Below is my award-winning church history paper, written in the late nineties. I want to thank Theopolis Institute for posting it and re-introducing the ideas to new readers.
I’ve heard that some people base their (erroneous as far as I can tell) views of hereditary guilt from a view of the imputation of Adam’s sin. Since I plan to put together my writings on (the myth of) hereditary guilt for Theopolis Institute, it seemed wise to put forth my view of the imputation of Adam’s sin, so I can refer to it. I generally agree with what I see as the Nevin-Dabney approach. I certainly don’t think other theories should be taken for granted as the only correct view.
John Williamson Nevin’s Controversy With Charles Hodge
Over the Imputation of Adam’s Sin
(with a Comparison to Robert L. Dabney)
If one is blessed to discover George P. Hutchinsons’s monograph on Original Sin in nineteenth-century Reformed thought,[1] no student of American presbyterianism can fail to be fascinated. What once seemed to be a monolithic certainty while sitting in the standard theology class is suddenly uncovered to reveal a great deal of variety that had formerly been hidden from view.[2] Hutchinson’s account of the controversy between Henry B. Smith of the “new school”; Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary; William G. T. Shedd, Samuel J. Baird, and James H. Thornwell of the “realistic school”; and Robert W. Landis and Robert L. Dabney of what Hutchinson calls the “agnostic school” is simply must-reading for anyone who wishes to understand the issue.[3]
But it is not a complete reading. In the nineteenth century there was another American theologian who held distinctive views regarding the imputation of Adam’s sin. John Williamson Nevin of “the Mercersburg movement,” aroused the ire of Charles Hodge on more than one occasion because of his theological writings. Nevin was a member of the German Reformed Church, so perhaps Hutchinson decided that he was outside his scope. Nevin was raised a Presbyterian, however, and served as a Presbyterian minister for many years before accepting the call of the German Reformed Church.[4] Furthermore, Nevin was Charles Hodge’s best student, and taught his classes for the two years Hodge was in Europe, though Nevin had only just graduated.[5] His close connection with Presbyterianism, as well as the merit of his ideas in themselves, make him worth listing with the other schools.
My hope for this essay is that it will serve as a sort of appendix to Hutchinson’s book. For reasons of space and because of inherent relationships which will hopefully become clear, the discussion will center on Nevin’s conflict with Hodge.[6] Then similarities will be emphasized between Nevin’s alternative to Hodge and Dabney’s alternative.