Abstract: This treatise presents an examination of the doctrine of original sin as articulated in Romans 5:12–21. It explores the exegetical, historical, theological, and anthropological dimensions of inherited guilt, moral agency, and divine justice. Particular attention is given to competing interpretations of Pauline theology—including Augustinian, Pelagian, Reformed, Arminian, and Eastern Orthodox perspectives—as well as lesser-known implications of Deuteronomy 23:2, the sinlessness of infants, and the theological significance of the Book of Life. The treatise contends that while Adam's disobedience introduced sin and death into the world, culpability is not inherited by divine fiat but through personal engagement with sin. By integrating scriptural analysis, patristic development, and doctrinal tensions across traditions, the essay advances an interpretive model rooted in covenantal anthropology and responsive grace. Over 40 scholarly references and citations support this reassessment, offering a framework that is both biblically faithful and theologically coherent.
I. Introduction
The doctrine of original sin is one of the most enduring—and divisive—constructs in Christian theology. From Augustine’s seminal articulation to contemporary debates in anthropology and jurisprudence, the idea that human beings are condemned not merely for their own sins but for the sin of another continues to evoke impassioned discourse. At the heart of the doctrine lies Romans 5:12–21, a passage that juxtaposes the disobedience of Adam with the obedience of Christ. Yet the interpretation of this text has been anything but uniform. Some traditions have read it as a clear statement of inherited guilt, others as a typological contrast emphasizing moral consequence rather than metaphysical transfer of such guilt or even sin.
This treatise argues that the inherited guilt model, while influential and easily adopted without too much thought, does not grasp the truth of Paul’s intent. Rather than establishing a deterministic anthropology, Romans 5 invites a covenantal reading in which Adam and Christ function as moral and spiritual archetypes, not forensic proxies. This reading is not only more consistent with the language and structure of the text but better accounts for broader biblical themes: divine justice, human volition, infant innocence, and God’s universal invitation to salvation.
Moreover, the implications of Deuteronomy 23:2—which bars the offspring of certain sexual unions from entering the assembly for ten generations—demand further consideration in any discussion of generational sin. This passage, together with Exodus 20:5 and its mention of iniquity visited “to the third and fourth generation,” reveals a biblical tension between inherited consequence and personal responsibility. These texts challenge simplistic readings of inherited guilt while opening the door for more nuanced anthropological reflection.
Additionally, Romans 3:23—“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”—has often been employed as a universal verdict against humanity. Yet how does one square this claim with the sinlessness of infants, or the notion that every person’s name is written in the Book of Life until it is blotted out through conscious rebellion (cf. Exodus 32:33; Revelation 3:5)? These are not mere theological footnotes; they are critical to understanding the scope and reach of grace.
This essay proceeds in six stages: (1) a survey of the historical development of original sin, (2) an exegetical analysis of Romans 5:12–21, (3) theological and doctrinal considerations including infant salvation and generational sin, (4) an exploration of competing interpretive frameworks, (5) anthropological and sociological implications of inherited moral frameworks, and (6) concluding reflections on divine justice, grace, and moral agency. Each section is supported by adequate referencing to ensure a robust and comprehensive account of one of Christian theology’s most difficult but necessary doctrines that is essential for entering the path that is the way for truth to lead to life—which, unless it is eternal, is not life at all but death in the final scheme of those condemned to a temporal existence.
II. Historical Development of the
Doctrine of Original Sin
The concept of original sin, as a
theological doctrine, was not fully articulated in the early church but rather
developed progressively through patristic reflection and ecclesiastical
controversy. While its basis is frequently traced to Romans 5, the conclusions
drawn from this passage diverged significantly across traditions. A historical
survey reveals that the doctrine evolved more from philosophical
presuppositions and exegetical interpretations than from apostolic truth.
A. Early Church Fathers: Corruption
Without Condemnation
In the ante-Nicene period, writers
such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria acknowledged the
reality of human corruption but did not formulate a doctrine of inherited
guilt. Irenaeus, for instance, in his theology of recapitulation, proposed that
Christ reversed the damage done by Adam, not that Adam’s guilt was transmitted
to all his descendants.[1]
Tertullian, who first used the term “original sin,” treated it as a condition
of weakness rather than culpability.[2]
The early fathers emphasized moral responsibility, stressing that each person
sins by their own will.
