Imputed Guilt and Zero-Sum Responsibility

The intersection of human responsibility and God’s sovereignty is a perennial discussion. The Bible teaches both, yet most understand these ideas to be contradictory. It is always a temptation to elevate one and minimize—or “qualify”—the other. We can feel that if we emphasis God’s sovereignty, we necessarily minimize human responsibility, or vice versa. If this is you, it is likely that you misunderstand responsibility.

I understand that discussions of this sort can, and often do, get very emotional (and maybe I’ve offended you already). Risking offense for the sake of truth, let me try to address one piece that makes up the larger puzzle of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

I want to demonstrate how human responsibility is vital to the gospel and how we can easily think wrongly about responsibility.

A Pop Quiz

Consider these questions. When God renders a “guilty” verdict on the day of judgment, who is responsible? When God condemns a person, on what basis are they condemned?

When God renders a “innocent” verdict on the day of judgment, who is responsible? When God justifies a person, on what basis are they declared righteous?

Most would answer the first two questions this way: The individual person, and their own sin, is the basis for their own condemnation. They stand responsible for their own condemnation.

And most would answer the second two questions this way: Jesus Christ, and his atoning work, is the basis for their justification. It is only on account of Jesus that anyone can be made righteous.

Do you see an error in these answers? Did you catch the contradiction? I’d like to point out a common mistake and clear the air on an important gospel issue.

To the Word and to the Testimony

To better understand human responsibility, I want you to consider what Scripture says about who stands responsible for our condemnation.

The Bible clearly speaks to this issue in Romans 5:12–21. In this passage we see a contrast between Adam and Christ. We can read the summary of the argument in verses 18–19.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19).

Do you see the difference with the answers offered above? The Scriptures say that our condemnation is due to Adam’s one sin in the same way that our justification is due to Christ’s one act of sacrifice.

We are sinners, yes. We are guilty, yes. But we are condemned because we are born in Adam. The Bible portrays humanity in one of two states: in Adam or in Christ. Those in Adam are condemned as sinners. Those in Christ are justified as righteous.

Evangelicals believe in original sin. Most understand this to teach that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam, and so sin like Adam. Romans 5 affirms this but teaches us more. We not only inherit a sinful nature from Adam, but we are also declared guilty because of Adam. That is, because of Adam’s sin we are born guilty—imputed guilty by God.

We don’t like this idea. Many reject this because it doesn’t “work” with our notions of responsibility. How can we be held responsible for Adam’s sin and be declared guilty because of it? Adam is so far removed from us; it is not fair that we should be guilty for something he did.

However, if we don’t affirm that we are imputed guilty because of Adam, how can we be so confident that we shall be imputed righteous because of Jesus Christ?

This is why imputed guilt from Adam is such an important gospel issue. Those who take exception to being declared guilty because of Adam’s sin, take no umbrage that they can be declared righteous because of Jesus’ sacrifice. I don’t hear Christians complaining that it isn’t fair that Jesus’ act of atonement is applied to them. I don’t hear people arguing that they should stand before God on their own merits. No! We all want the merits of Jesus Christ to be credited to us. But we bristle at the thought of Adam’s sin being credited to us!

We can’t have it both ways. The Bible teaches us that our condemnation is due to imputation. We are credited with Adam’s sin because we are descendants of Adam. We are condemned because of the sin of our father. But this is according to God’s glorious design so that he can impute righteousness to those who have faith in Christ. God credits us with Adam’s guilt so that he might credit us with Christ’s righteousness. The gospel depends upon imputation—of guilt on one hand or righteousness on the other. Without imputation of guilt, on what basis can there be imputation of righteousness?

In our day of individualism we have lost the covenant or headship principle in Scripture. Adam is the representative or covenant head of humanity. Likewise, Christ is the representative or covenant head of a new humanity. We are born in Adam and must be born again in Christ. If we are in Adam, we are condemned along with Adam. If we are in Christ, we are justified along with Christ. Our eternal state is determined by our covenant head—Adam or Christ, death or life (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Why is this important?

