Mullins' Doctrine of Sin - Research Paper Example

Mullins' Doctrine of Sin Introduction Edgar Young Mullins (1860-1928) has been described as one of the most important theologians and "statesmen" in Southern Baptist life.1,2 Although important Baptist leaders such as B. H. Carroll, Lee Scarborough, and George W. Truett were contemporaries of Mullins, R. Albert Mohler claimed that Mullins’s influence as a denominational leader and theologian was more widespread.3 He served as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in addition to his teaching systematic theology for almost thirty years. Fisher Humphreys identified three theological issues that Mullins faced during his career:4 the tradition of staunch Calvinism held by Mullins's predecessors at Southern Seminary,5 the Landmark Baptist interpretation of Baptist history, and the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Mullins wrote numerous articles and books on a variety of subjects.6 In his first work, The Axioms of Religion, Mullins alluded to the doctrine of original sin in his discussion concerning the inappropriateness of infant baptism. However, his argument against infant baptism did not consist of a denial of original sin or even an interpretation of it. He insisted that baptism required conscious obedience to Christ and denied the principle of vicarious faith.7 The only works in which Mullins stated his position on original sin were Baptist Beliefs and The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression.8 Because of the brevity of Baptist Beliefs, Mullins's description of the "fall of man" was only an outline of his position,9 In The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, Mullins did not provide a systematic presentation of the doctrine of original sin.10 However, he discussed the important details of the doctrine of original sin in his discussion of providence, in the chapter on the doctrine of sin, and more thoroughly in his description of Paul's doctrine of sin,11 Components of Mullins's doctrine of original sin are distributed throughout this work. This paper will analyze how well Mullins substantiated his doctrine of original sin. Analysis of Mullins's Doctrine of Original Sin In order to analyze Mullins’s doctrine of original sin, this paper will provide a summary of Mullin’s overall argument. The summary will be followed by a critique of the premises upon which the overall argument is built. Summary of Mullins’s Argument Although Mullins did not explicitly define his doctrine of original sin, the components of the doctrine are found within his systematic theology in various places.12 However, the central claim of his argument is apparent. He contended that although persons inherit a tendency to sin from Adam, condemnation is incurred only through personal acts of rebellion against God. The overall flow of his argument is as follows: All persons are biologically connected to Adam. Thus, a tendency toward sinful behavior is transmitted through the hereditary connection. However, persons are not condemned because of their tendency toward sinful behavior because the death of Christ removed the condemnation accompanying the tendency to sin. Therefore, persons are condemned only on the basis of their personal rebellion against God. Three claims are central to Mullins's overall argument, his assertion that the tendency to sin is transmitted from Adam to his progeny, that persons can be condemned for their tendency to sin, and that Christ's death removed the condemnation resulting from this tendency. This paper will analyze how effectively Mullins substantiated these claims. The Source of the Tendency toward Sinful Behavior Mullins described Adam before the fall as free, moral, and inclined toward righteousness.13 However, after the fall, humanity is described as depraved, sinful, and inclined toward sin. The fact that Mullins asserted that a hereditary connection exists between Adam and his progeny and that this connection results in a transmission of sinful tendencies, necessitates an explanation of how Adam acquired the inclination toward sin. However, he failed to explain how Adam's sin caused this new condition except to assert that Adam was "guilty and corrupt in consequence of his deed."14 Therefore, one must assume Mullins believed that Adam experienced condemnation and the eradication of his inclination toward righteousness as a result of his initial act of rebellion. However, although one might argue that sin is somehow addictive, or that it becomes progressively powerful in the life of an individual, Mullins's presentation could have been strengthened if he had provided an explanation of the relationship between Adam's initial sin and the corruption resulting from the sin. He used the term "moral inability" to explain that persons do not have the ability to overcome the bias of their will. If Mullins had explained how Adam had moved from a righteous inclination to a condition in which he could not overcome a bias toward sin, his argument would have been strengthened. Additionally, the discussion would have afforded him the opportunity to address the issue of the power of sin. Another issue of import is how Mullins supported his claim that the tendency to sin is transmitted from Adam to humanity. He maintained that this tendency is transmitted biologically. He cited both science and Scripture to substantiate his argument. According to Mullins, modern science affirms the principle of heredity whereby traits and tendencies are transmitted from one generation to the next.15 He explained that historians, ethnologists, psychologists, and linguists also point to a common origin of humanity.16 In terms of scriptural evidence of his claim, he argued that, "the Scriptures clearly teach it [the