The Solidarity of the Human Race in Sin – 1689 6:2-3 | Sam Waldron

by Sam Waldron | Jun 30, 2022 | Systematic Theology

Paragraphs 2 and 3 speak of the solidarity of the human race in sin. Paragraph 2 reads as follows:

Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

2LCF 6:2

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 is not a little Bible story which deals with a snake, a man and a woman. No! It is the big story of the origin of sin in human history. It gives an account according to the Confession of the fall of the whole human race. All of us, it teaches, were one with Adam and Eve in their sin. This is, of course, how the Apostle Paul understood this story. In Romans 5:12, he says this: “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 old hymn, Immortal Invisible, has a verse which gives an apt analogy for our solidarity in Adam. It runs as follows: “To all life Thou givest, to both great and small; In all life Thou livest, the true life of all; We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree, And wither and perish, but nought changeth Thee.” We are all leaves on the tree of the human race and as part of that tree infected by the sin of Adam, we wither and perish.

Paragraph 3 informs us that there are two distinct results of the sin of Adam which are passed to all his descendants. Here is what it says:

They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

2LCF 6:3

As our covenant head, Adam sinned representatively. Thus, his sin is accounted as ours and imputed to us. Paul makes the representative character of the sin of Adam clear in a couple of places.

• Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men
• 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die

As our natural head, Adam with Eve, infected the human race with the corruption of sin. Thus, Ephesians 2:3 tell us that we are by nature children of wrath just like the rest.

It is this solidarity in Adam that explains so much that otherwise would be inexplicable. Why does every human sin without exception? What are the odds of that? Why does the Scripture say that men are born sinful and go from the womb speaking lies? Why do even babies die? Why, on the other hand, can we be saved from sin, justified, and sanctified on the basis of the work of Christ? All of this requires the doctrine of our solidarity in Adam to explain. We must repent of the individualism of our modern way of thinking and return to the corporate way of thinking taught in the Bible if we are ever to make sense of the indisputable realities of human existence.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

The Origin of Sin -1689 6:1 | Sam Waldron

by Sam Waldron | Jun 23, 2022 | Systematic Theology

We come to Chapter 6 of the 1689 which has the longish title: “Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof.”

This chapter can be conveniently outlined using as the theme part of its long title: “Of Sin.” Paragraph 1 speaks of the origin of sin. Paragraphs 2 and 3 speaks of the solidarity (of the whole human race) in sin. Paragraphs 4 and 5 speak of the effects of sin. In this post, I want to consider the first paragraph and what we learn from the origin of sin. Consider the first paragraph:

Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did wilfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

2LCF 6:1

Let me focus your attention on the nature or definition of sin which is clarified by its origin. The nature of the fall clearly reveals the essence or definition of sin. The first sin consisted in the transgression of law. Adam, according to the Confession, violated both the general obligations of the law written on his heart and the specific and specially revealed command regarding the tree when he fell. This strongly suggests the definition that sin is rebellion against, transgression of, or disobedience to the law of God.

• This suggestion is confirmed by the rest of Scripture (Rom. 2:12-15; 4:15; 5:13; 1 John 3:4). 1 John 3:4 is perhaps the classic, scriptural statement: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”
• The classic definition of the Shorter Catechism (Question and Answer # 14) is, thus, fully justified. “Sin is any want (lack) of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.”

This definition of sin suggests several practical observations.

