All posts by Dwight Gingrich

What to Expect Next on Dwight Gingrich Online

Well, it’s been just over two weeks since I launched DGO. It’s time to regroup and look ahead. Thank you very much for your interest and encouragement!

Thanks especially to those of you who voted to show what content you’d like to see in the future. I was unable to tell who voted for what, but your cumulative feedback is very helpful. Over 30 people voted. Voters identified themselves as male 24 times, female 8 times, and “Good” once. 🙂

(If you have not yet voted in the “Readers’ Choice Poll,” please do so. One easy place to find the poll is at the bottom of this post.)

Results From Your Voting

Popular ideas:

  • 20 votes were cast asking for more essays from me on theological/Bible interpretation topics. Add to this the 11 votes asking for “that paper on the ‘ordinances'” and we have a clear winner. Many of you are looking for more long-form biblical reflection, the kind of thing that can’t happen in a blog post.
  • 25 votes were cast for either “book reviews” or “a series of summaries/reviews of books about the Church.”
  • 15 votes were cast for a Q & A forum where readers can submit Bible interpretation questions.
  • Other fairly popular categories include: interviews with Bible teachers and church leaders, upcoming events for Bible interpreters and church leaders, and Sunday School tips.

A few surprises:

  • Only 4 votes were cast for book giveaways. I guess we’re already overwhelmed with books! Or else afraid to admit we like handouts?
  • Only one person wants to hear “more about Dwight’s life.” (Thanks, Gerard. I happened to see you voted right before that new category appeared. I feel the love.)

How Your Votes Are Shaping DGO

Plans so far:

  • I’ve added a new page of Events for Bible Students. Judging by Facebook likes, this is already one of my post popular pages. Please suggest more events you think people should know about.
  • Since there is interest, I’ll try to finish that essay on ordinances. I’ll also stay alert for more essay fodder. Good essays take time, so don’t expect more than several a year at most.
  • I’m gathering ideas for a series of “interviews” with church leaders about biblical interpretation. I already have one pastor who has agreed to share how attending Shepherd’s Institute and listening to online seminary lectures is changing how he preaches. Whom else should I include in this series? Do you have a story or insights to share with the Church?
  • Based on your votes, I hope to start reading through some books on ecclesiology (theology of the Church) and sharing my reflections here. This might not begin until 2015. Here are some I’d like to read as I have time: [amazon text=The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today&asin=0802841899] (Everett Ferguson), [amazon text=The New Testament Church: The Challenge of Developing Ecclesiologies&asin=160899998X] (ed. John Harrison and James D. Dvorak), [amazon text=The Church&asin=0830815341] (Edmund P. Clowney), [amazon text=The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study&asin=1592440479] (ed. D.A. Carson), [amazon text=An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical %26 Global Perspectives&asin=0830826882] (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen), [amazon text=The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership %26 Worship&asin=0830826505] (Arthur G. Patzia), and [amazon text=Images of the Church in the New Testament &asin=0664227791] (Paul S. Minear). I also have Kindle books, including these: [amazon text=The Church: The Gospel made Visible&asin=1433677768] (Mark Dever), [amazon text=Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views&asin=080542590X] (ed. Brand and Norman), [amazon text=Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government&asin=0310246075] (ed. Engle and Cowan), [amazon text=When the Church Was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community&asin=0805447792] (Joseph H. Hellerman), and [amazon text=Your Church is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church&asin=031032114X] (John H. Armstrong). Then I could also review some books influential among conservative Anabaptists, such as ones by Val Yoder and Finny Kuruvilla, or ones promoted by Christian Light Publications. Then there are others on my Amazon wish list and more on related topics such as Church history and mission. Are there any you would especially like me to read and reflect on here?
  • I’ll probably add a Q & A Bible interpretation forum sometime soon.
  • As for Sunday School tips and thoughts about Anabaptists and fundamentalism, they will probably be placed on the back burner. The former isn’t of interest to over half of you, and the later isn’t my expertise. That said, I’m sure I’ll say things about both from time to time in my spontaneous blog posts.

