Why Federalism is self-contradictory

[JAL]

This was my post #36 on this thread:

http://foru.ms/t6152876-a-defense-of-calvinism.html

I decided this post deserves its own thread, so here it is again:

Let's establish some ground rules here, namely that the claim, "We humans don't understand God's concept of justice" doesn't fly, for several reasons.

To begin with, suppose you attend a physics convention. All the great minds of our time are there. You stand up and say, "I have a new theory, called space-time warpage, which will solve many of the scientific challenges of our day."

They reply, "Great, tell us about it, so we can put it to use as soon as possible."

You reply, "Well, I would tell you about it, but the problem is that it transcends human understanding. None of us can understaned it."

I think at that point they would have security escort you out the door!

That KIND of statement is inappropriate for an intelligent discussion. Likewise the person who says his theology cannot be understood should shut up because to utter humanly unintelligible words serves no useful purpose in an intelligent theological discussion.

And yet oddly enough, Federalists often state, "God's justice is beyond human understanding." What they should RATHER say is , "We Federalists don't even HAVE a theory of God's justice, we clearly don't know what we are talking about when we say that God condemns all men for Adam's sin, and therefore we should have kept our mouths shut from the beginning." Let's not PRETEND to have a theory of divine justice when in fact we don't have anything humanly intelligible, shall we?

Secondly, a theologian must be logically consistent. For example he is not to endorse a moral relatavism which proposes one standard of justice for man, another for God.

What then is the human concept of justice? I think pretty much everyone would agree that justice is fairness, meaning that the guilty (those who voluntarily transgressed) merit punishment, and those who have NOT voluntarily transgressed are innocent.

To believe in atonement is to admit that God holds to this same concept of justice (i.e fairness). Why so? Because if fairness isn't vital to God, He could put us all in heaven without having to worry about the atonement. It works like this. (1) Fairness demands that the guilty don't get the same reward as the innocent (at least not until the sentence has been served). (2) Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

A third reason it is inappropriate to say, "My theory of divine justice is beyond human understanding" or to say "God isn't bound to regular ol' fairness" is that such renders the biblical promises self-contradictory. Why so? Because if virtues such as "love" and "justice" and "mercy" and "integrity" were qualitatively different for God than for man, than the biblical promises that God will "love" us with "justice" and "mercy" for all eternity - promises which purport to console us - BECOME CAUSE FOR ALARM.

A fourth argument that God holds to "regular ol' fairness" as His standard of justice is Ezekiel's testimony (Ezek 18) where God says that a child shall not be held guilty for the sins of His parents. Thus the children of Adam cannot be punished for his sins, if God be not a liar.

Since Adamic representation logically contradicts fairness, it is a logical contradiction to regard the God of federalism as a just God. Indeed, imagine a human judge who punished all men for the transgression of one, when in fact it was in his power to punish only the one. We would say that such a judge is literally at the ZENITH of evil. And federalists claim that their doctrine GLORIFIES God? Please.

The federalist will reply, "But Christ federally respresented men on the cross. This is proof that federalism (representationalism) is unavoidable."
Umm...No. Clearly Christ did NOT represent us federally. Rather He atoned for us, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

First of all, we see that atonement is just, that is, it fits into "regular ol' fairness" as all men understand it. Suppose for example my sister gets a speeding ticket. I offer to pay for it - but note that I earned this money by my own blood, sweat, and tears. Thus by paying the ticket, I am doing PRECISELY what Christ did on the cross - He shed His own blood, sweat, and tears to pay for our sins. To admit that it is okay to pay for someone's speeding ticket is to admit that atonement is a just concept.


Now I will show that His atonement was not federal (representational). In representationalism, the status of the rep determines the status of the people. As long as that rep remains innocent, the people are innocent. The status of the people has NOTHING to do with any behavior on their part. By definition, everything depends on the rep. Notice that Christ was ALWAYS innocent, even before the cross. Therefore if Christ were the federal rep of the human race, there would be no need to atone (and God would be unjust for sending Him needlessly to die). We would ALL be innocent (the whole human race) as long as Christ remained innocent. No human being would go to hell. Thus federalism logically contradicts the atonement.

