CACOETHES SCRIBENDI

Home > Life > Calvin on Rom. 5:12

Calvin on Rom. 5:12

If I'm not mistaken (and I am open to correction here), Calvin is not Augustinian in his understanding of Rom. 5:12---he does not hold to the imputation of Adam's sin. Look at his comments on Romans 5:12. Calvin considers Adam's sin apostasy, "a falling away."
Observe the order which he [Paul] keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam's sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this--because we have all, he says, sinned.

But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring from our mother's womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God's favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God's likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so become sinful and wicked.
You can compare what Calvin says here in his commentary on Romans to his more systematic statement in his Institutes 2.1.8.

One must remember (or learn, as the case may be) that there never has been one "orthodox" view of "imputation" in Reformed theology. Remember G. P. Hutchinson's The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology.

We might apply this to the controversy about N. T. Wright's view of imputation. If Wright doesn't believe that the guilt of Adam's sin has been imputed to us (like some commodity), then he's in good company with Calvin and others. The idea that these passages have always been understood in one way doesn't fit the facts of Reformed tradition. I'm not saying that Wright is right. All I'm saying is that he's not automatically a heretic for taking an alternative Reformed position on this text.

Something truly bizarre seems to have happened in Reformed theology lately. I've seen it in Lutheran circles for years, but I'm just now noticing it in our own. I am referring to the penchant for concatenation. Everything is tied to everything else, we are being told, such that if you give up one thing, then you deny everything else. As if there is truly only one "system" of doctrine. So if I deny a meritorious covenant or works (which I do), I am told that I must also deny the Reformed doctrine of justification. And if I say, huh?, I am told that you cannot have one with out the other. If I say, "but I do," I am told that I really don't.

If one denies the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity AS IT IS POPULARLY CONCEIVED, then one must also deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his people. No, not really. It doesn't follow. The biblical teaching is not concatenated like that.

What is more, this tendency makes it real easy for one to dismiss anything new or any attempt to improve on our theology. One cannot improve on something that is inexorably concatenated.

The problem is that where there was once room for disagreement and diversity, there is now only enforced conformity to one variation of Reformed tradition. I wonder if earlier pastors and theologians were able to handle more diversity because they had bigger hearts and sharper minds.

|



Copyright © Jeff Meyers. All rights reserved.