There was an objection presented to me regarding Christians that don’t accept reparations. How can you hold to Original sin and think that one is only morally culpable for another’s actions? Are we not guilty of inherited guilt?
I point out the apparent faulty reasoning in assuming that one must be culpable of one ancestor’s sins that it implies you can be guilty of another ancestor’s sin. It is an easy case of the fallacy of composition. What may be true of a particular member doesn’t entail it is true of the class. Adam was particularly unique in Christian theology. He represented mankind before God in the garden. Adam had a different relation to mankind than other humans.
I received a response from an anti-apologists on the internet. DarkMatter2525
Exodus 20:4-6
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 34:4-7
4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
Supposing his case was correct this only implies certain limits for a few generations. Of course, even these sins aren’t completely transferable. The idea is that if one repents of an ancestor’s sin they aren’t culpable of it. There are many European descendent people that did not partake in slavery, but the leftists still wish to punish them for the sin of being white. This makes us wonder what sin Republican Christians in need to repent of according to Hunter. Do they support slavery? Or Jim Crow? Will those like Hunter Avallone pay his “fair” share back to African Americans? These would all be relevant questions to consider if you take this line of reasoning. Suppose we looked at some basic commentaries on the texts:
The concept of punishment underlies the expression ‘calling to account the wrongdoing of the fathers upon the children’. While the verb pāqad has a range of connotations, here it clearly conveys a sense of retribution directed at those who are antagonistic towards YHWH (cf. Exod. 34:7; Lev. 18:25; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9; Isa. 13:11; 26:21; Jer. 25:12; 36:31; Amos 3:2; Ps. 89:33). Although the precise form of the punishment is not elucidated, the idea of God’s ‘calling to account the wrongdoing of the fathers upon the children’ should not be understood to imply that children are unjustly punished forthe sins of their parents. As Keil and Delitzsch remark:
The words neither affirm that sinning fathers remain unpunished, nor that the sins of fathers are punished in the children and grandchildren without any fault of their own: they simply say nothing about whether and how the fathers themselves are punished; and, in order to show the dreadful severity of the penal righteousness of God, give prominence to the fact, that punishment is not omitted, – that even when, in the long-suffering of God, it is deferred, it is not therefore neglected, but that the children have to bear the sins of their fathers, whenever, for example (as naturally follows from the connection of children with their fathers, and, as Onkelos has added in his paraphrase of the words), ‘the children fill up the sins of their fathers,’ so that the descendants suffer punishment for both their own and their forefathers’ misdeeds (Lev. xxvi. 39; Isa. lxv. 7; Amos vii. 17; Jer. xvi. 11 sqq.; Dan. ix. 16). (1864a: 117)
Because God displays remarkable tolerance towards wrongdoers, divine punishment is only rarely administered immediately after an offence has been committed. Those who are guilty are frequently given an opportunity to repent. However, such patience may be wrongly interpreted as indicating indifference on the part of God. This is clearly not the case, for those who set themselves at odds with God will ultimately reap what they have sown. Although God’s patience may extend for several generations, in the end his judgment will fall justly upon those who remain intransigent. In such instances, when they have walked in their fathers’ footsteps, the accumulated guilt of a family will fall on later generations. An important example of this comes in the book of Kings, where the sins of Manasseh are included with those of his descendants when God punishes the people of Judah at the time of the Babylonian exile (cf. 2 Kgs 23:26; 24:3). While righteous children are not held accountable for the sins of their parents, there may well be a corporate aspect to the whole process of punishment. In the context of a society that consists largely of multi-generational families, it should be recognized that the beneficiaries of parental wrongdoing are almost always their children. As T. F. Williams suggests, ‘The children are punished according to their solidarity with and participation in the misconduct of their parents’ (1996: 660).
Alexander, T. Desmond. Exodus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary Series) (pp. 406-407). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
This explanatory section of the second commandment, with its assertion that God is “jealous … punishing the children for the sins of the fathers,” has been widely misunderstood. It does not represent an assertion that God actually punishes an innocent generation for sins of a predecessor generation, contrary to Deut 24:16 (“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin”; cf. 2 Kgs 14:6). Rather, this oft-repeated34 theme speaks of God’s determination to punish successive generations for committing the same sins they learned from their parents. In other words, God will not say, “I won’t punish this generation for what they are doing to break my covenant because, after all, they merely learned it from their parents who did it too.” Instead, God will indeed punish generation after generation (“to the third and fourth generation”35) if they keep doing the same sorts of sins that prior generations did. If the children continue to do the sins their parents did, they will receive the same punishments as their parents.