Federalism leads to an absurd concept of "justice". For example, after Eve sinned, she should have killed Adam before he had a chance to sin. Since the rep would have died innocent, she too would have been innocent by representation. What kind of God would reward Eve for wanton murder?


Federalism is a contradiction in terms. Vizualize.
(1) Adam is our rep. Therefore we are guilty by representation.
(2) Christ is our rep. Therefore we are innocent by represesentation.

Huh? Which is it? Innocent? Or guilty? Someone will reply, "Well, Adam WAS our rep, but since he is no longer our rep, and now that Christ is our rep, we are now innocent." But if God can so remove Adam from rep-hood, then none of us would have been guilty in the first place! What kind of God has the option to remove Adam from rep-hood before it harms the rest of us and yet refrains from doing so?

Since federalism is both (a)logically self-contradictory and (b) contradictory to the atonement, a reasonable solution is to come up with a JUST explanation of how all men could be guilty in Adam.

There is only one solution (I challenge you to find another).

The solution is that God only created one soul, named Adam, but this one soul is of a substance which can be broken into parts (presumably this would imply that the soul is a physical substance). Eve's soul was part of Adam's soul (when she was taken physically from his ribs). As Charles Hodge says, God breathed that soul into Adam's body (Gen 2:7). To "breathe" (blow) a soul into a body suggests that it is a physical substance. Certainly the church father Tertullian, for example, was a staunch materialist.

When Adam sinned, all his soul became stained with sin (i.e. depraved, addicted to sin). God then removed most of his soul to a place of suspended animation, and then Adam lived a fairly normal life (now being an individual separate and distinct from the rest of his soul).

At every human conception, God takes a portion of the sin-stained soul (the part in suspended animation) and merges it with the embryo. This is the SOURCE of universal human depravity. YOU, my friend, are Adam, even though can't remember choosing that fruit. YOU chose the fruit. I am NOT saying that your soul was "with Adam" - you ARE Adam. God punishes the GUILTY (we who actually sinned).

Why don't I remember? Same reason Christ couldn't remember anything as a newborn babe. He even had to learn Hebrew. I can't get into all that here.

One term I like to use for the human soul, therefore, is MULTIPLICITY. A mind is one mind, one individual, but since the component parts of this mind are, themselves, mind, a physical separation of the components from each other results in their individualization (they evolve into increasingly distinct individuals).


Now I am prepared to answer the objection, "But isn't Scripture federal when it says that the sins of the parents fall upon the children?"

Absolutely not. That would be unjust. These children are ALREADY GUILTY in Adam. They have hell to pay, and it is only by God's patience that they are not yet in hell. When their parents sin, however, they provoke God's anger (essentially exhausting His patience) and thus bring down upon their children the very judgment that these children deserve. So they are REALLY suffering for their own sin in Adam, NOT for the sins of their parents, which would be unjust (see Ezek 18).

 

[AndOne]

Just a quick question - having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say. I promise I'm not being facetious.

Do you believe that we are born into sin or not? In some points of your post it seems like you don't - in other points it seems like you do. What's your bottom line on this issue?

 

[JAL]

Just a quick question - having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say. I promise I'm not being facetious.

Do you believe that we are born into sin or not? In some points of your post it seems like you don't - in other points it seems like you do. What's your bottom line on this issue?

Yes, I believe we are born with a sinful nature. Is it total depravity (i.e. inability to turn to God)? I don't know, but I suspect it is. If so, does this rule out Arminianism? No, it does not, because multiplicity complicates the issue, it allows for possibilities other than Calvinism.


I'd also like to point out that my solution is the ONLY one that explain HOW we got a sinful nature. The present-day Reformed theologian Donald Bloesch regarded this problem (explaining the ubiquity of the taint) as "insoluble" (his exact word). Note carefully what he is saying. He is not simply saying that the problem HASN'T been solved as yet. He is saying that it CANNOT be solved. The reason he says this, probably, is his unwillingness to entertain the possibility of a physical soul.

