We have had tremendous success with this series and we are just about finished. This chapter is the idea of “Immediate Imputation.” The imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity (all mankind). This is a strong Calvinist doctrine and leads Clark to the next chapter: Total Depravity. Can a Preterist theology handle these concerns? Handle them we can. So far, we have been sticking fairly close to Clark’s definition of “the whole man” as “soul” – a definition you will find in the minority view among the Reformed. Clark was very much aware of the fact that he was taking a more or less “platonic” view (I say “more or less” because for Clark, Plato was a pagan – as he made plain). Clark, however, was an ancient Greek philosopher scholar, and he did believe that even though pagans are lost, this does not mean that even thinking pagans occassionally strike upon the truth – which must be verified, of course, by the Bible. This is a far cry from “science is truth” and the Bible must accommodate itself to almighty scientific empiricism. Clark was no accommodationalist. The Bible alone is the Truth, written. But, the Bible appears to be saying the same thing: Man’s soul is the substance, the sine qua non, the essence, the being of Man qua Man. The Westminster Confession has man enjoying God “in perfect holiness” in “the highest heaven” before the resurrection of his corpse. The corpse, then, adds nothing as to the substance of Man as Man. The corpse is an addition to Man, but it is not an NECESSARY addition in relationship for Man to be Man – wholly. Now, for some of my readers, I must constantly remind them that Clark believed in the future resurrection of the corpse. But, it is clear so far that he did not see this as adding anything in terms of man rational capacity, or image of God, or the whole essence of Man.
Allow me to demonstrate: In his book, Behaviorism and Christianity, Clark delivered a two page response to Behaviorism and its insistence that “brains think.” “Scriptures assert the existence of God, angels, Satan, and demons. None of these has a body…..yet they all think” (105). “In Genesis God fashioned a physical body which could not think, then he breathed his spirit into clay, and the combination made a living man” (105). We have discussed that Clark’s view of “combination” here is not the definition of “the whole man”. The whole man is the soul that has a body – and this is the “combination.” This is theologically different from saying that “the whole man is a combination of soul + body.” Theology is dealing with precision, and for precision we must be exact in our definitions. Continuing, though, Clark relates the story of Jesus, Elijah and Moses. Moses was “buried” (Dt. 34.1-6). His “brain was decomposed”, and “after about fifteen centuries there could have been very little left of his body. Nevertheless, Moses kept thinking without brains or a body, for on the Mount of Transfiguration Moses held a theological conversation…with Jesus, who may not have been using his brains, either” (106). He also related the story of the theif on the cross who, “today”, would be with Jesus in “paradise”. His conclusion: “Thinking is not a function of brains” (106). Radical!
So, what, then, is the purpose of the resurrection of the corpse? Clark has not told us, yet. Today we are talking about immediate imputation. Adam, as the first man, was the federal, corporate head of all mankind, and, so the theory goes, when he sinned, “all sinned”. His guilt is imputed to all born after him – regardless of how “good” they are in terms of living a decent life. What the Bible calls “righteousness” in terms of good behavior is, indeed, “righteous”. But, it does not ever bring man into “the righteousness of God.” Thus, in all his “good works”, evil has contaminated them – there is none good, no, not one.
Obviously, such a view assumes that Adam was the first created human being. It will do no good to say that Adam was plucked from an already existing society of men. Were these men under sin? Since sin is defined by law in the Bible, what law were they under? Secondly, it will do no good to say that Adam was the first “covenant” man, and then became “separated” from God (a second time?). This would mean that the men he was taken from were already separated from God – which means God created them separated from him. But, how does one become “separated” from God if not for sin? And sin is defined by law. They, too, must have been under some sort of law that separated them, too. The idea that God “evolved” mankind as already “separated” from him runs into absurdity, theologically speaking. The idea would be that God evolved mankind, then took Adam, placed him under a law, which he then broke, and became separated again – being pretty much in the place he was before. This would also imply that God created man as a sinner – he created/evolved him (them) as already deserving of his wrath. He created them under wrath. Such a view is to be totally rejected.
The biblical view is that Adam was the first human being, with Eve sharing in that glory and that they were the parents of all the living. Everyone we see around us is a son or daughter of Adam and Eve. From “one blood” God made all the nations, and when whatever that happened to Adam and his dear wife happened, its effects would be manifested among everyone. This has been the view of the church and it must be the view of biblical Preterism.
“We are not guilty because we are depraved. We are depraved because we are guilty” (68, Biblical Doctrine of Man). Clark meant here that we are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. We are born that way. There is a natural propensity for us when it comes to sin. Why does doing good become hard? We do not see self help books on how to discipline ourselves to be evil. That’s easy. Doing evil is a relatively simple task. If we were honest with ourselves, we would know this. It’s doing good that’s hard. Laziness is easy. Work is hard.