hereditary transmission of sinful tendencies]. This appears in the Genesis account of man's origin and in the New Testament teachings as to the Incarnation and its benefits for mankind."17 In his discussion of the origin of sin, Mullins also maintained that Paul "recognized" the principle of heredity.18 Although one might be inclined to accept Mullins's assertion that "modern" science supports his view, his references to Scripture are problematic. First, even if the author or authors of the Genesis narrative intended to identify Adam as the first human, does this fact necessarily support the claim that sinful tendencies are transmitted biologically? Does the fact that Adam is biologically linked with all humanity demonstrate that he is the source of the tendency to sin or that the tendency can be transmitted biologically? Mullins seems to have believed that if persons share a common origin, then sinful tendencies must be transmitted biologically. However, his logic appears faulty. While the text may be used to affirm a biological connection, Mullins failed to explain how the text supports his view that sinful tendencies are transmitted via this connection. His appeal to the New Testament teachings concerning the benefits of the Incarnation is also problematic due to the ambiguous nature of the appeal itself. However, if Mullins was attempting to argue that Christ's biological connection with humanity is the basis by which humanity can be transformed, would not the biological connection between Adam and Jesus have an affect upon the humanity of Jesus as well? Mullins's statement that Paul recognized the principle of heredity was also confusing. In the paragraph prior to this claim, he asserted that, "Paul does not give us an elaborate theory as to how Adam's sin is imputed to mankind."19 Was Mullins not providing a theory as well? Would a first century Hebrew really understand that tendencies toward sinful behavior are transmitted biologically? Since Mullins offered no explanation of how Paul's reference to Adam was an argument for the biological transmission of sinful tendencies, one might be tempted to offer the same critique of Mullins's position, that it was speculation as to Paul's teaching, that he extended to those who held the federal headship or Augustinian theory. Interestingly, in the paragraph proceeding the claim, Mullins again appealed to modern science to support his view. Therefore, Mullins's argument that sinful tendencies are inherited from Adam seems to be based upon evidence from science and inadequately "supported" by Scripture. He seemed to be convinced that science affirms that sinful tendencies are transmitted biologically. However, his explanations of how Scripture supports this view appear to be strained attempts to reinforce his assumption based upon science. Although his view may not be described as an "elaborate" theory, Mullins's appeals to Scripture for support of his theory were unconvincing. The Condemnation of the Tendency toward Sinful Behavior Another central claim in Mullins's overall argument is that persons are condemned due to their tendency to sin. Because Mullins described sin in various ways, the reason that he believed persons should be condemned for their sinful inclination is difficult to discern. For example, he described sin as "a breach of our personal relations with God,"20 or as "man's personal opposition to a personal God."21 However, he also explained that, "not merely our separate acts, but our moral bias, the bent of our nature, constitutes a real part of the sin of man."22 Therefore, Mullins's understanding of sin includes two emphases. First, sin is manifested in various ways. Second, the manifestations of sin are a result of the person's inclination toward rejecting God. As a result of this characterization of sin, Mullins concluded that the individual is not only deserving of condemnation for personal acts of rebellion, but also for the tendency to sin that results in those personal acts. Mullins's position is plagued by two important problems. Because his claim that persons can be condemned on the basis of their tendency to sin appears unjust, it requires substantial support. Additionally, if Jesus was "fully human" would he not also have possessed a tendency to sin? Unfortunately, Mullins did not explain how persons can be held liable or condemned due to their tendency to sin. In the section, "Objections to the Biblical Doctrine of Sin," he countered the claim that because persons enter a world in which sin is inevitable, the situation is unjust. He argued that die condemnation persons should experience due to Adam's sin was removed by Christ's death. He also asserted that the same principle, human solidarity, that results in the tendency to sin operates for the good of humanity. However, he offered no explanation as to why persons can be condemned due to their inherited tendency to sin. Since he believed Christ's death removed the condemnation, he might not have considered an explanation was necessary. However, the claim is crucial to his argument. If persons are not condemned for their tendency to sin, then the death of Christ does not need to be appropriated to them until they are under condemnation. The second difficulty with the claim that persons are condemned due to their tendency to sin is that it has negative implications in regard to the humanity of Christ.23 Since Jesus was "born of a woman" he would be connected, in some way, to Adam through natural propagation. Because of this connection. Jesus would also inherit a tendency to sin and be able to experience temptation. If persons are condemned for their bias toward sin, why would Jesus not be condemned as well? If Jesus did not possess the same tendency to sin that all persons have, how could