My metaphysic (physical multiplicity) solves it easily.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Intersting theory, but only that. You haven't quoted scripture, and Romans 5 seems to contradict what you are saying. How would you interact with such a text?

 

[AndOne]

Yes, I believe we are born with a sinful nature.

Okay - Thanks for the clarification - think I'll but out of this discussion - it seems a bit over my head....

 

[JAL]

Intersting theory, but only that. You haven't quoted scripture, and Romans 5 seems to contradict what you are saying. How would you interact with such a text?

How does Rom 5 contradict what I'm saying?

 

[Epiphoskei]

"Nevertheless, death ruled from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way as Adam when he disobeyed"

doesn't seem to work so well with

"YOU, my friend, are Adam, even though can't remember choosing that fruit. YOU chose the fruit. I am NOT saying that your soul was "with Adam" - you ARE Adam. God punishes the GUILTY (we who actually sinned)."

 

[heymikey80]

And my question: have you read "The Imputation of Adam's Sin", by John Murray? It seems to me it's the quintessential explanation of Federal righteousness and Federal sin.

Where does it say "It's incomprehensible" or "It's not understandable"? Got a page number for me?

I've little patience for the latest "Reformed" theologian claiming a Federal theology. Most of the later guys are "Federal Vision" advocates, which seems to shoot from the hip. And while I have compassion for some of their points (I think Southern Presbyterian theology has overpressed its claims about children in the Covenant) I have no appreciation for the true believers in the Federal Vision movement.

(Just to point it out though, Federal Vision is not the same as Federal theology.)

 

[CCWoody]

Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who claim it is inherently unfair that the FIRST Adam represent the human race in the fall turn right around and claim the inherent righteousness of the LAST Adam representing the human race in its redemption.

If you wish to claim that the former is wrong, you implictly impeach the latter. And, I would personally fear to tread there!





Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[drstevej]

JAL, you really think you would have done better than Adam?

 

[JAL]

"Nevertheless, death ruled from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way as Adam when he disobeyed"

doesn't seem to work so well with

"YOU, my friend, are Adam, even though can't remember choosing that fruit. YOU chose the fruit. I am NOT saying that your soul was "with Adam" - you ARE Adam. God punishes the GUILTY (we who actually sinned)."

Excellent question. I think you're point is that, according to this verse, the rest of us did NOT sin in the same way that Adam did, which means that we never did perform Adam's sin, contrary to my postulation of corporate Adam’s sin.

That's a pretty solid objection, indeed one I considered a few years ago, and frankly I can’t remember what conclusions I drew. I can’t even remember if I deem the above to be the best translation of the verse. I would say that this is definitely a problem passage for me. On the other hand I don’t know of any theology devoid of problem passages.

I think the question that Paul is answering here is this: Given that Adam sinned, and thereby brought death upon himself in virtue of that sin, did that same death extend to his progeny seeing that they did NOT choose the fruit?

Am I now contradicting myself by saying that his progeny did not chose the fruit? No. As I warned, exegesis becomes quite tricky and complicated in the context of Multiplicity. Keep in mind that Adam and I, TODAY, are two distinct individuals. Currently, I (JAL) am NOT Adam, even though we were all once one individual. Basically Paul is asking the question, did death also extend to people such as JAL, GIVEN that he is an individual distinct from Adam?

Those of us long-inculcated with the doctrine of original sin don’t see much need for this question. We presume to know the answer to be yes. But Paul wanted to drive this point home to an audience who, as yet, probably knew nothing of this doctrine. He therefore asserts in that verse that the death disbursed to Adam did, indeed, extend to his progeny.

I also want to first bolster my position with an additional observation. Paul said at Rom 6:23 that “all have sinned” – even babes? Every fetus? How does one explain that kind of statement, aside from corporate Adam?

 

[JAL]

Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who claim it is inherently unfair that the FIRST Adam represent the human race in the fall turn right around and claim the inherent righteousness of the LAST Adam representing the human race in its redemption.