B. Augustine and the Latin Legacy
The decisive shift came with
Augustine, whose conflict with Pelagius catalyzed the formulation of inherited
guilt. Influenced by the Latin rendering of Romans 5:12 (“in quo omnes
peccaverunt”), Augustine interpreted Paul to mean that all sinned in
Adam—biologically, legally, and spiritually.[3]
For Augustine, this justified the necessity of infant baptism (much to the
delight of church prelates who no doubt saw this as a means of controlling the
population) and explained the universality of death. Yet this reading,
dependent on a mistranslation of the Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (better translated
“because”), has since been challenged by most contemporary scholars.[4]
Nonetheless, Augustine’s theology would dominate the Western tradition.
C. Pelagius and the Defense of Free
Will
Pelagius, reacting to Augustine’s
determinism, affirmed the freedom of the will and denied that sin could be
inherited.[5]
He acknowledged that Adam introduced sin and death into the world but
maintained that each person is judged by their own actions. Though condemned at
the Council of Carthage (418 CE), Pelagius’s emphasis on moral accountability
persisted, particularly in the Eastern Church.
D. Medieval Scholastics: Nuance and
Legalism
Medieval theology largely accepted
Augustine’s view, but with significant nuance. Anselm emphasized sin as a
violation of divine honor requiring satisfaction. Aquinas distinguished between
the transmission of guilt and the inclination to sin (concupiscence), affirming
that original sin is removed through baptism, though its effects remain.[6]
This model integrated Aristotelian categories into Christian anthropology,
reinforcing the forensic dimension of inherited sin.
E. The Reformers and Federal
Theology
Luther and Calvin intensified the
Augustinian framework. Calvin, in particular, articulated a federal headship
model in which Adam represented humanity in a covenantal relationship.[7]
Thus, his sin was imputed to all, and similarly, Christ’s righteousness is
imputed to the elect. This symmetrical structure undergirds much of Reformed
theology but has drawn criticism for collapsing the concept of covenant into that
of determinism, which, when pressed, morphs into predeterminism within their
worldview of God’s salvific plan.
F. Arminian and Wesleyan Revisions
Arminius[8]
and, later, John Wesley softened the implications of original sin without
denying its reach. Wesley affirmed the corruption inherited from Adam but
introduced the idea of prevenient grace—God’s enabling presence given to all
humans, restoring the capacity to choose rightly.[9]
This allowed for a theology of inherited depravity without inherited guilt.
G. Eastern Orthodoxy: Ancestral Sin,
Not Inherited Guilt
Eastern Christianity rejected
Augustine’s inherited guilt. Instead, the Eastern tradition speaks of
“ancestral sin,” a condition of mortality and corruption passed down from Adam,
but not legal condemnation.[10]
Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom both emphasized that judgment is based on
actual sin, not Adamic representation. The emphasis is on healing and
restoration rather than legal satisfaction.
H. Modern Developments and Scholarly
Critique
Contemporary scholarship has
increasingly challenged the traditional interpretation of Romans 5. Scholars
like N.T. Wright, James Dunn, and Douglas Moo argue for a covenantal or
participatory model rather than a forensic one.[11]
The emphasis is placed on Adam and Christ as inaugurators of contrasting modes
of existence—death and life—into which one enters by choice. Simultaneously,
anthropologists and psychologists have engaged with the doctrine’s assumptions
about human nature, questioning whether guilt can meaningfully be
“transmitted.”
Conclusion of Section II
The doctrine of original sin, far
from being a settled apostolic teaching, is a theological construct with a
complex and contested history. From corruption to guilt, from Pelagius to
Calvin, and from East to West, the church has wrestled with how best to explain
the relationship between Adam’s fall and humanity’s moral state. As we turn to
Romans 5 itself, we must ask: Does the text support inherited guilt, or does it
point toward something more morally and theologically coherent?
III. Exegetical Analysis of Romans
5:12–21
Romans 5:12–21 remains the most
frequently cited passage for articulating the doctrine of original sin. Its
interpretive weight lies in Paul’s juxtaposition of Adam and Christ as
initiators of contrasting realities—death through sin and life through
righteousness. Yet, while the structure is rhetorically elegant, its
theological application has not been uniform. A careful exegetical analysis,
informed by the Greek syntax and Pauline thought, reveals a participatory
rather than a forensic model.