Clark advocates what is called “realism” in philosophy (and theology). Realism is the view that universal aspects apply to individuals of the same genus or species. The act of Adam was the act of all mankind. This can get very involved, as anyone reading Hodge (Systematic Theology, Volume II) would know. Clark contended with Hodge, and it seems as if they were trifling over theological terms of the highest order. So they were. Welcome to theology, as I like to say. Anyway, why do I have a propensity to sin?
The Reformed speak in way of “original sin” and “inherited corruption” and the like. I would like to keep within the framework that what Adam “did”, we all, in a sense, “did”, too. Secondly, what happened to Adam as a result, happened to us all, too. In that, we “inherited” something from him. But, what?
If we look at the story, when Adam and his lovely wife “transgressed” the law of the garden, their eyes were opened. They “knew” that they were “naked.” They “hid” themselves because they were “afraid.” Fear. Guilt. Ashamed. Sin. Ring a bell? Ever “felt” those things before? Sure you have. Where did they come from? Are they mere “emotions”?
The Law, it often said, had no grace. But this it not necessarily true. The law of Moses had several provisions for sins in the sacrificial system. It assumed that all were sinners, and therefore, all under that law needed a remedy for sin. Not “if” they sinned, but “when” they sinned. God remedied this to Adam and Eve, too. He “covered” them with skins of an animal. Blood was shed. He didn’t physically put them to death. He forgave them.
But, there is one unique thing that I think is often missed here in theology. They were cut off from the Tree of Life which, according to the text, could give “life forever.” There was a definite “separation” from God in some sense in which God banned them from the garden. This ban was not they could not plant trees or the rivers that flowed from the garden. They certainly had access to the animals, and they still had each other to fulfill the positive commands of the garden: be fruitful and multiply. None of this was cut off from them, and we should insist that a “relationship” with God was not done away with, either. God still talked with Cain and Abel, and men called on the name of the Lord, and he spoke back, too, in those days. Noah was “righteous” and God “took” Enoch. Hardly a “separation from God” in any absolute sense. God re-enters (renews) to man through Noah by making a “covenant” with him and all mankind and with the sun, moon, and stars. God didn’t leave. The only thing unique that we see is that man was exiled from a place that had a tree which was a conduit, so to speak, for this “eternal life” idea.
There is another idea in theology that I will break down here. It is that we inherited the propensity for sin. Paul said it like this: “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation…one trespass led to condemnation for all men.” Something Adam did resulted in something for “all men.” Adam, we are told, was originally created “righteous” or “innocent.” There are several words here, and a good deal of debate in history as well. Some of it we have discussed. But, hasn’t it ever puzzled you how Adam could have been perfectly righteous and yet fall so easily for a piece of fruit? Wouldn’t there had to have been something already there at work in him, before he sinned?
In the text, we are told that Eve “desired” the fruit. Desire, in the Bible, is an inner quality. It’s like saying, “God says stealing is wrong, but I really desire to steal that piece of fruit. I really want it. Really bad.” Hasn’t the idea of “sin” (breaking the law – transgression) already entered? Some have recognized this in theology, like Charles Hodge, in his commentary on Romans, and John Frame (to name a few). The fact that she was already desiring (read, “lusting”) after that which was forbidden was ALREADY at work BEFORE she actually sinned (broke the commandment).
If this is true, then this “propensity for sin” was already there. It was originally part of our make-up. Adam was not made without this propensity. What stirred it up was “sin”. Well, let’s back up. What stirred up “sin” was “law.” What resulted was “death.” Sin, law, death. Heard those terms before? If there was no law against the Tree of Knowledge, there would have been no sin. Nothing would have been wrong. What made it wrong was God’s law. Man, as he was, could be easily distracted now in his mind, whereas before, no distraction would have existed. “Right” and “wrong” would not have been present. Law makes “right and wrong” realities. Prior to the law there was only “right.”
Thus, as human beings in Adam, it is not as though we became “sinners” because we like to sin. That, somehow, we inherited this craving and love for darkness. The craving for darkness (like, breaking God’s law for a piece of fruit) was prior to the “fall.” What stirs it – what brings out in us what has been there all along – is law. As creatures, God created us with this propensity to break laws. That was there prior to the actual act of breaking any law.