If you wish to claim that the former is wrong, you implictly impeach the latter. And, I would personally fear to tread there!




Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.​

You obviously didn't read, or did not comprehend, what I wrote. It was precisely this sort of assumption that I was adressing. You are drawing a false parellel, for you are ASSUMING that the atonment was a federal act (an act where Christ was our reprsentative). The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate that it was NOT representational. To say that Christ represented us logically contradicts the atonement - that was the argument, and I'm not sure you even read it.

 

[JAL]

JAL, you really think you would have done better than Adam?

I think you are alluding to the "Adam was the perfect rep argument" meaning that we all act alike. There are several problems with this argument.

(1) Free beings (indeterminately free beings) do not act alike. Take for instance the angels. SOME of them chose to fall away, but others remained faithful.

(2) If we all act alike, every Christian should get the same rewards in heaven, whereas Christ said that one would end up with 2 minas, another with 5, another with 10, etc.

(3) If we all act alike, each of us is equally guilty in all acts. That is to say, if I rob a bank, you should pay the same penalty because you are currently acting just like me (albeit blessed with better circumstances such that you were not tempted to rob the bank). God would have no basis for commending one individual over another - but in fact Scripture DOES commend one individual over another, in some cases.

 

[heymikey80]

(Does anyone really read those dusty old codices from the last century any more? )

The basic idea that impressed me in "Imputation" (not neglecting other ideas, which "Imputation of Adam's Sin" points to positively as well) is that we receive the grace & declaration of God as an inheritance naturally from Adam and adoptively from Christ.

We lost that as an heritage and inheritance through Adam's curse. We gained a different, better inheritance through Christ and His sacrifice.

That pours not simply Romans 5 into the federal concept, but much of the Pauline letters and Hebrews: adoption, inheritance & heirs, citizenship, and (at least the federal aspect of) union with Christ. Plus -- the assembly of Christians being treated as a group, not distributively as individuals. All of which appear in Scripture.

It can be pressed wrongly into more than it is. But it's clearly not less than these Scriptural illustrations.

Presbyterians have pressed Reformed Theology into both more and less, and the arguments often still swirl around these issues. But ... we roil around a tighter circle than most of Christianity on this issue.

 

[drstevej]

I think you are alluding to the "Adam was the perfect rep argument" meaning that we all act alike. There are several problems with this argument.

(1) Free beings (indeterminately free beings) do not act alike. Take for instance the angels. SOME of them chose to fall away, but others remained faithful.

(2) If we all act alike, every Christian should get the same rewards in heaven, whereas Christ said that one would end up with 2 minas, another with 5, another with 10, etc.

(3) If we all act alike, each of us is equally guilty in all acts. That is to say, if I rob a bank, you should pay the same penalty because you are currently acting just like me (albeit blessed with better circumstances such that you were not tempted to rob the bank). God would have no basis for commending one individual over another - but in fact Scripture DOES commend one individual over another, in some cases.

Actually I asked

JAL, you really think you would have done better than Adam?

Care to answer MY question ???

 

[JAL]

Actually I asked

Care to answer MY question ???

As this question doesn't seem to make any sense in light of my Opening Post, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, I tried to make sense of it. But you sem to imply that my effort was misdirected.

I argued in the Opening Post, "I am Adam." You then ask me, "Would you have done better than Adam?"

Why are you asking me whether I would have done better than myself? I don't understand this question.

Care to clarify it ?????

 

[nobdysfool]

Let's establish some ground rules here, namely that the claim, "We humans don't understand God's concept of justice" doesn't fly, for several reasons.

To begin with, suppose you attend a physics convention. All the great minds of our time are there. You stand up and say, "I have a new theory, called space-time warpage, which will solve many of the scientific challenges of our day."

They reply, "Great, tell us about it, so we can put it to use as soon as possible."

You reply, "Well, I would tell you about it, but the problem is that it transcends human understanding. None of us can understaned it."

I think at that point they would have security escort you out the door!

That KIND of statement is inappropriate for an intelligent discussion.