A. Romans 5:12 – "Because All
Sinned"
The passage opens with a
cause-effect relationship: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (δι’ ἑνὸς
ἀνθρώπου… ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον). The Greek phrase ἐφ’ ᾧ has historically been
misread in Latin translation as “in whom,” implying that all humanity sinned in
Adam. However, most modern scholars agree that the phrase should be rendered
causally: “because all sinned.”[12]
This shifts the emphasis from a metaphysical inheritance of guilt to a
universal participation in sin.
The causal reading aligns with
Romans 3:23—“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”—but it
introduces an exegetical puzzle when applied to infants or those who have not
yet consciously sinned. Are they included in “all”? If so, on what basis? And
what shall we say about those who are born incapacitated, unable to talk, walk
or even feed themselves, and are reliant upon the kindness of others. The
participatory model suggests that death’s universal reign results from a moral
condition shared by those capable of volition, not an imposed verdict on those
incapable of moral choice.
B. Romans 5:13–14 – Sin Without Law
and Death’s Reign
Paul continues, explaining that “sin
indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where
there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses.” This anticipates an
objection: If sin is not reckoned without law, why did death continue? Paul’s
answer lies not in inherited guilt but in the pervasiveness of Adam’s example.
Adam is presented as a “type” (τύπος) of Christ—an archetypal figure whose
action shapes history.
This raises a related issue: the
generational consequences of sin. In Exodus 20:5, God visits the iniquity of
the fathers to the third and fourth generation. Deuteronomy 23:2 extends the
exclusion from the assembly to the tenth generation for those born from
prohibited unions. These texts suggest not inherited guilt per se but a kind of
inherited consequence or defilement—a communal impact rather than personal
culpability.[13]
C. Romans 5:15–17 – Abounding Grace
and Conditional Reception
Paul contrasts Adam’s trespass with
Christ’s gift: “If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the
grace of God… abounded for many.” The structure uses “many” rather than “all,”
which, though often considered a Hebraic parallel, underscores that not all who
are affected by Adam’s act respond to Christ’s. The clause “those who receive
the abundance of grace” (τοὺς λαμβάνοντας) in verse 17 is especially crucial.
It implies agency.
Whereas Augustine read this passage
as justification for automatic condemnation and selective redemption, the Greek
emphasizes reception.[14]
Grace, in Paul’s schema, is not imposed but offered. This provides an
interpretive bridge to the notion that every human name is written in the book
of life, as seen in Exodus 32:33 and Revelation 3:5. Only through willful sin
is one blotted out, implying that initial divine intention is inclusion for all,
not exclusion of any.
D. Romans 5:18–19 – Made Sinners,
Made Righteous
The parallelism of verse 18—“as one
trespass led to condemnation for all, so one act of righteousness leads to
justification and life for all”—has often been used to defend both universal
condemnation and the possibility of universal salvation. However, verse 19
nuances the picture: “For as by one man's disobedience the many were made
sinners, so by one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” The verb κατεστάθησαν
(“were made” or “appointed”) need not imply legal imputation. Cranfield notes
it denotes being constituted in a role or condition, often dependent upon
volitional alignment.[15]
Thus, to be “made sinners” is to
conform to Adam’s pattern, just as being “made righteous” is to conform to
Christ’s. This model affirms personal responsibility while preserving Adam and
Christ as influential archetypes.
E. Romans 5:20–21 – Law’s Entry and
Grace’s Triumph
Paul concludes the passage by
introducing the Mosaic Law: “The law came in to increase the trespass, but
where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” This is not a statement of
arbitrary judgment but of pedagogical revelation. Law exposes sin’s extent;
grace reveals God’s intent. Paul’s gospel is not fatalistic; it is revelatory.
Humanity is not doomed because of Adam, but awakened to its need for Christ.