Up in the air: I’m not sure what to do with the following ideas. What do you think? Reply in the comments or add one you like to the poll and start voting.

  • Bible interpretation help for beginners. I don’t want to overlook this need. In fact, this need is dear to my heart! How to respond? One idea: DGO could host a series reading through George Guthrie’s book [amazon text=Read the Bible for Life: Your Guide to Understanding and Living God’s Word&asin=0805464549]. It’s my current favorite such book for beginners, and refreshing, too, for others. We could set a time to begin, then read and discuss one chapter a week. Such things are better done face-to-face, but online discussion could also be helpful. Thoughts?
  • Seminary lectures: It was suggested that some would enjoy listening to some free seminary lectures from BiblicalTraining and discussing them together here on DGO. These lectures have been a huge help to me. This idea would be a significant time investment, but could bring a big pay-off. Is anyone interested?

Something New

I’m very pleased to announce that my mother, Elaine Gingrich, has agreed to let me post some of her poems and short articles here on DGO. Mom is a skilled amateur wordsmith. She drank in all she could second-hand as I completed my English Literature B.A., and she’s spent far more hours than I have reading and thinking about great literature. She has written some real gems, some of which connect well with my themes of Bible and Church. I hope to post one a month to add literary craft and heart reflection to my less-polished reflections. I think you’ll find this refreshing.

Thanks!

I want to end this update by thanking you again for your interest as I begin this new online venture. About 45 of you have signed up for emails, Feedly tells me 6 of you are following me there (I don’t know who you are!) and others have been finding me via social media and search engines. If DGO proves useful, it will be in large part because of your support and feedback. May we serve Christ and his Church together, for his glory!

Post your comments below or sign up for DGO emails:
[wysija_form id=”1″]


“In Adam’s Fall We…?” Inclusion or Imperialism in Romans 5

I’m reading through Romans right now, on target for finishing my through-the-NIV-Bible-in-a-year goal. This morning I arrived again at that head-scratching passage at the end of Romans 5. So much ink has been spilled over this passage that a few more bytes shouldn’t hurt. So here I go again, thinking aloud over this passage. (See a previous post here.) Please test my thoughts and respond below if you wish.


Here’s my initial dilemma: I’m not satisfied with the typical Reformed approach to this passage. For one thing, it often imports foreign language about a “sinful nature.” (See that previous post.) Whether the idea of a sinful nature is accurate or not, I’d rather attempt to understand this passage with the language and imagery that it actually uses.

For another, I’m not quite convinced by the interpretation that says that we sinned in Adam and that we are guilty (eternally damned) because of that act of sin. For example, here are some typical Reformed statements that leave me dissatisfied:

First, from Warren W. Wiersbe:

“For that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12) means “all have sinned in Adam’s sin.” – [amazon text=Be Right (Romans)&asin=1434768473], pg. 64

[amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=0310494001]Second, from Douglas Moo. “At the risk of a gross simplification,” he summarizes the interpretive options about “the relationship between the first or original sin of Adam and the sin and death of all other people” into three categories. The first two, imitation and infection, he rejects as not fully explaining the evidence of Romans 5.1 The third, inclusion, is his preference:

The relationship between the sin of Adam and the sin of all people is closer [than merely infection]. How can Paul say in the same passage that all die because all sin (v. 12) and all die because Adam sinned (v. 18)? Because Adam’s sin is, at the same time, the sin of everyone else as well. I think Paul does infer this idea of inclusion here in Romans 5:12-21. I lean this way for three basic reasons: (a) the repeated emphasis on the determinative significance of the “one” act of the “one” man Adam (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19); (b) the corporate background of Paul’s thinking as sketched above; and (c) the more natural parallel it creates between Christ and Adam. – [amazon text=Romans (NIV Application Commentary)&asin=0310494001], pg. 190

Third, this understanding is most concisely expressed in an ABC poem from an old New England Primer:

In Adam’s fall
We sinned all.

