Contemporary Reformed Reading on Original Sin

In my last two posts, I've touched on original sin (link, link) and my desire to post more on the subject. One reason is that I think the Reformed tradition contains distinctive, right answers to questions this subject naturally raises. But another reason is that I think the contemporary Reformed understanding on the subject is a bit scattered. By that, I mean that there is still an intramural debate going on within the Reformed tradition. And while one of the views on original sin within the tradition appears sound, other views are not only unsound, I think that they are dangerous in that they give opponents to the Reformed tradition ammo in terms of what such views would imply about other theological subjects.

So the point of this post will be a sort of introduction on what direction I would recommend to those within the Reformed faith who are looking for where to begin in their reading on original sin.

George Hutchinson's book on "The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology" (link) is a great book that overviews different Presbyterian views of and discussions about original sin between roughly 1830 and 1960. This is where I learned of Samuel Baird and his works (link). His views are those with which I most closely align. At the same time, this book also covers other schools of thought so that the careful reader will have a fair grasp of and exposure to various lines of thought by the end of the book. It is an excellent introduction to the topic, although it is quite dense for 125 pages.

To expand on the above, Baird wrote "The Elohim Revealed," wherein he defended what Hutchinson calls a "realist" view of original sin. Baird's position, therefore, is similar to but distinct from that of W. G. T. Shedd. In my opinion, Baird has the more defensible view. Charles Hodge responded to this book by Baird with a review of it, and after Baird wrote a rejoinder to Hodge (see below), Hodge seemingly gave up further response.

Baird and other authors (like Robert Landis, link) pretty much level Hodge's position on original sin, which can be summarized by Hodge's statement that "Imputation does not imply a participation of the criminality of the sin imputed" (Hodge, Theology, Vol. II, p. 194). That is, Landis, Baird, etc. make a good case that the Reformed tradition held - until Hodge - that Adam's progeny participated in Adam's sin, on which account guilt is imputed to all who are fathered from Adam. Landis has a whole chapter in his book in which he quotes the Reformers on this point of participation.

However, that such is true is not intended to imply that everyone in the Reformed tradition falls into what Hutchinson calls the "Realist School" within Presbyterian views on original sin. That is, not everyone will explain what participation in Adam's sin involves in the same way a "realist" would. I can't be certain why this is, but there is a nominalist, voluntarist streak in some Reformed authors. See Calvin or Gordon Clark on ethics, for example. Or see the widespread rejection of traducianism (which, ironically, Clark ably defends).

At any rate, it is this nomalistic or voluntaristic way of thinking that I alluded to earlier as being dangerously tolerated within the Reformed tradition and which, I hope, is eventually rooted out. Instead, Baird's views on original sin (and, correspondingly, on our justification in Christ) provide a much more defensible and systematic expression of the biblical material. For example, in the rejoinder Baird wrote to Hodge's review of his book "The Elohim Revealed," Baird wrote:

According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is by virtue of this their actual union to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally imputed to their seed, by virtue of the union, constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, the principle of regeneration…

If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,) incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation. But this, according to our reviewer, is “simply a physiological theory,” involving “a mysterious identity,” which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification. (link)

According to Baird (and contrary to Charles Hodge), we are not viewed by God merely as if we are righteous - Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox would have an argument against the Reformed position if such a legal fiction were really the case. Rather, we are and are viewed by the Father as really righteous - not because of anything we have done or earned - but because the Spirit has really united us to Christ's person and work. As Paul says, "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him" (1 Corinthians 6:17).

Just so, people are born in real unity with the first Adam just as believers are born again in real unity with the last Adam. Following Baird, I think a Reformed anthropology should be worked out along these lines. However, the ontology of our synthetic identity as being persons in Christ after regeneration and conversion is, within the Reformed tradition, either underdeveloped or a discussion of which I am ignorant. I expect that this is due, in part, to the failure of a pervasive acceptance of a realist view of original sin.

Now, with all this being said, another person Hutchinson mentions in his book is Henry Thornwell, a theologian Hutchinson also puts in the "Realist School" (which includes Shedd and Baird). Interestingly, Thornwell wrote a critique of Baird's realism and, perhaps, Thornwell's own former views (link). That is, Hutchinson essentially claims, in his book, that Thornwell started his life by critiquing Baird but "in the end was driven to the Realistic explanation... more in the direction of Baird than of Shedd" (pgs. 62-63 of Hutchinson's book). I, on the other hand, am suggesting the opposite is the case. I think Thornwell held views that had some alignment with the Realist School but then came to criticize Baird when he saw where some of the perceived implications led. I could be wrong about this - it has been a while since I read on the subject - but pages 531-534 here seem to make this case.

Regardless, why I mention this is that if I had to point to one resource that seems to face up to Baird and the implications of his realism as expressed in "The Elohim Revealed" or in his rejoinder to Hodge, it would probably be Thornwell's critique. A healthy dose of perspective is needed to conscientiously affirm a given position. I am not writing this post attempting to hide challenges. That said, I myself still lean towards Baird's view and believe modifications can be made to them to avoid some of Thornwell's criticisms (some of which seem just, others of which perhaps can be responded to on Baird's own grounds). What is needed is frank conversation.

Thus, I'm trying to make some headway towards this development, albeit in a slow and methodical way. To say a little more about this, in addition to the above material I've already mentioned, Oliver Crisp has written a book (link) in which he engages W. G. T. Shedd's thoughts (link). I've been directed to a book in which five views of original sin are debated (link). I'm also reading a book on original sin by Ian McFarland (link) which explains Augustinian views on original sin and in what way such differs, say, from Maximus the Confessor.

As I've been reading on Eastern Orthodoxy anyways (with their heavy reliance on Maximus), I realize how little engagement with them I've seen from a Reformed perspective, which is why I mentioned original sin in my most recent post (link). For all the attention Roman Catholic apologists have received from the Reformed tradition, I think Eastern Orthodox apologists will soon warrant more needed attention and corrective, which requires those in the Reformed faith (like myself) to be more prepared for this possibility. On this note, I highly recommend Steve Hays' stuff on Triablogue, particularly any of his posts responding to Eastern Orthodox apologists like Perry Robinson, Daniel Jones, Jay Dyer, etc.

Finally, one person I have corresponded with about many of these issues regarding original sin is Ken Hamrick, who has commented here and there on this blog and used to have a website. I mention him only because he is as knowledgeable on this subject - especially in terms of historical theology - as I've had the pleasure to talk to (e.g. link, link, link), and he has pointed me in the right direction on many of the points I mention above and elsewhere (see, for example, this discussion on puritanboard).