Conclusion of Section III
Romans 5:12–21, far from
establishing a doctrine of metaphysical guilt transmission, articulates a
theology of moral participation and covenantal identity. Adam and Christ are
not legal surrogates but archetypes of human alignment—one toward death, the
other toward life. The implications for infants, generational consequences, and
divine justice remain profound. But the text itself—when read within the
Pauline corpus and the broader canon—resists the deterministic readings of
inherited guilt and instead affirms a gospel of responsive grace and inclusive
invitation for all.
IV. Theological and Doctrinal
Considerations
While the exegetical analysis of
Romans 5 undermines a strict forensic reading of inherited guilt, a broader
theological assessment is required to consider the implications for doctrines
such as divine justice, human nature, infant salvation, and grace. Each of
these loci has traditionally drawn from or contributed to the doctrine of
original sin, and each must be revisited in light of a participatory model of
moral agency.
A. Divine Justice: Judgment
According to Deeds
Biblical theology insists on
individual moral responsibility. Ezekiel 18:20 declares unequivocally: “The
soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (NKJV).”
Similarly, Romans 2:6 affirms that God “will render to each one according to
his works.”[16]
These texts contradict any notion that God judges humans for sins they did not
commit. While inherited conditions may create moral disadvantages (e.g.,
societal brokenness, generational patterns), they do not equate to divine
condemnation.
This distinction is crucial in
differentiating between guilt and consequence. A child born of a prostitute may
experience stigma and exclusion—reflected in Deuteronomy 23:2—but this consequence
does not imply divine culpability. Rather, it reflects the social and communal
dimensions of sin, which have real, though not punitive, effects.[17]
B. Human Nature: Image of God and
the Capacity for Choice
Genesis 1:26–27 affirms humanity’s
creation in the image of God. This image, though distorted by sin, remains
intact (cf. James 3:9). Augustine’s view of total depravity risks eclipsing
this image with inherited corruption. Yet the biblical narrative repeatedly
affirms that humans retain the ability to respond to God. Ecclesiastes 7:29
notes, “God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”[18]
This suggests deviation, not default.
In this light, the imago Dei should
be understood as the inherent capacity for moral choice, relational engagement,
and spiritual responsiveness. Original sin, properly understood, does not
obliterate these capacities but disorients them. Thus, the human will is
neither wholly bound nor entirely free—it is wounded, not dead; bleeding not
bled; weakened but still able (cf. Romans 5:6; Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20)
C. Infant Innocence and the Book of Life
A key theological challenge to
inherited guilt lies in the status of infants. If guilt is truly inherited,
then infants are born condemned. Yet Jesus’ affirmation—“to such belongs the
kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14)—and the absence of infant condemnation in
Scripture argue against this.[19]
Further, Exodus 32:33 and Revelation
3:5 suggest a theology in which all names are initially written in the Book of
Life and only later removed due to rebellion.[20]
This implies a default state of divine inclusion. Theologically, this affirms that
grace underscores everything,[21]
for all begin in a state of grace, from which they fall only through conscious
sin. This model harmonizes divine justice with divine mercy.
D. Generational Sin: Inherited
Condition, Not Inherited Guilt
The biblical motif of sin affecting
generations (Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18) has often been misunderstood. These
texts speak of consequences, not culpability. Children suffer from the sin of
parents in a communal and systemic sense, but they are not morally responsible
for it. Deuteronomy 24:16 explicitly forbids punishing children for their
parents’ sins.
This distinction has pastoral
implications. Children born into broken systems are victims, not perpetrators.
The church must therefore proclaim a theology that addresses generational
bondage while affirming individual liberation.
E. Justification and Grace:
Responsive, Not Automatic
Romans 3:22–26 emphasizes that
righteousness comes “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”[22]
If justification is by faith, then condemnation cannot be by mere birth. The
asymmetry in traditional doctrines—guilt by descent but grace by assent—undermines
the coherence of Paul’s gospel.
By contrast, the participatory model
affirms that both sin and righteousness involve volitional participation. Adam
introduces a path that many follow; Christ opens a path that many embrace. This
preserves the symmetry of Paul’s soteriology and avoids the pitfalls of double
predestination.
F. The Nature of Grace and Divine
Initiative
The participatory model also
strengthens the doctrine of grace. Grace is not merely a legal pardon but a
relational invitation. It respects the human person as a moral agent and
reflects the divine desire that “none should perish but all should come to
repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).[23]
God’s justice is not retributive but restorative, aiming not to punish but to
transform.
