The concept of Original Sin has long been a vital part of Christian Orthodoxy, yet is being challenged and redefined by many in the Church today. Some are beginning to question the validity of the traditional Evangelical understanding of the doctrine asking questions of its legitimacy in its current understanding. Most particularly, the doctrine of imputation is being questioned. I will explain what this is after I put some pieces in place.

Perhaps John Calvin defines Original Sin most concisely as “The deprivation of a nature formerly good and pure.” More specifically, from a Reformed Evangelical perspective, it refers to the fall of humanity from its original state of innocence and purity to a state of corruption and guilt (distinguished later). It is the cause of man’s translation from a state of unbroken communion before God to one of spiritual death and condemnation.

The term “Original Sin” is not found in Scripture; Saint Augustine coined it in the 4th century. The primary passage used to defend the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21. Most specifically, Romans 5:12 gives us the most explicit reference to this concept: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” The “one man” is Adam. The “all men” is all of Adam’s posterity—the entire human race.

J.I. Packer clears up a possible misconception and further defines Original Sin:

The assertion of original sin means not that sin belongs to human nature as God made it (God made mankind upright, Ecclesiastes 7:29), nor that sin is involved in the processes of reproduction and birth (the uncleanness connected with menstruation, semen, and childbirth in Leviticus 12 and 15 was typical and ceremonial only, not moral and real), but that . . . sinfulness marks everyone from birth . . . it derives to us in a real . . . mysterious way from Adam, our first representative before God.

This concept is not only hard to understand, but it is also quite disturbing. From the perspective of traditional Evangelicalism as it finds its roots in Augustine, the west has believed that humanity is condemned for Adam’s sin. To state that we are condemned for the sin of another is not only offensive and unfair, but in the mind of most it is also ludicrous. It is because of this that Pascal wrote the following:

Without doubt, nothing is more shocking to our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has implicated in its guilt men so far from the original sin that they seem incapable of sharing it. This flow of guilt does not seem merely impossible to us, but indeed most unjust. What could be more contrary to the rules of our miserable justice than the eternal damnation of a child, incapable of will, for an act in which he seems to have so little part that it was actually committed 6,000 years before he existed? Certainly nothing jolts us more rudely than this doctrine . . .

It certainly does seem unfair for us to be blamed for the sin of another. My little niece used to commit various misdemeanors such as messing up the living room. She would find solace in her younger brother, who was not yet able to speak and defend himself. She would blame him for the mess that she had made, which, of course, was not right. Unfortunately, she got away with it many times before her parents caught on. Because of this, her brother was punished for crimes he did not commit. Is it the same with Adam and humanity? Are we being punished for a sin that we had nothing to do with?

Death, Paul says, is passed down to us from Adam. But there is more to it than that. As Bob Pyne puts it, “We have no problem affirming that all people die, but what did Paul mean when he linked death to sin?” Furthermore, physical death is not the only consequence of Adam’s sin that we inherit. Romans 5:18 states that the transgression of Adam resulted in our condemnation. So then, we are not only destined to die physically because of Adam’s sin, but we are also condemned to eternal death.

Was the sin of Adam transferred to us? If so, how? Are we condemned for the sin of another? Are Pascal’s concerns valid?

Let’s get some basic terminology down so that we can surf this wave with more balance.

Proposed three types of sin:

Personal Sin: Sins committed by the individual. All people have personal sin (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10)

Inherited Sin: The physical and spiritual corruption which produces a bent and inclination toward sin and a natural enmity toward God (Eph. 2:3; John 8:44; Jer. 13:23; Ps. 51:5). This sin is mediated (inherited) directly from our parents.

Imputed Sin: God’s immediate declaration of guilt to every individual for the sin of Adam.  This sin is “imputed” (or credited) to all people as if they had committed the sin.

Here is a chart (!) that illustrates these three:

Notice, imputed sin or guilt is directly from Adam (the big guy). Inherited sin begins with Adam but is transmitted by our corrupted nature we inherit directly from our parents. Personal sin is connected only to the individual.

Here is where the traditions fall with regards to these three.

Reformed Evangelicals:

We are totally corrupted physically and spiritually because of Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin).

Because of this, we all have personal sin.

We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin). 

This guilt is only resolved through God’s sovereign redemptive action in our lives.


We are totally corrupted physically and spiritually because of Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin).

Because of this, we all have personal sin.

We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin) after we sin in a like manner as Adam

This guilt is only resolved through God’s redemptive action in our lives as we respond to Him in faith.