• If sin is (negatively) transgression of divine law, then it may be described (positively) as autonomy (being or desiring to be a law unto oneself). It is the assumption of or desire for independence from God and His law.  It need not be self-conscious rebellion against God.  It may be the presumption that in any area of life I may do just as I please without reference to any standard other than my own desires.  The anti-law mentality and anti-authority attitudes of our day are the essence of what sin is.  Sin is the desire to live without reference to an authority outside myself, whether that authority is the law of God himself or the laws of His appointed representatives in the state, the church, and the family.  The modern idolization of freedom is very close to the worship of the very essence of sin. “I did it my way,” as the popular song goes, really articulates the very essence of sin.
• If the definition of sin offered here is correct, then another popular definition of sin cannot be correct. It is popularly said that sin may spelled S – E – L – F.  Is sin self-love, selfishness?  Augustine himself said, “The first ruin of man was his love of himself.”   Such sentiments do, of course, have an element of truth in them, but they are ambiguous and confusing. Both logically and practically they form a very bad definition of sin.  The fact is that there is a proper self-love.  The Bible commands all men to love their neighbors as themselves and commands husbands to love their wives as their own bodies because in so doing they will be loving themselves (Matt. 22:39; Eph. 5:28).  Our truest and highest self-interest is always consistent with the glory of God.  Definitions of sin as self-love tend to drive a wedge between God’s glory and our good and lead thereby to moral confusion in the lives of the people of God.  They steal from them biblical motivations for doing right and serving God.  The entire Bible from beginning to end witnesses to the truth that it is normally in our temporal interest to serve God and it is always in our highest interest and, thus, an expression of true self-love.
• The definition of sin offered here is liberating. The law of God is a law of liberty (Ps. 119:45; James 1:25; 2:12).  If sin is only the transgression of God’s law, then it is not the transgression of what my friend thinks and it is not loving myself.  What a liberating concept to our consciences!  I have not sinned merely because I have violated a brother’s desires, nor merely because I have acted in my own interest.  There is one Lord and one lawgiver.  To that master and lord alone I am accountable (Isa. 33:22; Rom. 14:4; James 4:12).

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

Where is the Sabbath in the Early Church? (Pt.3) | Jon English Lee

by Jon English Lee | Jun 14, 2022 | Systematic Theology

Continuing our series on the Sabbath, this post will look at the thought of the early church father Justin Martyr to see what he thought concerning the Sabbath/Lord’s Day debate.

Justin Martyr

Justin was a second-century writer and itinerant evangelist, but he is most well known as an apologist. He has also been called “a ‘philosopher’ at least since the time of Tertullian.” ((Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, eds., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford early Christian texts (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 59.))  Justin wrote often against “all enemies of truth, Jews, Gentiles, and heretics.” Sadly, Justin was beheaded in Rome between 163 and 168 AD along with six other Christians. ((Minns and Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, 32.))

Two of Justin’s texts will be examined here. The first, Apology, was a defense of the Christian faith against persecution. It was addressed to Emperor Antonius Pius, Verissimus, and Lucius. ((Minns and Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, 34.))This Apology, along with the Second Apology, have been seen as some of the earliest examples of Christian apologetics. Indeed, some historians have given Justin credit for creating the genre of Christian apology. ((Paul Parvis, “Justin Martyr,” The Expository Times 120, no. 2 (November, 2008): 59. See also: Sara Parvis, “Justin Martyr and the Apologetic Tradition”, in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 115–27.))

The second work to be examined is Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. More than twice as long as the two Apologies, the Dialogue is a defense of Christianity against the most common objections of the Jews. The work is an account of a two-day discussion between Trypho and Justin. ((Johnson, Worship in the Early Church, 69.))

Text

Apology 1.67. “And on the day that is called Sunday all who live in the Cities or in Rural areas gather together in one place, and memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read for as long as time allows.” Justin goes on to state for the Emperor the reasons for this worship: “But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly since this day is the first day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world; it was on this very day that Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.” ((Johnson, Worship in the Early Church, 68.))

Interpretation

Unlike Ignatius who wrote to a body of believers, Justin is writing to the Emperor in order to explain and defend Christian beliefs and practices. The first half of the quote simply explains the Christian practice of gathering on Sundays. ((Regarding the gathering of believers, Minns and Parvis argue that, “It is highly improbable that large numbers of Christians gathered, even in the one city, for the Sunday eucharist, and even more unlikely that they travelled from rural areas to attend a eucharist with city-dwelling Christians,” in Justin, Minns, and Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford early Christian texts (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 259n3. The physical location of the gatherings is not of primary interest in this paper; instead, the weekly pattern of gathering is of concern.))  He also gives a brief description of what believers did at the gathering. Justin knew that he Emperor had probably heard reports about questionable Christian practices, and this seemingly simple account would hopefully serve to quell some of the Emperor’s suspicions.