he be "made like humanity in all things"24 or be "tempted in all things as we are"25, as the writer of Hebrews claimed? Mullins failed to recognize how his conclusion regarding inherited sin negatively affected his understanding of the humanity of Christ.26 Thus, because he failed to explain fully how one could be condemned on the basis of an inherited tendency to sin and did not address the implications of the claim, this aspect of Mullins's doctrine of original sin weakens his overall argument. Condemnation Removed Via Christ's Death Mullins realized that his assertion that persons are condemned due to their hereditary connection with Adam has serious implications in regard to infants. He acknowledged that his position might lead to the question that, "if the principle of hereditary sin is true, how can vast multitudes of infants who die in infancy be saved?”27, In response to this question, he argued that Jesus' death removed the condemnation persons deserve due to their inherited bent toward sin. Mullins cited several Scriptures to support his claim. He maintained that 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:15; and Heb. 2:9 demonstrated that while Jesus' death did not result in the salvation of all people, it did remove the condemnation for their sinful tendency. A brief survey of the context of each of these passages will follow. To determine whether Paul is arguing that Jesus' death and resurrection affects the inherited guilt of individuals, one must first examine the context of his argument in 1 Corinthians 15. In this chapter, Paul is addressing the issue of 'resurrection.28 The denial of resurrection probably arose from the "spirit people", who believed they already possessed eternal life and therefore believed a future resurrection was meaningless.29 Paul's response to their claim is in three parts: he reaffirms the commonly held position that Christ was raised from the dead in verses 1-11. Next, he argues in verses 12-34 that because Christ has been raised from the dead, believers must be raised from the dead as well. Then Paul explains in what form believers are raised in verse 35.30 The context of the passage does not seem to indicate that Paul was addressing the concept of inherited guilt. However, a more detailed examination of the passage in question is needed to rule out completely the possibility of Paul's inclusion of the issue of inherited guilt. In verses 20-21 Paul sets forth two parallel sentences contrasting Adam and Christ. Gordon Fee explained how these two parallels explain Paul's assertion in verse 20 that Christ's resurrection was the "first fruits of those who are asleep": "The two sentences are set forth in perfect double parallelism," the first (v. 20) explaining by way of analogy how God's raising Christ as 'first fruits' makes the resurrection of the believing dead an inevitable concomitant, the second (v. 22) further elaborating v. 21 so that its point cannot be missed."31 Therefore, because the phrase "all shall be made alive" in verse 20 is parallel to "the resurrection of the dead" in verse 2, "all shall be made alive" refers to the resurrection of believers, not, as Mullins argued, to all persons. The next text employed by Mullins in his claim that Jesus' death removed the guilt imputed to all persons was 2 Cor. 5:15. The text is part of Paul's defense against persons in Corinth who were attacking his apostleship. In 2 Cor. 2:14-6:10, Paul describes what authentic apostleship entails, and in doing so, defends his own apostolic authority and defines his mission.32 Paul provides three motivating factors behind his preaching of the gospel: the future resurrection of believers (4: 14), the fear of the Lord (5: 11), and Christ's love (5: 11).33 In 5: 11-1 7, Paul highlights the Christological foundation of and definitive objective for his ministry.34 Second Corinthians 5: 1 5 must be viewed in the context of its connection with verse 14. Linda Belleville explained the progression of Paul's argument: "He [Paul] states a conviction, (one died for all) he draws a conclusion, (therefore all died) and he articulates a rationale (that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again, v. 15)."35 Two main options exist to define the scope of "all," in verse 15: all humanity36 or all believers. Some scholars suggest that because the phrase "all died" is a description of the experience of believers, the "all" of verse 15 should be limited to believers as well.37 If Paul does intend "all" to include all humanity, does he necessarily mean that the death of Christ covers the guilt inherited from Adam? Because the Adam/Christ comparison is lacking from Paul's argument here and the focus is upon the need to preach the gospel, Mullins's use of 2 Cor. 5:15 to support his claim that Jesus' death removed the guilt inherited from Adam seems inappropriate.38 The texts examined above might lead one to conclude that the death of Jesus provided the opportunity for all humanity to be saved. However, because no explicit reference to the guilt transferred to humanity from Adam is present in the texts, Mullins's use of these texts to support his claim that Jesus' death removes the condemnation associated with the inherited tendency to sin is not compelling. Perhaps if he had provided a more detailed explanation of these texts, his argument would have been strengthened. Conclusion Several factors weaken Mullins's discussion of the doctrine of original sin. First, because components of his doctrine are scattered throughout Christian Religion, the overall flow of his argument is difficult to trace. In fact, one first encounters his claim that the sinful tendencies inherited from Adam are worthy of condemnation in the final section of his chapter on sin. Because he addressed the