We are corrupted physically and spiritually because of Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin).

Because of this, we all have personal sin.

We are also condemned (pronounced guilty) immediately by God for Adam’s sin (imputed sin). 

This guilt is only resolved through baptism.


We are corrupted physically and spiritually for Adam’s sin through a mediate transferal from our parents (inherited sin).

Because of this, we all have personal sin.

We do not, however, have Adam’s guilt imputed to us.

Short History of Original Sin

The doctrine of Original Sin was not adequately dealt with among the early Church Fathers. This is not surprising as issues were only dealt with as problems arose. Once controversy challenged “orthodoxy,” orthodoxy had to define itself. Before the challenge and theological articulation, as with many issues, simple biblical language was used without interpretation (e.g. see Nicene Creed on the church and the Holy Spirit). 


The first time substantial discussion arose was at the time of Augustine (354-430). Augustine held that man is unable to do any good because man is inherently depraved. Augustine believed that all men are born with a predisposition to sin. This is what led him to his strong promotion of the necessity of predestination. “Give what thou command,” said Augustine, “and command what thou wilt.”

At this time, believing Augustine’s position to be unfair and extreme, a British monk named Pelagius (c. 354- after 418) denied that sin was passed on from Adam to the human race. As to his interpretation of Romans 5:12, Pelagius believed that, “As Adam sinned and therefore died so in a like manner all men die because they sin.” According to Pelagius, we inherit Adam’s sin neither by imputation of guilt nor by nature. The only effect that Adam had on the human race is the example he set. In the view of Pelagius, all men are born neutral in a like manner to Adam with no predisposition to evil. Pelagius was eventually condemned by two African councils in 416 and by the council of Ephesus in 431 which affirmed both inherited and imputed sin. All major orthodox tratitions of Christianity reject Pelagianism. In spite of his condemnation, the Pelagian doctrine of sin is still prominent in the Church today. It seems to be the “default” position of sin for all people.


Jacob Arminius believed that all men are considered guilty only when they partake in sin by their own free will in the same manner as Adam did. As one writer put it, “When people would voluntarily and purposefully choose to sin even though they had power to live righteously then, and only then, would God impute sin to them and count them guilty.” Therefore, the sinful state is transmitted by natural generation, while the condemnation for the actual sin is only transmitted by partaking of sin in a like manner. (This is not necessarily held by all Arminians today. Some would opt for the Fedral view below).


Many theologians have proposed a theory called Augustinianism (also called “realism” or “seminalism”). This theory has traditionally been linked with Augustine and has most recently been staunchly defended by Shedd. According to an Augustinian interpretation of Romans 5:12, “all sinned” in that all humanity was physically present in Adam when he sinned. Those who hold to the Augustinian view of Original Sin insist that we can be held accountable only for what we have actually done. As Shedd puts it, “The first sin of Adam, being a common, not an individual sin, is deservedly and justly imputed to the posterity of Adam upon the same principle which all sin is deservingly and justly imputed: Namely, that it was committed by those to whom it is imputed.” This view is attractive in that it takes literally Paul’s statement that “all sinned.”


The federal view of humanity’s relationship to Adam proposes that Adam was selected by God to be humanity’s federal representative. This view was first proposed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and is the standard belief of Reformed theology. As Achan’s family was held responsible for his sin (Joshua 7:16-26), so it is with Adam’s family. By this view, the “all sinned” of Romans 5:12 would not be taken literally. As one writer puts it, “No one but Adam actually committed that first sin, but since Adam represented all people, God viewed all as involved and thus condemned. The reason that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity according to the federalist is because God imputes the guilt of Adam, whom He chose to represent mankind, to mankind.”

Romans 5:12-21

As some have wisely said, if Romans 5:12-21 were never penned, the doctrine of imputation would not be an issue. While I don’t agree, I do think that Romans 5 represents the clearest and most theologically precise argument for the necessity of imputation. Here is the passage for reference.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass [5] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [6] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The way in which one interprets this passage will determine which of the options presented thus far, if any, is adopted. The context of the passage has Paul explaining the believer’s position in Christ by comparing it to our former position in Adam. The subject of the section is not the transgression, but the free gift (v. 15). Paul uses the analogy of Adam’s sin and compares it to the free gift of Christ’s righteousness.