Douglas K. Stuart. Exodus (Kindle Locations 13057-13065). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The sanctions attached to this command begin with the majestic reminder that “I, the LORD [Yahweh] your God, am a jealous God.” A “jealous” or “zealous” God must not be understood in such popular misconceptions as that God is naturally suspicious, distrustful, or wrongly envious of the success of others. When used of God it denotes: (1) that attribute that demands exclusive devotion (Ex 34: 14; Dt 4: 24; 5: 9; 6: 15), (2) that attitude of anger directed against all who oppose him (Nu 25: 11; Dt 29: 20; Ps 79: 5; Eze 5: 13; 16: 38, 42; 25: 11; Zep 1: 18), and (3) that energy he expends on vindicating his people (2Ki 19: 31; Isa 9: 7; 37: 32; Joel 2: 18; Zec 1: 14; 8: 2). Thus all idolatry, which Scripture labels elsewhere as spiritual adultery, that raises up competitors or brooks any kind of rivalry to the honor, glory, and esteem due to the Lord will excite his zealousness for the consistency of his own character and being. Every form of substitution, neglect, or contempt, both public and private, for the worship of God is rejected here. Children who repeat the sins of their fathers evidence it by personally hating God; hence they too are punished like their fathers. Moses makes it plain in Deuteronomy 24: 16: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” The effects of disobedience last for some time, but the effects of loving God are far more extensive—“ to a thousand [generations]” (v. 6). Ezekiel 18: 4 likewise says, “The soul that sins is the one who will die.” Thus, both statements are true. Just as one traitor can endanger a whole army, so one unrighteous parent can leave a pile of troubles for the next generations to work through. That is the effect of corporate solidarity of the family and the whole human race. Yet the individual principle is also true— each ship rests on its own bottom, so to speak.
Kaiser, Jr., Walter C.. Exodus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 5786-5799). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
This too is often viewed as an unworthy and unjust representation of God. Why should innocent children be punished because of what their ancestors have done? The answer lies in the fact that one generation does not live to itself, but sets the agenda and moral atmosphere for those that come after it. This need not be thought of as a process over time. In a society where the extended family lived together, the oldest generation established the life style throughout the family (34:7). ‘Sin’ is not a general word for wrong-doing, but points to religious and ethical deviance. When that becomes prevalent in one generation, the truth about God is not passed on to the next generation, who consequently receive a warped religious inheritance which leads them to fall short of the standards of God’s covenant and come under his scrutiny and displeasure. An instance of how this works out is presented in Judges 2:10–15. It is only by the LORD’s intervention in grace that the situation can be transformed. Otherwise those who in succeeding generations continue to ‘hate’ the LORD will be punished by him. This punishment is not to be thought of primarily as retributive, bringing on them the just penalty of their rebellion. The LORD in his jealousy does not lightly abandon the covenant relationship. Even the punishment proceeds from a special claim that he makes over the children. They are not allowed to live without providential warning that their conduct is displeasing to him. Even when he afflicts them, he is calling them back to loyalty to himself.
This part of the commandment is a solemn warning that our conduct affects not only ourselves, but our families and descendants. It is not accidental that the language used here is that of the family. It is the home that is the primary training ground for the next generation, and religious decline does not arise from the failure of the church or the state, but from the failure of the family to live close to God.
John L. Mackay, Exodus, Mentor Commentaries (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2001), 346–347.
The consequences of idolatry are severe. It is such a heinous sin that God visits ‘the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and upon the fourth [generations] of those who hate me’. The impression of unfairness is largely done away with when one understands the communal nature of the covenant relationship. When a member of the covenant community commits the awful deed of idolatry, the whole community suffers. And how much greater suffering will occur to those who are nearest the offender?
John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy, EP Study Commentary (Darlington, England; Webster, New York: Evangelical Press, 2006), 543.
The qualification, that YHWH offers no blanket amnesty, means that he does not indulge sin. The unrepentant person cannot escape punishment under a general amnesty; that person remains unforgiven. Forgiveness, moreover, does not necessarily imply release from all consequences for one’s actions, although it does mean that one will not pay the full penalty that God would otherwise impose, and it also means that one will, in the end, experience redemption. The fact that the punishment extends for generations does not mean that God will continue to punish members of subsequent generations even if they turn from the evil of their fathers (see Ezek. 18). It means that the punishment can be very severe, with repercussions on generations yet unborn. Again, however, the main point of the oracle is that YHWH is merciful; the final stanza is a qualification and not the fundamental lesson.
Duane A. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus: Commentary, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2014), 653.
The Council 