Now – back to the unique thing: separation from Life. Eternal life. This would have to be, I believe, the same “eternal life” that is found in Christ Jesus. It is eternal life in God’s righteousness. It was not biological life (they were already “living beings” biologically speaking). God didn’t cut man off from biological life. In this sense, Eve is the mother of “all the living” (the “living beings”). “The first man Adam became a living creature,’ the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit.” What is the difference between “life giving” and “living being”? Well, one is “natural life” and the other is “spiritual life.” What Adam already had (as a living being, having natural life), and what was not taken from him (in that he continued to be fruitful in generating more “living beings”) must be contrasted, then, with what was taken from him: life giving spirit – eternal life in the Spirit – eternal life with God in righteousness.
Being cut off from this, then, is what we all “inherited” from Adam. We were not made “more sinful”. Cain was confronted by God for the lust against his brother, Abel. God is not giving him a law against “murder” so to speak, but he is confronting his conscience, telling him, “you are your brother’s keeper. You are supposed to love your brother, not be jealous of him. Do not end your brother’s life, Cain. Sin wants you! It’s crouching at your door, and it desires to rule over it, but you must master it.” Isn’t this exactly what happened in the garden? Sin, stirred up by the commandment, wanted Eve. She should have mastered it, but she didn’t. It ruled over her and Adam. This is the “reign of sin” that Paul talked about. There was nothing unique to Adam than to us in the desire for sin within us, stirred by all that we “see” around us – all that we can enjoy, and all that we cannot enjoy (because of our laws and statutes). I mean, who doesn’t like driving 80 mph? But that damned sign says 70! What will I do? I’ll set the cruise control for 76. Adam was faced with this problem from the beginning, and we are still faced with it. We are faced with it as long as we live here on earth. We were made that way. Law is our weakness. Law is our blindspot. Law humbles us. Law reminds us: you are just creatures – I made you. Law constantly tells us one thing: we need God.
Adam was a man created in the image of God (rational), and was created with a natural propensity to evil (law breaking) if the circumstances arise. Adam, once under law, jumped at the chance. This demonstration of Adam has become the demonstration of all of us. You can list your “achievements” here if you like – but given the right set of circumstances, what would you really do? Without being able to eat from the Tree of Life (life giving, spiritual life in the Spirit of God and his righteousness), we are miserably left in this state. Eternal life is spiritual life (to fit the contrast in Paul noted above). Man is born without spirtual life. He needs to be “born again” into spiritual life and come into “eternal life” which brings about a new change: our eyes are “opened” when we eat of this Tree of Life – we now are given “eyes to see”. Our minds are oriented in a new direction when it comes to “law” and “desires” to “break law”. We have the forgiveness of sins once and for all in Christ, so that we work out our salvation on these new covenant terms, a life of grace and mercy. We are imputed with Christ’s righteousness, and are infused with eternal life in our souls – made alive with Christ Jesus by being made a member of His Body. We are no longer counted as a member of the body of Adam. We are what Adam was cut off from: a sinner with eternal life. Adam was just a sinner. He had no eternal life. When he died, there was no “going to heaven.” When we die….well, we never die.
A person without eternal life is most miserable person. The love for darkness created by the world around us, which is meant to stir up every passion against God in us, is all that he has. He walks in darkness. He has no light which comes from Life. This is what we inherit in Adam. A life of darkness. A life “cut off” from eternal life. But, in the new heavens and new earth, God has “brought down” a new Garden of Eden, the New Jerusalem, and once more the gate have been opened – and on no day will they ever be shut. Inside those gates is the Tree of Eternal Life – life-giving spiritual life. Adam’s death has been swallowed up and can no longer keep those whom God has called from eating. It’s lost its sting. Whereas, before, those whom God called were under the death – when they died, they died without eternal life in the Spirit. But, they did hope in a better resurrection, and in the Preterist view, they were raised from the dead at the parousia of Christ in His Body. They were sown in Adam’s corruption, but raised in Christ’s incorruptible glory as He consummated the rule and reign of the sin and death that came through Adam which held them in bondage. The living were changed with them in the air, caught up together with them.
CONCLUSION:
Adam and Eve were our first parents. They forfeited the Life Eternal in that all men suffered under the reign of the sin and death that came from them: all were cut off from eternal life. The “hope” of the OT and the NT is receive this eternal life in Christ Jesus, the Son of God. By not partaking of the eternal life in the garden, Adam’s life was one of “earthy”-ness, natural, and apart from eternal life – and now under the wrath of God – his posterity would be thrown into darkness. Only through divine intervention through a series of covenants would God slowly bring forth the light of salvation: faith in God. When the times had reached their fullness, God sent His Son to redeem those whom he had called in the past, as well as those who he would call for all time. They would be given eternal life, new life, life from above. While they certainly come under those same things that stir the passions, and occassionally do fall into them, no sin, no penalty, no condemnation will ever befall them. They have eternal life.