Thus, original sin, when viewed
through this lens, is not a juridical verdict imposed at conception, but a
condition into which all are born and from which all are called. Grace is the
divine initiative that makes escape possible; faith is the human response that
makes it actual.
Conclusion of Section IV
The inherited guilt model, though
historically prominent, faces significant theological challenges: it distorts
divine justice, compromises the image of God, denies infant innocence, and
creates asymmetry in salvation. A participatory framework better reflects the
biblical witness, preserves moral agency, and magnifies grace. It also aligns
with pastoral realities, offering a gospel that is not imposed but proposed—a
call to turn from the path of Adam and walk in the way of Christ.
V. Interpretive Alternatives and the
Moral Trajectory of Sin
While the Augustinian model of
inherited guilt has shaped much of Western Christianity, other interpretive
trajectories within the Christian tradition offer alternative understandings
that emphasize human volition, communal influence, and divine invitation. These
models do not diminish the gravity of sin but reframe it as a moral and
relational breach rather than a biological inheritance.
A. Federal Headship and Reformed
Theology
Reformed theology posits that Adam
functioned as the federal head of humanity; thus, his actions legally
implicated all his descendants.[24]
While this model seeks to maintain the justice of God by paralleling Adam's
imputation with Christ’s righteousness, it falters in application. Not all
receive Christ’s righteousness automatically, which suggests that Adam's guilt
should also be conditional. Furthermore, if representation is truly federal, it
demands consent, which is absent in Adam’s case for subsequent generations.
B. Eastern Orthodoxy and Ancestral
Sin
The Orthodox tradition provides a
compelling alternative in its doctrine of ancestral sin. Sin, in this
framework, is not a juridical status but a state of separation and mortality
inherited from Adam.[25]
Each individual is born into a world marred by Adam’s fall and thus faces a
predisposition to sin, not a predetermined condemnation. The emphasis is on
healing and transformation rather than judgment and guilt.
C. Arminian and Wesleyan Synergism
In Wesleyan theology, original sin
is understood as depravity, not guilt. All are born with a proclivity toward
sin, but prevenient grace restores the capacity to respond.[26]
This model preserves both the universality of sin and the universality of
grace. It also explains why infants, though born into a fallen world, are not
culpable until they sin knowingly.
D. Restorationist and Holiness
Perspectives
Various Holiness and Restorationist
movements stress the role of sanctification and conscious faith. The emphasis
is placed not on guilt inherited from Adam but on the necessity of repentance
and personal trust in Christ. This approach resonates with the prophetic
tradition of calling individuals to return to God (cf. Joel 2:12–13), affirming
that culpability begins with awareness and rebellion, not birth.
E. Catholic Nuance: Concupiscence vs.
Guilt
The Roman Catholic Church
distinguishes between the guilt of original sin (removed through baptism) and
concupiscence (the residual tendency to sin).[27]
Though it accepts the notion of inherited sin, it stops short of declaring
infants morally culpable. This allows for the possibility of salvation through
baptism and recognizes the effects of grace even in those who have not yet
sinned consciously.
F. Moral Trajectory and the
Imitation of Adam
An increasingly influential view
among biblical scholars is that Paul’s concern in Romans 5 is not legal
transference but moral trajectory. Adam initiated a path of rebellion; Christ
opens a path of obedience. As N.T. Wright argues, Paul’s theology is covenantal
and narrative—not mechanistic.[28] Individuals are not condemned for being in Adam’s bloodline but for choosing
Adam’s path.
This model aligns with Romans
6:16—“you are slaves of the one you obey.” It preserves moral agency and
reframes Paul’s contrast between Adam and Christ as a contrast between two allegiances:
the reign of death and the reign of grace.
Conclusion of Section V
Across traditions—Orthodox,
Arminian, Wesleyan, Catholic, and Restorationist—there is an emerging consensus
that guilt is not biologically inherited but relationally and morally acquired.
While Adam's sin introduced death and corruption, it is personal rebellion that
incurs judgment. The interpretive alternatives highlight a shift from juridical
frameworks to relational and covenantal understandings of sin and salvation.