NewEnglandPrimerAtoMThis passage is hugely complex and I don’t have time to discuss all the evidence in favor of the Reformed position. I respect Moo’s scholarship deeply and he deserves much more than the following few lines. But let me proceed by responding briefly to Moo’s three reasons for leaning toward the inclusion interpretation:

  1. I think the emphasis on the “one” act of the “one” man Adam fits just as well with the idea that Adam’s sin opened the floodgates, admitting sin into the world, so that humans subsequently were born under the “reign” of sin and death (see Rom. 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12). (We could call this view the imperialism view, to continue Moo’s tidy alliteration.) The “one man” language points to the singularity of the cause, not the precise manner of the cause.
  2. The idea of corporate solidarity is powerful. Some version of it is undeniably biblical. As Moo notes, it is expressed clearly in the story of Achan, where the Lord says, “Israel has sinned” (Josh. 7:11, emphasis added). I don’t have a ready response to this point, except to note that this Romans passage does not explicitly mention this idea.2 If it is present, it is assumed, not stated. The language of sin and death “reigning,” in contrast, is explicitly and repeatedly emphasized.
  3. The inclusion view certainly does create a natural parallel between Christ and Adam. The language of being “in Christ” permeates Paul’s thinking, and he uses similar language about being “in Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” This verse clearly is similar to Romans 5; both speak of death coming through Adam and life coming through Christ. However, there are also differences.  Romans 6 does speak of our being “in Christ” (see Rom. 6:3, 11, 23; cf. Rom. 8:1, 39). But Romans 5 itself never uses this language.3 And nowhere in Romans does Paul use the language of being “in Adam.” (In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 is the only place where that exact language is used in all of Scripture.) Additionally, I think the imperialism view, explicit in this passage, creates an equally natural parallel between Christ and Adam: Just as Adam introduced the kingdom of sin and death into the world, so Christ introduced the kingdom of God into the world.

It is this concept of a parallel between Christ and Adam that first triggered this meandering post today. The comparison and contrast between Christ and Adam is central to Paul’s thought in this passage. But how, exactly, are the two alike? And how are they different? Paul is concerned both to compare and to contrast the two. Errors will abound if we think they are similar on a point where they are actually different, or if we think they are different on a point where they are actually similar.

Let me present another dilemma: If we deny that our experience of sin and death comes through our participation in Adam’s trespass (inclusion view), then how can we claim that our experience of righteousness and life comes through our participation in Christ’s act of righteousness ? After all, consider Romans 5:18:

Therefore, as one trespass [or perhaps “the trespass of one”] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [or perhaps “the act of righteousness of one”] leads to justification and life for all men.

Doesn’t a denial of the inclusion view undermine our inclusion in Christ? How can we be sure of our salvation in Christ if we deny that we were damned because of our participation in Adam’s sin? (I’m sure I’ve seen this presented as an argument in favor of the Reformed inclusion view, although I can’t think at the moment where I’ve read it.) I’d like to suggest several responses.

First, it is important to note that our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection is an undisputable fact. It is taught repeatedly and abundantly throughout the New Testament. This teaching will stand undisturbed even if we do not find it taught in Romans 5.

Second, it is possible to be “in Adam” in some sense without saying that we were “in Adam” as participants in his sin. There are various ways we could be said to be “in Adam.” As I noted, the only place this language is explicitly used is in 1 Corinthians 15:22. What does Paul mean by this phrase in that chapter? Whom is he describing with this phrase? I suggest that Paul is using this phrase to refer to all human beings who have lived after Adam. Notice that the described effect of being “in Adam” is physical death: “in Adam all die.” This death is experienced by all, believer and unbeliever alike. In this sense, all alike are “in Adam,” but some are also “in Christ.” Notice also the scarcity of “sin” language in 1 Corinthians 15. The focus of the whole chapter is on physical death and its reversal in the coming resurrection, not on achieving victory from sin. Romans 5, in contrast, focuses on sin as much as on death.  But in neither passage is “in Adam” language used to describe our participation in Adam’s sin.