The latter half of the quote shows Justin trying to give justification(s) for this weekly pattern: creation and resurrection.

Significance.

Justin’s references to the Lord’s Day in his Apology are significant for several reasons. First, his Apology is one of the first defenses of the faith given by the church. Notably, the weekly gathering pattern is part of that defense. By explaining exactly what the Christian gatherings entailed, Justin would be able to correct any rumors that the Emperor had heard about Christian immorality. ((E.g., Christians were charged with cannibalism because of language about eating Christ’s “flesh” and drinking His “blood.” See: Andrew McGowan, “Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the Second Century,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2, no. 4 (1994): 413–42. Justin also mentions this slanderous charge in Dialogue with Trypho 10.)) Furthermore, Justin would be able both to explain Christian practices and to defend these practices over and against the Roman pagan practices and Jewish traditions of the day. Justin defends Christian practices by showing that no moral impropriety occurs, and yet shows discontinuity with surrounding customs because of the motivation for their gatherings.

This motivation for gathering on the Lord’s Day is also significant. Justin gives weekly Lord’s Day worship a theological foundation: God’s work of creation and re-creation. For Justin, it is proper for the church to worship on Sunday, rather than Saturday, because this commemorates both God’s creative work in the first week and God’s resurrecting work done on Easter Sunday. The latter reason is in alignment with Ignatius’ theological reasoning for Lord’s Day worship. However, by making the creation week an additional reason for on-going weekly worship gathering, Justin has broadened the theological foundation for Lord’s Day worship.

Interestingly, unlike those who argue for a perpetually binding sabbath creation ordinance, Justin does not ground Lord’s Day worship in God’s rest. Rather, he grounds weekly worship in God’s activity, specifically the first day. This is significant for two reasons: (1) he can keep the creation week as a prescription for weekly worship while simultaneously (2) distancing himself from the Jewish custom of weekly sabbath worship, which was also based on the creation week. By grounding weekly Lord’s Day worship within both creation and re-creation, Justin has successfully shown continuity with other Fathers (e.g., Ignatius) while also demonstrating to the Emperor that Christians do not carry the same traditions of the Jews.

Text and Interpretation

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Writing specifically to defend Christianity as the proper interpretation of the Old Testament and to show that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, Justin naturally has to deal with issues regarding the Jewish law. Specifically, the question of sabbath observance is addressed multiple times. For Justin, the issue of the sabbath is tied to a proper understanding of the fulfillment of Old Covenant law and to the proper interpretation of New Covenant law. While a full treatment of Justin’s theology of the law is worthy of further treatment elsewhere, it will be sufficient here to make a few observations that specifically relate to our study: (1) For Justin, Jews never properly understood Old Covenant law and do not understand how the New Law relates to it; (2) the sabbath was not a perpetually binding obligation for Old Testament believers, therefore it is not inconceivable for the command to be removed in the New Covenant; (3) in the New Law, obedience to the sabbath command is perpetual, not weekly; and (4) circumcision, along with the rest of the Old Covenant law, pointed to and has been fulfilled in Christ. This fulfillment, along with Christ’s resurrection, combines to give typological resolution to Old Testament patterns and gives the foundation for New Covenant worship on Sundays, the eighth day.

First, Justin claims that the Jews understand neither the Old Covenant law nor the New Covenant. After explaining that the Mosaic Law is old and belongs only to the Jews, Justin argues that a new law has been placed and has “abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.” Furthermore, this new law is an “eternal and final law–namely, Christ– [which] has been given to us.” ((Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 10, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 1:200. All subsequent citations to the Ante-Nicene Fathers will be indicated as ANF.))  Christ himself is the new law, and he has personally fulfilled and abrogated the Old Covenant commands, including the sabbaths.