Here is the first in a long line of statements made without support. Please show us where the statement “We humans don't understand God's concept of justice" was made. If you cannot, then it is obvious that this is a straw man.

Likewise the person who says his theology cannot be understood should shut up because to utter humanly unintelligible words serves no useful purpose in an intelligent theological discussion.

Again, cite us the quotation where anyone here has said such a thing. Straw man #2.

And yet oddly enough, Federalists often state, "God's justice is beyond human understanding."

I’m not aware of any “Federalist” (as you call them) who has made this statement. It is obvious here that you are setting up straw man after straw man, preparing to make a show of knocking the down.

What they should RATHER say is , "We Federalists don't even HAVE a theory of God's justice, we clearly don't know what we are talking about when we say that God condemns all men for Adam's sin, and therefore we should have kept our mouths shut from the beginning."

Since this whole line of reasoning is built on nothing concrete, it is vapor and dissipates as quickly. You have established nothing here other than your own hubris.

Let's not PRETEND to have a theory of divine justice when in fact we don't have anything humanly intelligible, shall we?

Since no one here is doing anything like that (except you), we can dispense with this ridiculous and hypothetical line of reasoning.

Secondly, a theologian must be logically consistent. For example he is not to endorse a moral relatavism which proposes one standard of justice for man, another for God.

Obviously you want people to think that someone is doing this, else you wouldn’t make such a false and nebulous charge, with no proof. Straw man #3

What then is the human concept of justice? I think pretty much everyone would agree that justice is fairness, meaning that the guilty (those who voluntarily transgressed) merit punishment, and those who have NOT voluntarily transgressed are innocent.

Fairness is a poor analogy for Justice, because “fairness” is relative. Justice deals with transgression impartially and without passion. It considers only the facts. Fairness is laden with emotion and relativism, because what is fair to one person may not be so, or be perceived as, fair to another.

To believe in atonement is to admit that God holds to this same concept of justice (i.e fairness). Why so? Because if fairness isn't vital to God, He could put us all in heaven without having to worry about the atonement. It works like this. (1) Fairness demands that the guilty don't get the same reward as the innocent (at least not until the sentence has been served). (2) Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

And in one fell swoop, you have reduced God’s Justice to man’s perception and oversight. You have not provided any clear reason why such an idea should be accepted, or even considered. Just a statement by fiat that this is the way it is, and no scripture or even logical reasoning to establish it or back it up.

A third reason it is inappropriate to say, "My theory of divine justice is beyond human understanding" or to say "God isn't bound to regular ol' fairness" is that such renders the biblical promises self-contradictory.

Straw man #4. I’m not aware of anyone making such claims. What you are doing is denying the Transcendence of God. Your statements are an attempt to make God over as just a bigger, more powerful version of Man. It is disrespect for, and a denial of, His Transcendence, and the fact that He, as God, is completely other than what we are. God is not a reflection of Man, we are a very dim reflection of Him, if even that.

Why so? Because if virtues such as "love" and "justice" and "mercy" and "integrity" were qualitatively different for God than for man, than the biblical promises that God will "love" us with "justice" and "mercy" for all eternity - promises which purport to console us - BECOME CAUSE FOR ALARM.

Straw man #5. These qualities are not “qualitatively” different for God and Man, but they are “Quantitatively” different. We can love, but God defines Love. We can show justice, but God defines Justice. The same for mercy and integrity. What measure of these virtues we can express are dim and pale reflections, imperfect reflections, of those qualities of God’s character and Essence.

A fourth argument that God holds to "regular ol' fairness" as His standard of justice is Ezekiel's testimony (Ezek 18) where God says that a child shall not be held guilty for the sins of His parents. Thus the children of Adam cannot be punished for his sins, if God be not a liar.

You said all that to set the stage for this bit of false deduction and doctrine.

[quot=JAL]Since Adamic representation logically contradicts fairness, it is a logical contradiction to regard the God of federalism as a just God.[/quote]

An unsupported statement. You just expect the reader to accept it as though it were true. Why should we? On what basis do you make this assertion? It flies in the face of the entire Word of God.

