A genuinely thought-provoking read. Hard work (the thinking, not the reading) but undoubtedly worth the effort.

Blocher takes issue with John Murray on the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity. . .
Reread Murray's "The Imputation of Adam's Sin", and pay closer attention to Romans 5 exegesis.

Blocher does a great job at exploring the existential and societal reality of original sin. Building on his earlier work, In the Beginning, his treatment of Genesis 1-3 is also balanced and helpful. However, I did not find his two major departures from the reformed tradition compelling. Regarding Romans 5, Blocher argues that Adam’s sin made it possible for the sins of all humanity to be imputed. He adopts this view because he doesn’t find the Reformed view of immediate imputation explicitly in the text. But I can’t see where his own view is anywhere in the text. His appeal to verses 13 and 14, accompanied by the observation that Reformed theologians don’t know what to make of this text, is unconvincing. This is particularly so in light of the work of Meredith Kline, who I believe has offered a compelling interpretation of verses 13 and 14 which is in line with the traditional reformed view. Additionally, his departure from the imputation of Adam’s guilt as the means of passing original sin on to the rest of humanity seems to fall short. He doesn’t seem to make an exegetical case for opposing the traditional view, but simply feels instinctively opposed to it.

Overall, it is a resource I would recommend to someone who has already read several books on original sin. Starting with Murray’s “The Imputation of Adam’s Sin” is probably a better choice.

Not a one night easy read, but great material against those who would want to try and steer Christianity away from this foundational doctrine.

Thought provoking - I bit more philosophically geared than I expected.