom 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” (Ezek 18:20).