Third–and this has been my usual answer to my question above–perhaps Paul is not drawing comparisons between the way in which Adam and Christ affect us, but only between the extent and certainty of their effect upon us. In other words, the exact manner or “mechanism” by which Adam’s sin leads to our sin and death might be different from the manner in which Christ’s death and resurrection leads to our salvation. Reformed authors seem to get hung up on the mechanism; if we are not linked to Christ in exactly the same manner in which we were linked to Adam, then, they say, we cannot be certain of obtaining Christ’s benefits. But Paul does not assume identical mechanisms in this passage. Yes, he says both death and life come through “one man.” Yet, just as he contrasts the effects of Adam and Christ, so he also notes some differences in the mechanisms of their actions: one was a trespass, the other an act of righteousness; and one occurred as the first trespass, the other following many trespasses (5:18, 16). So Paul is emphasizing that the effect of Christ’s obedience is even greater than the effect of Adam’s sin. But I’m not sure he is saying that the effects are achieved in the same way.

In fact, a little reflection shows that we are not linked to Christ in the same way we were linked to Adam. We are linked to Christ, Paul insists, by a faith that produces a new birth. But no faith or new birth are needed to live under the effects of Adam’s sin.

Fourth–and finally I’m getting to the point that triggered my thoughts this morning–I think a mistaken, punctiliar model of salvation leads some people to assume a similar, punctiliar model of how Adam’s sin affects us. (Punctiliar means “of or relating to a point of time.“) A punctiliar model of salvation says that we are saved all at once, at one point in time. This is the stereotypical Baptist model, where a saint begins her testimony by saying, “Back on June 6, 1983, at 9:45 p.m., when I got saved…” A parallel view of Adam’s sin says that at the moment that Adam ate of the fruit, then I, too, sinned and died. Both events happen in an instant–instantaneous death, or instantaneous life.

But what if salvation is not punctiliar? Again, this is a big subject. But let’s stick to the immediate context of Romans 5. In this context, salvation is clearly not punctiliar. Paul has already shown in chapters 3 and 4 how a person can be justified. At the beginning of chapter 5 he says that “we have been justified by faith”–it is a completed act.4 But then Paul writes, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:9-10). Therefore, in the context of Romans 5, salvation is an ongoing and future event. This process nature of salvation is the reason why Romans 5-8 was written: to ensure believers that God intends to complete the work he has begun, and to teach them how to cooperate with God in that work, producing the fruit of righteousness that will lead to the gift of eternal life.

If salvation is not a punctiliar event in Romans 5, then what about damnation? Was that punctiliar? Or is the outworking of Adam’s sin a process, just as the outworking of Christ’s obedience is? I suggest that, just as the results of Christ’s work involve both punctiliar and ongoing elements, so do the results of Adam’s sin. The curse started unfolding immediately. Sin and death entered the world immediately and began to reign. Thorns began to grow. Adam and Eve were immediately expelled from the Garden and the sweetness of God’s presence. But thorns take time to grow. Eve didn’t experience the added pain in childbirth until at least 9 months later. And Adam didn’t die physically until he had lived 930 years. During those years, Adam had many opportunities to choose spiritual life or death. I hope to meet him in glory when Christ returns.

Similarly, the effects of Adam’s sin upon us include both immediate and unfolding elements. The reign of sin and death is felt by each of us from our earliest days–or at least as soon as we experience the trauma of birth. From before we are born we are “damned” to die physically. We are also “damned” to be born into a world where sin reigns, dominating us until–apart from God’s intervention–we will certainly sin. But, as I understand the doctrines of predestination and election, humans are not all damned to eternal death before we are ever born. Rather, those who respond to Christ’s offer are called to make a choice: Will we offer ourselves as slaves to sin, or as servants of righteousness? “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Our actions, our choice of masters, Paul indicates, effects the outcome: salvation or damnation.