The meaning of the phrase, “because all sinned” in verse 12 (NAS) is the initial and primary subject of debate. What is the meaning of “all sinned”? Most commentators would argue that it is very difficult to interpret the “all sinned” as an act of personal choice (contra Pelagius and Arminius). Why? Because of the force of the verb tense; it is likely a historic aorist (past tense referring back to the sin of Adam). If the Pelagian or Arminian interpretation were correct, the present tense would have been a much better choice for Paul in this context. Then it would naturally read, “Because all sin.” Then we could answer the question “Why are all people condemned?” with “Because all people sin.” But this is not the case here in Romans. The force of the verb has caused every translation that I know, except the NJB (a Catholic translation), to translate this passage “all sinned” with the implied referent to the being Adam’s sin. Therefore, we are connected with the past sin of Adam.

If this is correct, what Paul is saying is that when Adam sinned, we all sinned. As Leon Morris has it, “The aorist [tense] points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect [tense] if the Apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people.”

It should be noted that the historic aorist is used in Romans 2:23 in a similar but not identical way and is translated “all have sinned.” Notice there that the context only leaves room for the past tense referent to be the sin of the individual. This is brought up so that you can understand how the context of Romans 5:12 plays a determining role.

Verse 12 attempts to begin the comparison of Adam with Christ but Paul then feels inclined to break off on one of his all-too-common parenthetical statements in verses 13-14 to defend his statement “because all sinned.” This is important because Paul’s understanding of what “all sinned” means is wrapped up in his defense which follows. Verse 13 begins with the conjunction “for” (gar). This links it with the previous statement, “because all sinned.” It is as if someone got the impression that Paul was stating that all people sin and, therefore, all people die as a consequence of their own sin. At this point (v. 13), Paul says that before the Law, there was sin. But people did not die on account of these personal sins, because they were not imputed as sin (”but sin is not imputed when there is no law” v. 13). Then the objection may be “How do you explain that all people still died before the law?” Paul is saying that the reason people died before they commit an act of sin is because they are suffering the consequences of a sin already committed. They died not for personal sin, but for imputed sin. This sin was the sin of Adam. All people die because of the one sin of Adam. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that all people die? Physical death is the first and most visible evidence of our identification with the condemnation of Adam.

With death being introduced through the avenue of Adam’s sin, we need to understand what death means. This death is most certainly to be seen as both spiritual and physical considering Pauline theology (Eph. 2:2ff). Therefore, the condemnation to which all suffer as a result in our participation in Adam’s sin is both spiritual and physical with the spiritual being evidenced by the physical (v. 13).

Lest you think I am saying too much with regards to the subject, let us press on and see how the context will provide further evidence that Paul is speaking about imputed sin or guilt. Paul returns to his comparison to expound further. This comparison is between two things:

1. The effects of Adam’s sin
2. The effects of Christ’s righteousness

Whatever one does with Christ’s righteousness, one must do with Adam’s sin. First let us draw out the comparison so that it might be better seen.

Through Adams Sin | Through Christ’s Righteousness
Judgment (16) Free gift (16)
Condemnation (16) Justification (16)
Death Reigned (17) Life Reigned (17)
One Transgression=Condemnation of all (18) One Act of Righteousness=Justification of all (18)
Adam’s disobedience=many were made sinners (19) Christ’s obedience=many were made righteous (19)

The comparison is unmistakable. Whatever we do to inherit the free gift is the same thing we did to inherit judgment (v. 16). This is the force of the “just as” (hosper) in v. 12. Whatever we do to receive justification is the same thing we did to receive condemnation (v. 16). The effects of the “one act of righteousness” are brought about by the same means as the “condemnation of all men” (v. 18). The way in which believers are made righteous is analogous to the way all mankind was made sinners (v. 19). In order to answer the question as to how it is that “all sinned” and all were condemned in Adam, we must answer the question as to how Christ’s righteousness is applied to us to the end that we are justified by that righteousness.

If we were to adopt the view as held by Pelagius, that Adam’s sin has no effect upon us whatsoever and that only his example has given us trouble, this means that Christ’s righteousness has no effect upon us either. He simply came to set the example. But this is not what the text teaches. It states that the many were made sinners and that the many were made righteous. The effect of these two men’s acts goes far beyond that of an example.

If we were to say, as some Arminians do, that we have Adam’s sin imputed to us only when we act in the same manner as Adam did, then we must state that we have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us only when we act as Christ acted. This cannot be true seeing as how we inherit Christ’s righteousness while we are sinners (Rom 5:8, 10).

