Basic HTML Version
227
sight of God, federal theology stressed the fact that there is an “immediate” imputation of
Adam’s guilt to those whom he represented as the head of the covenant.
Socinians and Arminians both rejected the idea of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his
descendants. Placeus, of the school of Saumur, advocated the idea of “mediate” imputation.
Denying all immediate imputation, he held that because we inherit a sinful nature from Adam,
we are deserving of being treated as if we had committed the original offense. This was
something new in Reformed theology, and Rivet had no difficulty in proving this by collecting a
long line of testimonies. A debate ensued in which “immediate” and “mediate” imputation
were represented as mutually exclusive doctrines; and in which it was made to appear as if the
real question was, whether man is guilty in the sight of God solely on account of Adam’s sin,
imputed to him, or solely on account of his own inherent sin. The former was not the doctrine
of the Reformed Churches, and the latter was not taught in them before the time of Placeus.
The teachings of the latter found their way into New England theology, and became especially
characteristic of the New School (New Haven) theology. In modern liberal theology the doctrine
of the transmission of sin from Adam to his posterity is entirely discredited. It prefers to seek
the explanation of the evil that is in the world in an animal inheritance, which is not itself sinful.
Strange to say, even Barth and Brunner, though violently opposed to liberal theology, do not
regard the universal sinfulness of the human race as the result of Adam’s sin. Historically, the
latter occupies a unique place merely as the first sinner.
B. THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN.
Few will be inclined to deny the presence of evil in the human heart, however much they may
differ as to the nature of this evil and as to the way in which it originated. Even Pelagians and
Socinians are ready to admit that sin is universal. This is a fact that forces itself upon the
attention of every one.
1. THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS AND OF PHILOSOPHY TESTIFY TO IT.
The history of religions
testifies to the universality of sin. The question of Job, “How shall a man be just with God?” is a
question that was asked not merely in the realm of special revelation, but also outside of it in
the Gentile world. The heathen religions testify to a universal consciousness of sin and of the
need of reconciliation with a Supreme Being. There is a general feeling that the gods are
offended and must be propitiated in some way. There is a universal voice of conscience,
testifying to the fact that man falls short of the ideal and stands condemned in the sight of
some higher Power. Altars reeking with the blood of sacrifices, often the sacrifices of dear
children, repeated confessions of wrongdoing, and prayers for deliverance from evil, — all point
to the consciousness of sin. Missionaries find this wherever they go. The history of philosophy is
indicative of the same fact. Early Greek philosophers were already wrestling with the problem