So, when did we die? It depends. We were doomed from the moment of Adam’s sin to be born into a world ruled by sin and death. We began to die physically the moment we are born. We progressively died spiritually as our hearts grew harder through our childhood and youth, prior to our regeneration. We will die physically sometime soon. And, apart from Christ, all will die eternally.

Is it right to say that, because of Adam’s sin, humans are morally evil by nature? Were you evil from the moment of conception? Were you under eternal damnation from that moment? Or did the damnation come later? I am not arguing that we should look around us and conclude that the humans we see are morally good by nature. Everyone I see, if I look long enough (usually not long at all), shows signs of sin within. And these signs of moral badness begin at a very early age. But why are we bad? Is it because of something inner, a spiritual “genetic deficiency”? Or are we corrupted from without, with sin dominating us and increasingly taking up residence within us? I don’t have answers for all my questions, and I’m not satisfied with all the answers I hear.

Why does any of this matter? More specifically, what difference does it make what we believe about how Adam’s sin affects us? Let me answer by quoting Moo once again, this time at length.

First, here is his summary of the inclusive view against which I have been arguing:

While theologians who hold the inclusive view argue about just what our relationship to Adam might be, they all insist that it is a genuine relationship and that, in a way we cannot understand, we really did sin when Adam did. We do not die for a sin someone else commits; we die for a sin we committed. – Ibid., pg. 190.

Now, what difference does this make? Here is an answer from Moo:

The inclusive interpretation has potentially great importance for one of the most difficult of all theological and pastoral issues: the fate of infants and other people without the mental capacity ever to commit a sin or to respond to the gospel. While there is a lot of debate over the details, theologians who think that Adam has infected us all with sin but that we each ultimately die only when we sin personally usually teach that deceased infants go to heaven. After all, they have never committed a personal act of sin. [My understanding would be similar with the imperialism view I suggested above.]

But if one holds the inclusive view, the situation is quite different. Since all people have sinned in Adam, all people, including children of any age, have already been condemned. Does this mean that any child who is not old enough to understand and respond to the gospel is automatically lost? No. Theologians who hold the inclusive view take three different positions. Some think that God, in an act of grace, accepts into heaven all those who never had a chance to commit a sin in their own persons. Others think that the children of believing parents will be saved. Still others think that God’s election will determine the matter: Infants chosen by God for salvation from eternity past will be saved, while those [who have] not been chosen will not be.

I have personally wrestled with this emotive question especially since my niece was born with such severe handicaps that she is not expected to live long. What am I to say to her parents when she dies? What do I respond when they ask me, the “family theologian,” where their daughter will spend eternity? All that is within me wants to be able to assure them that their daughter is in heaven. But I am not yet convinced Scripture gives me the right to do so. And I don’t want to be a purveyor of “cheap comfort,” giving hope based on my emotions rather than on Scripture.

I do not yet have an answer I am comfortable with. But two things I can say. (a) God is just and loving; we can leave such questions in his hands. (b) Whatever position we take will be decisively influenced by our theology of sin and salvation. This, after all, is the ultimate purpose of theology. We put together what God says on issues to come to a conclusion about truths that we can use to comfort, rebuke, and exhort ourselves and others. All theology is finally pastoral theology. – Ibid., pgs. 190-91.

I can say “Amen” to much of what Moo wrote here. I certainly agree that our theological conclusions on such matters must be guided by Scripture and not merely based on our own emotions. And I certainly agree that we can ultimately rest such things in the just and loving hands of God. But I also agree, with Moo, that such questions are worth wrestling with. The answers we find will enable us to comfort and instruct each other better in real-life situations.

And so… I want to ponder this more. I have more thoughts, but this post is long enough. For now, I’m suggesting that Romans 5 portrays an imperialism model of the influence of Adam’s sin more than any of the other common models: imitation, infection, or inclusion.

What do you think? I invite you to respond below.