If one were to opt for a purely Augustinian interpretation of the passage, in that we all actually and realistically sinned in Adam, then we would also have to concede that we all actually and realistically were righteous in Christ. This, of course, will not do, for the analogy would be rendered meaningless and would contradict Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom 3:28; Eph 2:8-9).

Paul is attempting to explain our relationship to Christ’s righteousness by comparing it to the imputation of Adam’s sin to us. This relationship, in my opinion, is best seen in the federal headship view of imputation. As Doug Moo puts it, “Throughout this whole passage what Adam did and what Christ did are steadily held over against each other. Now salvation in Christ does not mean that we merit salvation by living good lives; rather, what Christ has done is significant. Just so, death in Adam does not mean that we are being punished for our own evil deeds; it is what Adam has done that is significant.”

Adam, as our chosen federal head, has represented us and passed on sin and all of its consequences. Christ, as the second Adam, represents those who believe and passes on righteousness along with all its benefits. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us without any participation of our own, just as Adam’s sin is imputed to us without our consent.

Here is what this looks like:

On the next blog we will deal with some of the implications and I will attempt to explain how this really can and does make sense.  Remember through all of this that the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    3 replies to "“A Short Defense of Imputation” or “Am I Really Condemned for the Sin of Another?”"

    • Our Natural Heresy…

      Michael Horton, in his book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church makes the assertion that Pelagianism is the “default setting” of the human heart.  I can practically see your eyes glossing over right now…….

    • J.C. Thibodaux

      Few observations:

      “As Achan’s family was held responsible for his sin (Joshua 7:16-26), so it is with Adam’s family.”

      Poor example for 2 reasons:

      1. The law of God explicitly states that guilt doesn’t transfer from parent to child: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

      Ezekiel 18:20-25 again establish that sons do not bear their father’s guilt, and that this is in fact ‘God’s way,’ with the notion that children should bear the guilt of their parents being shown to be a fallen, human invention. Assuming that the Israelites were doing right in executing Achan’s family, an easily justified inference is that those in Achan’s household were willful accomplices to his sin.

      2. While there can be broader collective punishments upon a people group, this doesn’t necessarily imply personal guilt (e.g. 1 Kings 14:13).

      …he present tense would have been a much better choice for Paul in this context.

      It’s quite normal to speak of already existent processes in aorist terms, even if the process begins (or is beginning again) with more individuals, compare:

      “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)

      “In Him we have obtained an inheritance…” (Eph 1:11a)

      “All people die because of the one sin of Adam.”

      I agree to an extent, but physical death is not indicative of personal guilt, otherwise Christ could not have died.

      “…then we must state that we have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us only when we act as Christ acted.”

      Not quite: We have Adam’s sin imputed to us when we identify with him (by sinning as he did), and have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us when we identify with Him (through faith in Him).

      “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us without any participation of our own, just as Adam’s sin is imputed to us without our consent.”

      Righteousness is by faith, and believing is definitely a participatory act. By that, if our identification with Christ is through a form of active participation, then our identification with Adam would be through the same.

      Additionally, the voice for ‘sinned’ in Romans 3:23 and 5:12 is active, rather than passive or middle. An active verb refers to what the subject does, not something done to it. Therefore said references to sinning in Romans necessarily refer what the individual actually commits, not something mysteriously thrust upon him. Paul frames the guilt of the sin that killed him spiritually not as some inherited baggage, but a result of his own nature coupled with a realization of the law of God.

      “Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” (Romans 7:9)

    • Kevin Allard

      There is more variety in the “Reformed Evangelical” view than the one set out above.

      The position set out above is the same as that set out by Grudem in his Systematic Theology. However, there are at least two other views.

      One view is that the guilt of Adams sin is imputed to us and, because this means that God regards us as guilty, one way in which he punishes us is through a corrupt nature, i.e. the corrupt nature is not something that we inherit mediately through our parents, but is something that God inflicts on us as a result of the guilt imputed to us. (I think this is the view affirmed by Turretin)

      Another view is the one put forward by Jonathan Edwards which is that God regards us all as having sinned because he sees as one with Adam (not because we actually did sin (realism)) and so the same punishments that applied to Adam – guilt and confirmed corruption of nature) also apply to us. So, as with the view above, corruption does not come to us mediately through our parents but is a direct result of imputation. (N.b. a lot of theologians wrongly regard Edwards as teaching mediate imputation)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.