Richard Watson answers Justice Objection to Original Sin

Many Christians object to the idea that we are condemned in Adam.  But the same objectors often hold we receive a sin nature from Adam and that due to the fall we will physically die.  Richard Watson highlights the logical inconsistency with this objection:  

The justice of this is objected to, a point which will be immediately considered; but it is now sufficient to say, that in the making the descendants of Adam liable to eternal death, because of his offence, be unjust, the infliction of temporal death is so also; the duration of the punishment making no difference in the simple question of justice. If punishment, 'whether of loss or of pain, be unjust, its measure and duration may be a greater or a less injustice; but it is unjust in every degree. If, then, we only confine the hurt we have received from Adam to bodily death; if this legal result of his transgression only be imputed to us, and we are so constituted sinners as to become liable to it, we are in precisely the same difficulty, as to the equity of the proceeding, as when that legal result is extended farther. (link)

Comments

Russ said…
I'm curious as to how Watson would deal with Ezekiel 18:18-20(whole chapter as well).

18“As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.

19“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

AND

Deuteronomy 24:16

16“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

We won't be put to death for our fathers sin, but will be put to death for Adams sin, interesting..

Russ
May 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Russ,

That's a good prompt - I probably should post something on Ez 18. I am not aware of Watson's take on that passage. But Watson's point here is a good one; most Christians believe we will die physically due to Adam's sin but some who think that still think it's unjust if we die spiritually due to Adam's sin.

God be with you,
Dan
May 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more