James Petigru Boyce (1827-1888), the founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, affirmed the federal headship of Adam and the doctrine of original sin. On whether man inherits guilt and is under condemnation prior to actual personal transgression, Boyce writes:

Consequently, at the very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. Actual transgression subsequently adds new guilt to guilt already existing, but does not substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence. [Emphasis added]

It is the position of some in the SBC (see Steve Lemke’s article here) that a denial of original guilt is a Baptist distinctive, however, that assertion is fallacious. It is just as true to say that an affirmation of original guilt is a Baptist distinctive as Particular Baptists and Calvinistic Southern Baptists have historically affirmed that all the posterity of Adam inherit not only a corrupt nature that leads to actual transgression but also inherit the very guilt of Adam, the federal head of all mankind. To speak accurately, Baptists have historically both affirmed and denied the doctrine of original sin.

In his Abstract of Systematic Theology, Boyce addresses the nature of the relationship between Adam and his posterity. Boyce writes:

Section 3—The Connection Between Adam and His Posterity

1. Manifestly the universal sinfulness of mankind is due to some kind of connection with Adam. Being thus universal, it cannot be accidental, nor without some controlling cause. Unless some change was made in human nature at large, or it became liable to new conditions, or there was a connection of the life and state of all with that of the one, no reason can be assigned for the fact that invariably the fallen condition, and not the original one is found in every man. Yet it is manifest that while Adam’s was the first sin, and while that was not committed according to the tendencies of his nature, all of his posterity have been born with the corrupt nature which thence ensued, with all its tendencies and its actual development in due time into personal transgressions.

2. This has not resulted from the mere imitation of an example; but is a deep rooted evil inherent in their natures. It is found there before they can perceive the example, much less imitate it.

3. Such is the natural relation borne by all men to Adam, as their common father, that nothing but his death before the birth of posterity, or some such miraculous influence as goes against nature, or at least acts apart from it, and is believed to have existed in the birth of Jesus, could have prevented all the evils which befell Adam from coming in like manner upon his posterity. By natural generation they must be born with sinful natures such as his, and must, therefore, be corrupt and guilty, eternally destitute of God’s complacent love, and liable to natural death.

4. While the above would follow from mere natural law, the Scriptures teach us that Adam was not merely the natural, but also the federal head of the race. This is done not only in express language, but especially by teaching that the relation borne to Christ, our federal head in salvation, is similar to that borne to Adam in our sin.

5. This shows that the mass of mankind proceeding from Adam by natural generation sinned in him, not consciously, but representatively, and therefore are justly treated as though they had consciously sinned, because they are responsible for the act of their representative. [Emphasis added]

6. This adds nothing to the penalty which must have been suffered nor to the guilt which would have accrued from natural headship; for guilt is simply just liability to punishment.

7. In each case, whether of federal, or of natural headship, the same difficulties appear. (1.) In each we are dealt with for an act with which we had no conscious connection. (2.) In each we are made sinful, and therefore sinners, by that act; for the inherent corruption is spoken of and treated by God as sin in the highest degree to be reprobated and punished. (3.) In each the consequences of sin are equally beyond escape. If it be contended that under natural headship we could not be punished until we had actually sinned, it may be replied: (1.) That this does not appear to be the fact, for at least some of the penalties, namely, corruption and natural death, and we believe all, are inflicted before actual sin. (2.) That it would show no more equity or justice in God, nor any advantage to us, but rather disadvantage, that our probation, upon which the infliction of these penalties depends, should have taken place in the weakness of infancy, and under the disadvantages of an already corrupted nature, rather than in the personal and intelligent act of the one perfect man connected with us by natural generation.

8. But while, under the natural headship, every evil would befall which could arise

under the representative, or federal headship; under the latter would come blessing, in the event that Adam should maintain his integrity, because, as represented in him, we should have been confirmed with him according to the gracious promises and power of God.

9. It would also appear that only through the representative headship could blessing come in the event of the fall. Had our fall been through merely natural headship we can see no way for recovery. But to the fall under the federal headship of Adam corresponds our salvation under the federal headship of Christ.

10. In support of the Scriptural theory, therefore, we can not only adduce the fact that the federal headship of Adam was just and right, because duly constituted by God, and that too in the fittest person of the whole race, but that it was an act of special mercy and grace, not only in itself, as involving the blessing of participation in the good as well as the evil, but as making a way for restoration in Christ the second Adam.

Boyce, James. Abstract of Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 5400-5441). Kindle Edition.

Joshua

I am a disciple of the risen Christ Jesus, husband to Libby, full-time student at Louisiana College, part-time blogger at thedailybleat.com and canoniblog.wordpress.com, and future seminarian.

More Posts - Twitter

Tagged with:
 
  • http://www.haitiorphanproject.org Les

    Joshua, I came across your site via Dr. Lemke and the post you refer to here. Like you, I believe he is quite wrong on this issue, as you demonstrate here.

    Thanks for your posts. I now subscribe by Reader.

    BTW, since you are a Louisiana Baptist, might you know my good friend S. Morgan in the LBC office?