Indeed, imagine a human judge who punished all men for the transgression of one, when in fact it was in his power to punish only the one. We would say that such a judge is literally at the ZENITH of evil.

Straw man #6. Nothing like that is taught, or takes place.

And federalists claim that their doctrine GLORIFIES God? Please.

Ad hominem based on faulty and unsupported statements. Rejected out of hand as a non-sequitor. Since you have not even properly stated the premise, your conclusion is drawn from faulty, inaccurate and downright false information and premises. As such, it nullifies itself.

The federalist will reply, "But Christ federally respresented men on the cross. This is proof that federalism (representationalism) is unavoidable."
Umm...No. Clearly Christ did NOT represent us federally. Rather He atoned for us, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

A Federalist would not make that statement as the basis of his doctrine, so this is yet another straw man. I believe that makes #7. And, what you are putting forth as “Federalism” is not accurate to begin with.

First of all, we see that atonement is just, that is, it fits into "regular ol' fairness" as all men understand it.

So even the atonement is not the act of a Transcendent God? Proof please.

Suppose for example my sister gets a speeding ticket. I offer to pay for it - but note that I earned this money by my own blood, sweat, and tears. Thus by paying the ticket, I am doing PRECISELY what Christ did on the cross - He shed His own blood, sweat, and tears to pay for our sins. To admit that it is okay to pay for someone's speeding ticket is to admit that atonement is a just concept.

Faulty analogy. Your paying of the ticket did not cost you your life, only a bit of your time, and labor, and the remuneration for that time and labor. This is vastly different than what Christ did.

Imagine a chicken and a pig discussing their relative contributions to the farmer’s breakfast. The chicken says, “I lay an egg every day which the farmer gathers, and cooks”. The pig says “that’s nice, but if the farmer wants ham, he has to kill me to get it”. The difference? The chicken makes a contribution, the pig makes a commitment.

Your paying of your sister’s speeding ticket is only a contribution. Christ’s atonement for His People was a complete commitment.

Now I will show that His atonement was not federal (representational). In representationalism, the status of the rep determines the status of the people. As long as that rep remains innocent, the people are innocent.

And where does this bit of information come from? How about some support? You just make a statement, and expect people to accept it. How does this work?

The status of the people has NOTHING to do with any behavior on their part. By definition, everything depends on the rep.

Support, please. You’re driving this toward a conclusion, but you haven’t properly established that your definitions are correct or accurate.

Notice that Christ was ALWAYS innocent, even before the cross. Therefore if Christ were the federal rep of the human race, there would be no need to atone (and God would be unjust for sending Him needlessly to die). We would ALL be innocent (the whole human race) as long as Christ remained innocent. No human being would go to hell. Thus federalism logically contradicts the atonement.

The fact is, Christ was NOT the “federal representative” of the whole human race. Christ died for His People, those whom the Father would give Him. Jesus makes that plain in John 6. And, you apply the concept of “representative” far more universally and to a much greater extent that it applies.

Federalism leads to an absurd concept of "justice". For example, after Eve sinned, she should have killed Adam before he had a chance to sin. Since the rep would have died innocent, she too would have been innocent by representation. What kind of God would reward Eve for wanton murder?

Absurdity abounds. Adam was not “appointed” the “federal representative” of the human race. The fact that all humans were seminally in Adam at the time he sinned made it certain that his offspring would be born sinful. Remember, God established that every living thing would reproduce after its own kind. That included Adam and Eve. And God establishes the concept of those who do not yet live being “in” their ancestors, with scripture, where Levi is counted as having paid tithes to Melchizadek, King of Salem, in Abraham. Therefore, we were “in” Adam when he sinned, and share in the effects and results of that sin.

Continued next post...................

 

[nobdysfool]

.....................continued from previous post............

Federalism is a contradiction in terms. Vizualize.
(1) Adam is our rep. Therefore we are guilty by representation.
(2) Christ is our rep. Therefore we are innocent by represesentation.