Second, regarding the perpetual nature of the sabbath command, Justin argues that the Jews have wrongly understood the universality of the command. Consider Justin’s observation in chapter XIX:

Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned [Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses… And you [fleshly Jews] were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, “That you may know that I am God who redeemed you.” ((Dialogue with Trypho 19, ANF, 1:205. Emphasis added.))

Furthermore, “if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths…before Moses; no more need is there of them now.” ((Dialogue with Trypho 19, ANF, 1:206. )) According to Justin, because the sabbath command was not observed before the Mosaic Law was given, it is proper to conclude that the sabbath was neither an eternal command nor was universal in its application. Rather, for Justin, the sabbath commands were given to a specific people, the Jews, for a specific purpose: “God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath…on account of your unrighteousness, and that of your fathers.” ((Dialogue with Trypho 19, ANF, 1:204.))

Third, regarding the Jewish observance of the law, in chapter 12 Justin accuses the Jews of having an improper understanding of what it meant to obey the sabbath commands.

This same law [New Covenant Law, or Christ] you have despised, and His new holy covenant you have slighted; and now you neither receive it, nor repent of your evil deeds. ‘For your ears are closed, your eyes are blinded, and your heart is hardened,’ Jeremiah has cried; yet not even then do you listen…You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you…The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to do so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. ((Dialogue with Trypho 12, ANF, 1:200.))

The New Law brings with it the command to observe a perpetual sabbath. In other words, New Covenant believers should be constantly “resting” in Christ. This “rest” is only attained by repenting from and avoiding sin.

Fourth, and most important to our study, Justin explains that the sabbath observance as a day of rest and worship has been replaced by the eighth day. Dialogue with Trypho 24 explains regarding the nature of the eighth day:

It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. ((Dialogue with Trypho 24, ANF, 1:206.))

Additionally, in Chapter 41, Justin writes:

Furthermore, the command to circumcise, requiring that children are always to be circumcised on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision by which we are circumcised from error and iniquity through our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath. This day, the day that is the first day of the week, is called the eighth day according to the cycle of all the days of the week, and yet it remains the first day. ((Dialogue with Trypho 41, in Johnson, Worship in the Early Church, 1:69.))

For Justin, the sabbath and circumcision commands of the Old Covenant served as typological forerunners that have been fulfilled by Christ. The eighth-day circumcision of Jewish boys has been replaced by the circumcision of Christ on the cross. ((Justin also sees the eighth day signified by the eight people saved on Noah’s ark: “For righteous Noah, along wit the other mortals at the deluge, i.e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead, for ever the first in power,” Dialogue with Trypho 138, ANF, 1:268.)) Eighth-day (i.e., Sunday) corporate worship gathering now stands as a weekly reminder of Christ’s resurrection on that sacred eighth day.

Significance.

Justin shows continuity with Ignatius on several points. First, he defends Lord’s Day worship and condemns weekly sabbath day observance. Also like Ignatius, Justin argues that the sabbath commands of the Old Testament were for the Jews, not for everyone.

However, Justin shows discontinuity with previous authors regarding his theological foundation for Lord’s Day worship. Justin grounds his Lord’s Day observance upon typological promise and fulfillment themes. Christ as the true circumcision and the New Law is the reason why believers meet on Sundays.

It is worth noting that Justin does argue that Lord’s Day worship is grounded in creation (First Apology 67), but that the sabbath command is not (Dialogue with Trypho, 19), contra Exodus 20. This disparity could be explained by the different audiences of the two works (Gentiles and Jews, respectively), or perhaps an evolution in his theological framework. Either way, Justin does see some sort of creation week based theological underpinning for New Covenant Lord’s Day worship.

Jon English Lee

Jon English serves as Pastor of Discipleship for Morningview Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He has earned a Bachelor’s degree from Auburn University Montgomery, a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Systematic and Historical Theology from SBTS. Jon English is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, a fellow for the Center for Pastor Theologians, and an adjunct professor for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.

Course taught at CBTS: The Decalogue & the Sabbath in Redemptive History