  1. Imitation says Adam set a bad example. This, Moo says, was Pelagius’s view. Infection is basically the sinful nature view. “Adam’s sin introduced a stain… on human nature that inevitably leads people to turn away from God.” Moo says this is a “basic truth” taught throughout Scripture, but “it is not explicitly taught in Romans 5:12-21.” (Romans, NIV Application Commentary, pg. 189)
  2. Notice that Moo excludes the infection view for this same reason. See footnote 1.
  3. The most similar language it uses is “through Christ”; see 5:1, 2, 11, 17, 21. But this portrays a different relationship than “in Christ.”
  4. In other biblical contexts justification is described as something that is yet to be completed. But that is another topic!

Can a Hermit Be Humble?

Dwight’s rules about Christian virtues:

  1. Be humble about your own virtues.
  2. This starts with being humble about your humility.
  3. Etc.

Paul’s first words as he summarizes his ministry to the Ephesian elders:

“You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I cam into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility…” (Acts 20:18-19 NIV)

What gives? Here are some observations:

  1. There is a time to urge others to imitate our own Christ-imitation. Paul did it regularly and is clearly doing it in this passage.
  2. Perhaps…. perhaps the word humility here would be better translated as humiliation. Or, better (after I check the NT usage of this Greek term), perhaps as willingness to experience humiliation.

This translation suggestion fits with Paul’s next words: “and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents.” Paul’s ministry involved much public humiliation, especially in a shame-and-honor culture where public expressions of respect were much more important than in our own culture. This [amazon template=thumbnail11&asin=B002G9U288]suggestion also fits with what I think Jesus was saying when he urged his listeners to humble themselves as little children (Matt. 18:4). In that case, I doubt that Jesus was pointing to an inner attribute of humility that children may or may not possess. I’m not sure that children in the ancient world were admired as models of virtue as they sometimes are today. Rather, I think Jesus was referring to the humble social status of children in the ancient world; we should be willing to be treated as nobodies, just as children were treated. (A fascinating book by O.M. Bakke led me to this conclusion: [amazon text=When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity&asin=B002G9U288].)

Humility, I suggest, is more about relating to others (outer) than about personal feelings (inner). Humility, like love, only occurs in relationship. It is hard for a hermit to experience humility.

The word translated humility in Acts 20:19 often occurs in the NT alongside other distinctly relational (rather than merely personal) virtues: gentleness, patience, bearing with one another in love (Eph. 4:2); considering others more important than yourselves (Phil. 2:3); and compassion, kindness, gentleness, patience (Col. 3:12). Peter shows this relational aspect of humility most clearly: “Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” (1 Pet. 5:5).

Sometimes the same Greek word is used negatively, of self-abasement or asceticism. In these contexts (Col. 2:18, 23), the relational aspect is significantly missing. This is a false humility that remains insular and ingrown, preoccupied with personal visionary experiences and self-imposed religious piety, distancing itself both from Christ the head and from his body, the Church. True humility is preoccupied with serving others, rather than with personal virtue, piety, or appearance.

So, what about when I am asked to speak in church? Or serve as a friend’s wedding coordinator? Or to serve as church song leader? Or fill some other role of public leadership? How should I respond?

True humility, it seems to me, will see these invitations as opportunities to serve, not opportunities for self-exaltation. Thus, true humility will be eager to say, “Yes, I’m willing to do that”–without immediately needing to list reasons why someone else should do it instead, without worrying about personal humiliation in case of failure, and without worrying whether such willingness might be thought arrogant by others. Paul, after all, proved his humility to the Ephesian elders by describing how hard he worked in his public ministry of preaching and teaching! He proved his humility by public action, not merely by attitude or by attempts to avoid being noticed.

So when I am asked to fill some public role, I want to reach out in service and relationship rather than withdraw as a pious hermit. And if there is unseen service for me to do, I want to do that, too. To the extent that I am imitating Christ, I urge you to imitate me!

Do you have insights about living together humbly in Christ’s Church? Serve us by sharing them in the comments section below.