Wrong definitions. All in Adam die. Why? Because they are “in” Adam by natural birth, and share his nature and judgment. All men come into being in this state.

All in Christ are made alive. Why? Because they have been joined to Christ in spirit, and have passed from death to life by the application of His Blood and a declaration of Justification by God. Only those who have been regenerated by Grace through Faith in Christ become “in” Christ, and that is by God’s Election and Predestination, not by the will of man, the works of man, or the so-called “free will” choice of man. Those who are in Christ are given Him by the Father, and it is those for whom Christ gave His Life and shed His Blood to save.

Huh? Which is it? Innocent? Or guilty? Someone will reply, "Well, Adam WAS our rep, but since he is no longer our rep, and now that Christ is our rep, we are now innocent."

Innocent? Hardly! Justified? Yes, for those who are in Christ. You have completely twisted the whole concept out of any semblance of scriptural logic.

But if God can so remove Adam from rep-hood, then none of us would have been guilty in the first place! What kind of God has the option to remove Adam from rep-hood before it harms the rest of us and yet refrains from doing so?

Simple answer: Adam was not “removed”, for he is still the head of those who are not saved. It is those who have been regenerated by God unto faith in Christ, through Grace, that have been moved from Adam to Christ.

Since federalism is both (a)logically self-contradictory and (b) contradictory to the atonement, a reasonable solution is to come up with a JUST explanation of how all men could be guilty in Adam.

“Just” according to man’s flawed and imperfect understanding? Again, you ignore the Transcendence of God, and try to shoehorn Him into your little box. And, your concluding statements are not accurate, nor are they correct, as I have shown, so your attempt to move to the next level, that of promoting strange doctrine, should be ignored outright, as you have not established any basis for it.

There is only one solution (I challenge you to find another).

I believe I’ll stick with God’s Word, which absolutely does not support what you’re about to say. You won’t find any support for this in the Word of God.

The solution is that God only created one soul, named Adam, but this one soul is of a substance which can be broken into parts (presumably this would imply that the soul is a physical substance). Eve's soul was part of Adam's soul (when she was taken physically from his ribs). As Charles Hodge says, God breathed that soul into Adam's body (Gen 2:7). To "breathe" (blow) a soul into a body suggests that it is a physical substance. Certainly the church father Tertullian, for example, was a staunch materialist.

LOL! God breathed the breath of life into Adam, and the Hebrew word means spirit. Not material at all. Strike one.

When Adam sinned, all his soul became stained with sin (i.e. depraved, addicted to sin). God then removed most of his soul to a place of suspended animation, and then Adam lived a fairly normal life (now being an individual separate and distinct from the rest of his soul).

And your scriptural support for this would be…..???? Strike two.

At every human conception, God takes a portion of the sin-stained soul (the part in suspended animation) and merges it with the embryo. This is the SOURCE of universal human depravity. YOU, my friend, are Adam, even though can't remember choosing that fruit. YOU chose the fruit. I am NOT saying that your soul was "with Adam" - you ARE Adam. God punishes the GUILTY (we who actually sinned).

Metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. The idea of the “universal consciousness”, the “race memory” etc. are all “New Age” concepts, and/or Eastern philosophical concepts. There is no scriptural support for such foolishness. Strike three.

Why don't I remember? Same reason Christ couldn't remember anything as a newborn babe. He even had to learn Hebrew. I can't get into all that here.

Now you start with the allusions to “more” such “revelations”, to whet the appetite of those who are tempted to have their ears tickled by such nonsense.

One term I like to use for the human soul, therefore, is MULTIPLICITY. A mind is one mind, one individual, but since the component parts of this mind are, themselves, mind, a physical separation of the components from each other results in their individualization (they evolve into increasingly distinct individuals).

I don’t care if you call it “Fred”. It’s still false doctrine, and not scriptural.

Now I am prepared to answer the objection, "But isn't Scripture federal when it says that the sins of the parents fall upon the children?"

Straw man #8. No one is raising the objection, because by now, most have tuned you out, because what you espouse is strange doctrine.