There is a point coming after that exegetical summary. In fact, there are two points to note.

First, imputed guilt provides us insight into how the gospel “works.” God is a God of order, justice, and wisdom. He designed covenant headship so that we could be forgiven in Jesus. The gospel depends upon this double imputation.

Second, rejecting imputed guilt exposes a defective view of human responsibility. My hunch is that many who question imputed guilt have a faulty view of responsibility. Let’s call this faulty view the zero-sum view of responsibility. Here’s an example of it in action. If a husband and wife get in a fight, we will think one is 80% responsible and the other is 20% responsible. Maybe it’s 50/50, or maybe one is completely at fault and the other is the innocent victim. In these cases, we act as if responsibility must add up to make 100%. That’s zero-sum thinking. In our example above, if Adam is 100% responsible for our condemnation—and he is—then we must be 0% responsible. We know that conclusion is wrong and so this is why the imputation of Adam’s guilt is denied. It doesn’t make sense to us because we know we are responsible.

This is also why some deny God’s unconditional election. If God is responsible in showing grace to save some and withholds that grace to condemn others, then how can anyone be held responsible? (This, by the way, is the objection of Romans 9:19.) How is this reconciled? Many times people reject God’s sovereignty and Adam’s covenant headship because of their unquestioned commitment to zero-sum responsibility.

But is this how responsibility works?

In short, no.

A husband, as head of the home, is responsible for the sins of his household (Adam, where are you? [Gen 3:9]). However, his wife and children are still responsible for their own sin. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. Everyone in the household is fully responsible for their own actions and how they have served in their God-given roles. The responsibility of one does not minimize the responsibility of the other. In a quarrel, the husband is fully responsible for his sin and the wife is fully responsible for hers.

More controversial, if a man sees a woman walking down the street and commits the sin of lust, typical thinking concludes that the woman is not at all responsible, no matter what she may be wearing. According to zero-sum thinking, if someone was to suppose the woman was a little guilty by her provocative dress—maybe like 5% guilty—then the man would only be 95% guilty. The thought that the man’s guilt is lessened because of a woman’s dress creates a strong reaction which clears the woman of any guilt. However, if we understand that the man is 100% responsible for his lust and the woman is 100% responsible for being a temptress, then we can affirm that they are both responsible, but not for the same sin and not in the same way.

So too, Adam is responsible for the condemnation of all men (Romans 5:18) yet we are still responsible for our sin before a holy God (“and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done” [Revelation 20:13]).

In like manner, Christ is responsible for our salvation (Romans 5:18) yet we are still responsible for our actions before God (“for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” [2 Corinthians 5:10]).

Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

Wrapping Things Up

How is this all relevant to human responsibility and divine sovereignty?

First, the imputation of Adam’s guilt must be affirmed and zero-sum responsibility must be rejected. We must view responsibility through a biblical lens. CRT and other Marxist theories are predicated upon zero-sum thinking. For example, if someone is wealthy, then they have wealth at the expense of the poor. We must abandon the presuppositions of secular thinking and affirm biblical responsibility before we can address the issue of human responsibility and divine sovereignty.

Second, we must apply this insight of responsibility to the larger issue of human responsibility and divine sovereignty. Again, divine sovereignty is typically minimized or qualified because of the same zero-sum thinking about responsibility. But this leads us to the wrong conclusion. God, according to his unconditional election, is responsible for showing his wrath, justice, and power on “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” He is also responsible for showing his love and grace on “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22–23). And, at the same time, Adam is responsible (Romans 5:12), and individual human beings are responsible for their own condemnation (Revelation 20:13). One responsibility does not cancel out the other, nor can it be weighted to add up to 100%. God and man are both responsible, but not in the same way, and without the responsibility of the one minimizing the responsibility of the other.

May this help you understand how both God and man are responsible on their own terms without qualifying the responsibility of the one to uphold it in the other.

— Tim Stephens