    • http://www.thedailybleat.com theDailyBleat

      Thanks for stopping by Les! It is frustrating that a person of his rank would make such a bold assertion regarding “Baptist distinctives” in light of conflicting evidence.

      I have enjoyed your comments over at sbctoday.com. The “dialogue” there is often anything but dialogue. After asking three times, I am still waiting on Dr. Lemke to explain why the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:29 should be applied to all mankind without exception. It appears there is no exegesis forthcoming.

      I do not know your friend personally but he did preach a chapel service at my college and I greatly enjoyed it and was blessed by it. You can watch the sermon here (http://wildcats.ehclients.com/index.php/newspaper/article/morgan_offers_my_prayer_for_you)

  • http://www.haitiorphanproject.org Les

    Yes Joshua it is frustrating over at that site. I'm trying to not fall into a sarcastic and caustic tone as can be my tendency. You'll probably never get an answer from the Dr. on that question.

    As for Stacey Morgan, he and I lived next door to each other on the campus of NOBTS way back in 1984-85. We became very good friends and have stayed in touch over the years. Thanks for the link to his sermon.

    FYI, some of my best friends are Southern Baptists, mostly of the Reformed persuasion. Phil Newton in Memphis is a great friend and sometimes speaker for The Founders org. None of my Reformed brothers and I ever have the kind of caustic conversations I encounter from SB like Dr. Lemke and those who agree with his take on theology.

    My main point in commenting at all was to try and point out the simplistic generalization he was making re baptizo. Baptist have a good case for immersion without using sloppy exegesis to get there.

    Anyway, blessings to you. I'd encourage you to contact Stacey and get to know him. Great brother.

    Les

  • http://www.transformedtheology.com Bob Hadley

    Joshua,

    You wrote, “It is the position of some in the SBC (see Steve Lemke’s article here) that a denial of original guilt is a Baptist distinctive, however, that assertion is fallacious. It is just as true to say that an affirmation of original guilt is a Baptist distinctive as Particular Baptists and Calvinistic Southern Baptists have historically affirmed that all the posterity of Adam inherit not only a corrupt nature that leads to actual transgression but also inherit the very guilt of Adam, the federal head of all mankind. To speak accurately, Baptists have historically both affirmed and denied the doctrine of original sin.”

    Seems to me, your own comments refute your position opposing Dr. Lemke; If BOTH sides of the issue can be cited as Baptist distinctives, then why is Lemke wrong to do so? You yourself admit that “It is just as true to say that an affirmation of original guilt is a Baptist distinctive.” How is Dr. Lemke’s statement fallacious?

    Also, it does not seem to me citing Dr. Boyce does nothing to settle the issue of it’s distinctiveness; the fact that Boyce supports it has NOTHING to do with whether or not it could be considered a BD… on either side. There is no question that it certainly exists, which is all your article verifies.

    Also, here is another issue in my mind; When does a particular position have to hold true to be considered a Baptist Distinctive? I would tend to agree with your position prior to 1900 and then Dr. Lemke’s post 1900 and especially today.

    Just my thoughts after a trying day today!

    May God bless you!

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>’

    • http://www.thedailybleat.com theDailyBleat

      Seems to me, your own comments refute your position opposing Dr. Lemke; If BOTH sides of the issue can be cited as Baptist distinctives, then why is Lemke wrong to do so?

      I don’t believe we should call either view a “Baptist distinctive.”

      My comments are very clear that both a denial and an affirmation of inherited guilt are present in Baptist history. The summary statement of that paragraph states, \”To speak accurately, Baptists have historically both affirmed and denied the doctrine of original sin.\”

      Dr. Lemke failed to make the point that Baptists have also historically affirmed the doctrine of inherited guilt, thus leaving his audience to believe that a denial of inherited guilt is a \”Baptist distinctive.\” I don\’t believe we Baptists have a particular distinctive regarding inherited guilt and believe that making a such a claim for either side would be fallacious.

      Also, it does not seem to me citing Dr. Boyce does nothing to settle the issue of it\’s distinctiveness; the fact that Boyce supports it has NOTHING to do with whether or not it could be considered a BD… on either side. There is no question that it certainly exists, which is all your article verifies.

      My intention in quoting Boyce was to easily prove the historicity of an affirmation of inherited guilt in Baptist life. I don\’t believe an affirmation or denial of the doctrine should be considered a BD.

      When does a particular position have to hold true to be considered a Baptist Distinctive? I would tend to agree with your position prior to 1900 and then Dr. Lemke\’s post 1900 and especially today.

      I believe a BD should be something fundamental to the Baptist denomination. Baptism by immersion would certainly be a distinctive. I see no reason to label certain doctrines as distinctively Baptist if a credible history of contrary doctrine is also present, i.e. inherited guilt. Also, the 1925 BF&M affirms man is under condemnation before he becomes an actual transgressor. The 1963 revision changes the wording and thus makes a case for a modern Baptist denial of inherited guilt. It is accurate to say that before 1963, Southern Baptists confessionally agreed upon the doctrine of inherited guilt.

      Hope this helps!