Absolutely not. That would be unjust. These children are ALREADY GUILTY in Adam. They have hell to pay, and it is only by God's patience that they are not yet in hell. When their parents sin, however, they provoke God's anger (essentially exhausting His patience) and thus bring down upon their children the very judgment that these children deserve. So they are REALLY suffering for their own sin in Adam, NOT for the sins of their parents, which would be unjust (see Ezek 18).

A rather contrived answer to a non-existent question. Since it is based on your faulty concept of “fairness” in God, I find little, if any, enlightenment in it. It really has little to do with the overall subject.

Now, I’m quite prepared for the onslaught of accusations you will level at me, the charge of “empty rhetoric”, etc. So save your breath, and provide the proof of the concepts you have slipped into this OP, and prove your premises, and your conclusions.

So far you have not.

 

[drstevej]

As this question doesn't seem to make any sense in light of my Opening Post, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, I tried to make sense of it. But you sem to imply that my effort was misdirected.

I argued in the Opening Post, "I am Adam." You then ask me, "Would you have done better than Adam?"

Why are you asking me whether I would have done better than myself? I don't understand this question.

Care to clarify it ?????

So does this long response mean your answer is "no" ???

 

[JAL]

Basically what you do here is start off claiming that "No federalist on this forum says the things that you claim they say." And you challenge me to provide actual sample quotes. You THEN begin to assert precisely those things! So why need I look any further for quotes, when in fact I can use your very own statements!

Therefore, should I even dignify your critique with a response? (sigh). Ok, here goes.

Here are some of the things which you claim "We federalists don't say"

. Please show us where the statement "We humans don't understand God's concept of justice" was made. If you cannot, then it is obvious that this is a straw man.

Again, cite us the quotation where anyone here has said such a thing [that "God's justice is beyond human understanding."]. Straw man #2.

And then here, for example, is where you assert precisely those things!

And in one fell swoop, you have reduced God’s Justice to man’s perception and oversight...What you are doing is denying the Transcendence of God. Your statements are an attempt to make God over as just a bigger, more powerful version of Man. It is disrespect for, and a denial of, His Transcendence, and the fact that He, as God, is completely other than what we are. God is not a reflection of Man, we are a very dim reflection of Him, if even that.

In other words, what you imply is that God's concept of justtice is NOT the human concept of justice, it is NOT justice as man understands it, it transcends man, and thus transcends human understanding and thus is, in other words, "humanly unintelligible" (to use my own earlier terminology). I'll say it again. This KIND of assertion has NO PLACE in a theological discussion that is SUPPOSED to be humanly intelligible. Because if it is not supposed to be humanly intelligible, you might as well write in some angelic language. No one on this forum is going to understand anything you say - it's just gibberish. Clear?

Fairness is a poor analogy for Justice, because "fairness" is relative. Justice deals with transgression impartially and without passion. It considers only the facts. Fairness is laden with emotion and relativism, because what is fair to one person may not be so, or be perceived as, fair to another.

There was nothing morally relativistic in the definition of fairness which I stated. Here I am inclined to think you are being intellectualy dishonest, that you are deliberately misextrapolating what I said. Here is the definition of fairness/justice which I proposed:

"What then is the human concept of justice? I think pretty much everyone would agree that justice is fairness, meaning that the guilty (those who voluntarily transgressed) merit punishment, and those who have NOT voluntarily transgressed are innocent."

Now where, in heaven's name, do relativism and "subjective emotions" fit into my definition of justice? Clearly it is a definition limited to objective fact - those who voluntarily transgress are guilty, those who abstain are innocent.

Ok, I'm stopping here. As I read further into this post of yours, I decided that I've had enough of it. I was intending to go point by point, but the vitriolic rhetoric was so outrageously gratuitous, unobjective, and misrepresentative of what I said that I cannot further dignify it with a response. It is not a fair, evenhanded treatment of the points I raised. Indeed, I am now beginning to APPRECIATE the other federalists who, after reading my OP, said nothing at all. At least they had the courtesy to abstain from the kind of polemical trash that you just spewed forth.