issue of human solidarity more fully in a previous chapter on providence, the relationship between human solidarity and original sin is not developed in his discussion on the origin of sin. Mullins also cited the New Testament teaching concerning the Incarnation, which he addressed in a later chapter, as evidence of his position concerning human solidarity. Had Mullins discussed the components of the doctrine of original sin in one section of his work, perhaps his argument would have been more lucid and convincing. Another factor that weakened Mullins's doctrine of original sin was the lack of precision and clarity in his presentation. Although one might perceive a critique of a theologian's writing style as superficial, if the work contains terminology that is not well defined or language that is unclear, sometimes a crucial aspect of an argument can suffer as a result. For example, Mullins's claim that the bent of one's nature constitutes "a real part of the sin of man" was an essential aspect of his understanding of the nature of sin. However, only when he claimed that Jesus' death removed the condemnation for hereditary sin, a term he never defined, does the reader realize that Mullins believed that persons are condemned due to the bent of their nature. If Mullins had fully explained that persons were condemned for their bent toward sin in his discussion of the nature of sin, his overall argument could have been strengthened. Additionally, because Mullins failed to provide an adequate rationale for his assertion that persons are condemned for their tendency toward sin, his presentation is not compelling. Although his argument that persons inherit a tendency to sin was not without difficulties, the more important claim that condemnation is a concomitant of the inherited tendency was not substantiated. In fact, this aspect of his doctrine of original sin effectuates difficulties with the doctrine of the Incarnation that Mullins failed to recognize. One other factor diminished his claim that persons are condemned due to their inherited bent toward sin. The fact that his appeals to Scripture to support his assertion that Jesus' death removed the condemnation resulting from Adam's sin were not without difficulty also weakens his claim. Therefore, while Mullins's overarching claim that persons become condemned when they commit actual sins may be consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message of 1964 and 2000, two major premises of his argument contain serious problems. Mullins's presentation could have been strengthened if he had explored the relationship between the concept of human solidarity and original sin. Because the transmission of sin is an aspect of the doctrine of original sin, an investigation into all the factors influencing persons toward sinful behavior must be examined. While Mullins acknowledged that "each individual is the product of all his ancestors," he failed to emphasize the impact of persons other than Adam upon the individual. If he had developed this aspect of the doctrine of original sin more fully, given the degree of influence Mullins had upon Southern Baptist life, one wonders what impact he could have made in the area of the corporate sins of his denomination.39 Because of the various shortcomings in Mullins presentation, his doctrine of original sin is no more compelling than his predecessor's discussion of the doctrine. His failure to provide a coherent argument based upon premises drawn from biblical texts is both surprising and disappointing. Bibliography Danker, Frederick W. "Exegesis." In Interpreting 2 Corinthians 5: 14-21: An Exercise in Hermeneutics, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, ed. Jack P. Lewis, vol. 17, 105-28. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1989. Dilday, Russell. "Mullins the Theologian: Between the Extremes:" Review and Expositor 96 (Winter 1999): 75-86. Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Freeman, Curtis W., James Wm. McClendon Jr., and C. Rosalee Velloso da Silva. Baptist Roots: A Reader in the Theology of a Christian People. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1999. Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post­ Christian Nation. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992. Horsley, Richard A. ""How Can Some of You Say That There Is No Resurrection of the Dead?' Spiritual Elitism in Corinth." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 203-31. Humphreys, Fisher. "E. Y. Mullins." In Baptist Theologians, ed. Timothy George and David S. Dockery, 330-50. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990. Hurd, John Coolidge. The Origin of 1 Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965. Maddox, Timothy D. F. "E. Y. Mullins: Mr. Baptist for the 20th and 21st Century." Review and Expositor 96 (Winter 1999): 87-108. Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1986. Mohler, R. Albert "Introduction," in The Axioms of Religion, by E. Y. Mullins, ed. Timothy and Denise George (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997. Mullins, Edgar Young, Baptist Beliefs. Louisville: Baptist World Publishing, 1912. Mullins, Edgar Young, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression. Nashville: The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1917. Mullins, Edgar Young. The Axioms of Religion: A New Interpretation of the Baptist Faith. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1908. Mullins, Isla May. Edgar Young Mullins: An Intimate Biography. Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1929. Murphy-O'Conner, Jerome. 'The First Letter to the Corinthians." In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, 798-815. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. Read More