These models offer a more consistent theology of grace, a more defensible
doctrine of divine justice, and a more pastoral approach to human dignity and
moral responsibility.
VI. Anthropological and Pastoral
Implications
The doctrine of original sin is not
merely a theological abstraction—it bears significant implications for how we
understand human identity, moral development, and pastoral care. A theology
that portrays humanity as guilty at birth introduces deep anthropological and
pastoral tensions: How can God be just if He condemns before moral action? How
can the church meaningfully address suffering, addiction, trauma, and
redemption if human guilt is assumed rather than chosen? A rearticulated view
of Romans 5 offers a coherent framework that affirms both human dignity and
divine grace.
A. Anthropology: Created Good,
Corrupted by Choice
The biblical narrative begins not
with the Fall, but with creation. Genesis 1–2 depicts humanity as the apex of
God's creation—made in His image, commissioned to steward the earth, and
walking in relational intimacy with the Creator. The Fall (Genesis 3)
introduces disorder, but it does not erase the imago Dei. Human nature, then,
is best understood as fundamentally good yet tragically corrupted by its
environment.[29]
This view aligns with both Scripture
and experience. Humans possess moral intuitions, aspirations for meaning, and
capacities for sacrificial love—even apart from divine revelation. While these
are insufficient for salvation, they point to a nature that is bent, not broken
beyond recognition. A robust Christian anthropology must balance realism about
sin with confidence in grace and the restorative potential of the gospel.
B. The Psychology of Guilt and Grace
Pastorally, the inherited guilt
model has created existential burdens. Many believers—especially children and
new converts—struggle with guilt not rooted in action but in identity. They are
told they are guilty “in Adam” before they have chosen anything. This distorts
the nature of God, who Scripture says “does not willingly afflict or grieve the
children of men” (Lamentations 3:33 ESVUK).
By contrast, a participatory model
relieves unnecessary shame while still naming sin truthfully. Guilt is not denied
but rightly located: in actions, not ancestry. This invites confession without
despair and repentance without existential self-condemnation. It upholds Paul’s
declaration in Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus.”
C. Discipleship and Moral Formation
If sin is viewed as a condition into
which one falls rather than a curse one inherits, discipleship can be
reoriented around formation rather than fear. Spiritual growth becomes a
process of choosing Christ over Adam, grace over death, the Spirit over the
flesh. Moral responsibility begins with awareness, and holiness begins with
surrender.
Children, then, are nurtured in
grace—not burdened with guilt. Converts are discipled through truth—not coerced
by fear. The church becomes not merely a refuge from judgment but a community
of transformation. This model restores the tension between divine initiative
and human responsibility—hallmarks of authentic Christian life.
D. Evangelism and the Universality
of Grace
The idea that everyone’s name is
written in the Book of Life until it is removed (Exodus 32:33; Revelation 3:5)
reframes the missional posture of the church. Evangelism becomes not a rescue
from pre-condemnation but an invitation to remain in the life God already
intends for all. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was reconciling the
world to Himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them.”
This universal scope does not lead
to universalism, but it does ground evangelism in hope. The gospel is offered
to all—not as escape from wrath earned by another, but as grace available
through Christ, received by faith.
E. Toward a Theology of Generational
Influence
Scripture recognizes that the sins
of parents affect their children (Exodus 20:5), yet it also insists that each
person will be judged for their own sin (Deuteronomy 24:16). This tension is
resolved not through legal inheritance of guilt but through moral and
environmental influence. Children raised in patterns of sin may internalize
them, but the gospel offers liberation.
A theology of generational sin that
emphasizes influence over imputation empowers communities to break cycles of
violence, addiction, and shame. It supports trauma-informed ministry,
intergenerational discipleship, and healing prayer. It aligns with biblical
lament and prophetic hope.
Conclusion of Section VI
A reappraisal of Romans 5, when
integrated with a biblical anthropology and pastoral sensibility, leads to a
theology that is more just, more hopeful, and more faithful to the gospel of
grace. Humanity is not condemned before it can act, nor saved without consent.
Sin spreads by imitation, not transmission; grace reigns by reception, not
coercion.
The church must proclaim this with
clarity and conviction. We are not born guilty—we are born glorious and fallen,
beloved and broken. In Adam, we see the roots of our rebellion. In Christ, we
receive the promise of renewal. The question remains not what Adam did, but
what we will do: Will we follow him into death, or follow Christ into life?
