Skip to main content

Billy Graham: "...we share in their guilt and shame."

 



Billy Graham believed in "inherited guilt." 


Since that fatal moment the human race has been trying to get back into that Garden without success. Try as we might, its happiness and perfection elude us. The reason is because we too are fallen creatures, living in a fallen world. Adam and Eve’s sin affected not only their lives, but ours as well. The consequences of their rebellion against God have come down to us, and we share in their guilt and shame.

Some people have a hard time accepting this. Why, they ask, am I responsible for what Adam did? It’s a logical question; after all, if your great-grandfather committed a crime a century ago, no one would think of taking you into court and charging you with his crime today.

But Adam was different, for he was the fountainhead of the whole human race. I remember as a boy on my father’s dairy farm finding one of his cows dead beside a creek running through our property. We discovered that a textile mill some distance upstream was discharging poisonous waste into the creek, and eventually we had to fence it off to safeguard the animals. My father wasn’t responsible for the pollution, but he still had to live with its consequences. In somewhat the same way, Adam’s sin flows down through the ages, polluting everything in its path.

To put it another way, in the Garden of Eden Adam acted as our representative. When we send someone to Congress or Parliament, we expect them to act as our representative. In other words, we expect them to vote the way we would vote if we were actually there. And that’s what Adam did: He voted the way we would have voted if we had been there. You might contend you would have acted differently—but if you are honest, you know you would have done exactly what Adam did, because you do it every day. The Bible says, “Sin entered the world through one man, . . . and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).



Billy Graham, The Journey: Living by Faith in an Uncertain World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place without the first. J

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he knew that his cri

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own as if it were wise and sound on it