VII. Conclusion
The reappraisal of Romans 5 presented in this treatise leads to a profound theological, pastoral, and anthropological recalibration. Rather than affirming a model of guilt inherited through biological descent or divine decree, Paul’s argument invites a covenantal interpretation that highlights moral agency and relational alignment. Adam’s disobedience introduced a realm of death; Christ’s obedience inaugurated a reign of life. But entry into either realm is contingent upon volitional response, not metaphysical destiny.
This participatory model realigns the doctrine of original sin with the broader biblical testimony of divine justice, universal grace, and personal responsibility. It addresses the moral dissonance created by traditional views of infant guilt, enhances pastoral sensitivity by reframing guilt in terms of personal sin rather than ontological condemnation, and strengthens the coherence of a gospel that offers salvation to all who believe.
Across its sections, this treatise has shown that inherited guilt is not a biblical necessity but a theological inheritance that requires revision. By retrieving neglected voices, integrating scriptural and historical insights, and respecting the complexity of human moral development, a more faithful and life-giving doctrine emerges—one that better reflects the character of God, the dignity of humanity, and the redemptive power of Christ. In doing so, we affirm with Paul that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20).
[2] Tertullian, On the Soul, 40.
[3] Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of
Sins, I.9–10.
[4] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor
Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 412.
[5] Pelagius, in B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and
Letters (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1998), 78–81.
[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II,
Q.81.
[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, II.1.5–8.
[8] Jacobus Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments,
Biblocality, 2010,
https://www.biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3661-Jacob-Arminius-Declaration-of-Sentiments
(accessed May 23, 2025). Arminius termed the concept of “preventing grace” and
wrote, “Because the representations of grace which the scriptures contain are
such as describe it capable of being resisted (Acts 7:51) and received in vain
(2 Corinthians 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his
assent to it and to refuse all co-operation with it (Hebrews 12:15; Matthew
23:37; Luke 7:30).… Because grace is so attempered and commingled with the
nature of man as not to destroy within him the liberty of his will, but to give
it a right direction, to correct its depravity, and to allow man to possess his
own proper notions.” This was further expounded and elaborated upon by Wesley
to form the doctrine of “Prevenient Grace.”
[9] John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions,
Sermon 44.
[10] Vladimir Lossky, The
Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1997), 110.
[11] N.T. Wright, Paul
and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 842–848; James
D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 271–276; Douglas Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 326–328.
[12] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans,
Anchor Bible 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 411–412.
[13] Deuteronomy 23:2;
Exodus 20:5.
[14] Douglas J. Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 327–329.
[15] C.E.B. Cranfield, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 288.
[16] Ezekiel 18:20; Romans
2:6.
[17] Deuteronomy 23:2.
[18] Ecclesiastes 7: 29
[19] Matthew 19:14.
[20] Exodus 32:33;
Revelation 3:5.
[21] Nature of Grace:
Grace is inherently unmerited, meaning it is not earned or deserved. This
foundational understanding is crucial in many theological frameworks.
Human
Response: Grace can be rejected, resisted, or forsaken, which aligns with the
belief in human free will. This suggests that individuals have the capacity to
respond to grace, whether positively or negatively.
A
robust understanding of grace encompasses its unmerited nature, the potential
for human response, and its availability to all. This perspective encourages a
thoughtful engagement with the concept of grace, inviting individuals to
explore its significance in their own lives and relationship. Dogmatic
assertions regarding the necessity of a special form of grace for salvation
that differs from that which God freely bestows on all are not found in the Bible,
whether irresistible or prevenient varieties.
[22] Romans 3:22–26.
[23] 2 Peter 3:9
[24] John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion, II.1.5–8.
[25] Vladimir Lossky, The
Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 110
[26] John Wesley, Sermons
on Several Occasions, Sermon 44.
[27] Catechism of the
Catholic Church, §§404–405
[28] N.T. Wright, Paul and
the Faithfulness of God, 842–848
[29] Genesis 1:26–31;
James 3:9.
Unless referenced all Bible quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Referenced translations:
ESVUK The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
NKJV New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment