Why Federalism is self-contradictory

[JAL]

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

Most certainly, that is NOT my answer.

I'll give the same response I gave you before: I don't even undertand the question.

I'm not going to answer a question which I don't understand.

The first time you asked, I THOUGHT I understood what you were asking, so I responded accordingly. You indicated I was answering the wrong question. I then asked you to clarify your question.

You abstained. Naturally, then, I have little choice but to abstain from answering your question.

 

[drstevej]

Do you think you could have done better than Adam?

Simple question....
OH well, later JAL

 

[nobdysfool]

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"



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


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?


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.

In other words, you can't answer. Understood. So, you attack me. Fine. We all know where you stand, now.

And, for the record, your characterization of what you think I meant is not even close. so, you accuse me of what you yourself do. And by defining Justice as fairness, you have reduced God to just a bigger, more powerful man. I notice that you did not deny this.

Justice is that those who are guilty get what they deserve. Whether it is "fair" or not depends on the point of view, i.e. the One dispensing Justice, or the one receiving it. There are a lot of professing Christians who think that it is unfair of God to dispense Justice to those who have never "had a chance", which is what "fairness" would demand. But, to believe that, one has to believe that Jesus died to give everyone a "chance" to be saved, and that His Atonement did not actually save anyone, apart from their choice to believe it, a choice which is supposedly theirs to make, by right and by native ability, neither of which can be found in scripture.

So go on, blather away about Justice as fairness, but understand that no Calvinist or Reformed Believer in this forum will agree with it, and you may expect to see many of them tell you exactly why.

Therefore, I reject fairness as a definition of Justice.

The rest of your OP has been dealt with, and you apparently cannot answer it, As for the vitriol you accuse me of, consider it fair response to the disrespect and vitriol with which you answered my very first post to you. You want "nice", then be that way. If you answer with vitriol, vitriol is what you will get in return. Your attitude is insulting, and uncalled for. I am responding in the only way that you seem able to respond to others. I would think that you would be able to receive what you dish out.

 

[JAL]

In other words, you can't answer. Understood. So, you attack me. Fine. We all know where you stand, now.

And, for the record, your characterization of what you think I meant is not even close. so, you accuse me of what you yourself do. And by defining Justice as fairness, you have reduced God to just a bigger, more powerful man. I notice that you did not deny this.

Justice is that those who are guilty get what they deserve. Whether it is "fair" or not depends on the point of view, i.e. the One dispensing Justice, or the one receiving it. There are a lot of professing Christians who think that it is unfair of God to dispense Justice to those who have never "had a chance", which is what "fairness" would demand. But, to believe that, one has to believe that Jesus died to give everyone a "chance" to be saved, and that His Atonement did not actually save anyone, apart from their choice to believe it, a choice which is supposedly theirs to make, by right and by native ability, neither of which can be found in scripture.

So go on, blather away about Justice as fairness, but understand that no Calvinist or Reformed Believer in this forum will agree with it, and you may expect to see many of them tell you exactly why.

Therefore, I reject fairness as a definition of Justice.

The rest of your OP has been dealt with, and you apparently cannot answer it, As for the vitriol you accuse me of, consider it fair response to the disrespect and vitriol with which you answered my very first post to you. You want "nice", then be that way. If you answer with vitriol, vitriol is what you will get in return. Your attitude is insulting, and uncalled for. I am responding in the only way that you seem able to respond to others. I would think that you would be able to receive what you dish out.

Nope. You dish out a bunch of empty rhetoric. Case in point is that you made a great pretense of "showing" how absurd was my concept of fairness as justice, how far off the mark I am. You then write above (in bold face above) your "own" definition of justice:

Justice is that those who are guilty get what they deserve.


Which is precisely how I had already defined it. I simply used "fairness" as a SYNONYM for the above definition, and I was clear enough on the fact. I said that justice is fairness understood as "those who voluntarily transgress merit punishment, and those abstain are innocent"

In other words, just as you say, "Justice is those who are guilty get what they deserve."

Here again, in EVERY place where you PRETEND to "show" my reasoning flawed, you either confirm what I said by your own statements, or you engage in empty rhetoric.

Until you show me one iota of properly rendering and evaluating my arguments, I am not even going to consider debating the specifics with you.

 

[nobdysfool]

As you wish. If you can't see the difference, then it is pointless for me to further explain it. There IS a difference in how I defined Justice, too bad you cannot see it.

And you use this supposed reason to avoid answering the rest of my critique of your OP. Nice dodge, but the rest of us can see what's going on.

I will not further waste my time with you, seeing that you are not here for any reason other than to incite and tell the rest of us how we're all wrong, and only you have the truth. We've seen your kind before.

 

[CCWoody]

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.

You stated....

Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

That, my friend, it quint essential federal headship. Of course, if you really do deny a Substitutional atonement, then your problem is much more fundamental than Adam.

Your problem is that you don't even understand the Atonement in the first place. One man's righteous act resulted in JUSTIFICATION.

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

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[JAL]

You stated....

Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

That, my friend, it quint essential federal headship. Of course, if you really do deny a Substitutional atonement, then your problem is much more fundamental than Adam.

Your problem is that you don't even understand the Atonement in the first place. One man's righteous act resulted in JUSTIFICATION.

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

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.​

Another poster who keeps asserting his position without addressing the objections raised in the OP.

I have to agree with the other poster. Nobody around here is going to be fooled. Anyone can see what's really going on here.

 

[JAL]

As you wish. If you can't see the difference, then it is pointless for me to further explain it. There IS a difference in how I defined Justice, too bad you cannot see it.

And you use this supposed reason to avoid answering the rest of my critique of your OP. Nice dodge, but the rest of us can see what's going on.

I will not further waste my time with you, seeing that you are not here for any reason other than to incite and tell the rest of us how we're all wrong, and only you have the truth. We've seen your kind before.

I was quite impressed how professionally you debated with me on another thread, and I responded to each of your statements accordingly on that thread.

But on this thread I didn't see that same degree of professionalism. Maybe it's just me, but I'm sorry, I've made my decision - I'm not going to respond to the rest of that post.

If you want to rephrase some of those objections, perhaps I can find the time to take another look.

 

[nobdysfool]

I was quite impressed how professionally you debated with me on another thread, and I responded to each of your statements accordingly on that thread.

But on this thread I didn't see that same degree of professionalism. Maybe it's just me, but I'm sorry, I've made my decision - I'm not going to respond to the rest of that post.

If you want to rephrase some of those objections, perhaps I can find the time to take another look.

Sorry, but I raised some serious issues in "that" post. Issues which you have so far avoided. And, I explained what my basis of objection was. Calling it "empty rhetoric" is really just avoidance. Saying that i object, and then say the very thing I am objecting to is evidence that you did not really understand what I wrote, and your dismissive attitude further underscores that you really can't answer those objections. You made the assertions, and I took them on and explained why I felt they were wrong. You are of course, free to not address them any further, but insulting me over how I answered them is a weak defense.

 

[JAL]

Sorry, but I raised some serious issues in "that" post. Issues which you have so far avoided. And, I explained what my basis of objection was. Calling it "empty rhetoric" is really just avoidance. Saying that i object, and then say the very thing I am objecting to is evidence that you did not really understand what I wrote, and your dismissive attitude further underscores that you really can't answer those objections. You made the assertions, and I took them on and explained why I felt they were wrong. You are of course, free to not address them any further, but insulting me over how I answered them is a weak defense.

My last post was being generous by even referring to them as "objections". Frankly I don't recall any real objections in that post, all I can recall is the rhetoric. I'm not even going to bother rereading it. I'm done here.

 

[nobdysfool]

After going back and reading my post, wherein I raised many serious issues with statements you made, for you to dismiss them and refuse to address them, as you have done, shows me that you really have no answers, and cannot address the points I made. You completely misrepresented Federalism, and I called you on it. You tried to introduce a completely unscriptural doctrine regarding original sin and the depravity of mankind, and cannot produce a single scripture which would support it. So, you try to avoid dealing with what I pointed out by dismissal and a declaration that it is "beneath" you to answer, presumably because I have not met some "standard" of debate rhetoric that you require to "make it worth your time".

You are, of course free to not answer, if you so decide, but please do not try to tell us it was because my post was "unworthy" of an answer. The Truth is, you did not expect anyone to take on your entire OP, and you were, and are, unprepared to back up that which you claimed and asserted.

 

[JAL]

I've decided to resummarize my position on this issue, because I want to link this discussion to a recent thread - in this version, I also discuss predestination and election.


Three esteemed Calvinist professors are John Murray (of Princeton Theological Seminary), and S. Lewis Johnson (of Dallas Theological Seminary), and finally G.C. Berkouwer (of Free University).

The first two of these professors provided some important commentary on the third. The occasion is that the third wrote an important book – six hundred pages long – called Sin.

What did the first two professors have to say about the third, and about his book Sin?

Here’s what they said of G.C. Berkouwer. They said he is a theologian of absolutely unexcelled scholarship. (Yes, you read that correctly. It means he is essentially the greatest scholar of his day). They said he exhibited an acumen exceeding that of the famous theologian Karl Barth. They said he exhibits greater technical skill – for instance a better mastery of grammar and syntax – than Karl Barth.

Now, as for Berkouwer’s book Sin, what was it all about? Although Berkouwer was a loyal Calvinist, he was also a very honest one. Calvinism claims that all men – who would otherwise be born innocent - are essentially born hellbound as a result of Adam’s sin. The basis for this indictment, says Calvinism, is that Adam was our “federal head” (our representative). In part, the book is an assessment of this claim, concluding that federalism cannot be shown just. Berkouwer doesn’t reject federalism – he’s a staunch Calvinist. But here again is an apparent contradiction which he cannot reconcile, even though he was allegedly a greater theologian than Karl Barth !!!

S. Lewis Johnson summarized, “Berkouwer has shrewdly pointed out the weaknesses of both realism and federalism, but as John Murray has commented, ‘Berkouwer is not successful in providing a fruitful alternative’” (S. Lewis Johnson, “G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 132:528 (1975), pp. 316-26).

It is inherently unjust to blame all men for Adam’s sin. Ezekiel 18 insists that a child shall not pay for the sins of his father. Therefore God cannot, with justice, penalize us for the sins of father Adam.
It is therefore YOUR responsibility (here I speak to all Christians) to produce a doctrine of Adam that is fair and just.

I can think of only one solution. Since all the empirical and biblical evidence indicates that spiritual reality is physical (as I discuss on another thread), we can speculate that God only made one man (named Adam) who, after the Fall, and stained with sin, was physically subdivided by God as the origin of our souls and sinful nature. You ARE Adam (even though you don’t remember being in the garden).

In other words, God arguably, after the fall, placed most of Adam’s soul in suspended animation. Adam then lived a normal life. At each conception, God mates some of the suspended soul to the human embryo. The result is that you and Adam have now become separate individuals even though, originally, we were all one man (even Eve came from Adam’s ribs).

Why should you accept this conclusion? Because for 2000 years the greatest theological minds of world history – men and women like G.C. Berkhouwer – have tried to defend God’s justice, and utterly failed. You simply cannot solve the problem of Adam on the assumption that his soul was “spiritual” (immaterial substance). As early as 200 A.D. the church father Tertullian – himself a staunch materialist – pointed out that the problem of Adam (the transmission of original sin), only makes sense if his soul was physical. Recently the famous evangelical theologian Millard J. Erickson implied the same in his systematic theology (now a standard textbook in present-day seminaries). Arguing for a material soul, he concluded, “We were all physically present in Adam, and thereby we all sinned in his act.”

The very nature of a physical soul is that it can be viewed as multiple individuals (viz. the Trinity). This is what allows me to produce a doctrine of predestination consonant with justice, as follows.

When God created Adam’s soul, prior to the foundation of the world, He had already decided to have at least a minimal church regardless of whether Adam fell. Preselecting many of the multiple individuals constituting Adam’s soul, God made the following commitment to them, “If you fall, I will save you.”

Every human being consists, in part, of these preselected (pre-elected) individuals. If you are currently an unbeliever, and then get saved, you will then be numbered among the elect. In this theory of mine, however, if you die in unbelief, then God, just prior to your death and damnation, removes the preselected part of you back into suspended animation, for later redistribution to another human embryo (just as He did with Adam). All the preselected individuals, therefore, will eventually be saved. Not one of the elect will be lost. They were elected, and predestined, before the foundation of the world. God prepared for the fall, and forechose/ foreknew the elect, but by no means did He foreknow the fall, nor did He predestine men to hell. He was hoping that Adam (you) would have abstained from sin.

I believe that this metaphysics can be used to form a mediating position between Calvinism and Arminianism. In other words it is probably conducive to a semi-Arminianism, for reasons which, unfortunately, are not immediately apparent. Perhaps I might discuss this a bit more, if I get some requests.

 

[moonbeam]

You ARE Adam (even though you don’t remember being in the garden).

If I [and all other persons] are Adam...then I and all other persons are equally guilty as/with Adam...correct?

 

[MamaZ]

Sounds like psycological reasoning to me what has been written in the OP. Which has not bearing on truth per say but on mans reasoning.

 

[JAL]

If I [and all other persons] are Adam...then I and all other persons are equally guilty as/with Adam...correct?

No. All are guilty in Adam - but equally? No. it's more complicated than that.


In my metaphysics, each physical particle is self-propelling (free choice causes movement) and therefore individually responsible. For instance if some parts of Adam's soul resisted the sin instead of condoining it, they would have remained innocent. (I see no biblical evidence that any part of Adam remained innocent).

Each particle is responsible to the extent that it condoned the sin and participated in it. For example suppose that one part of Adam, halfway through eating the "apple", underwent a change of heart, and began putting up resistance to sin, in obedience to God. It would be less guilty, therefore, and if thrown in hell, would suffer less accordingly, because God is perfectly just. Hitler, for instance, will likely suffer more in hell than the average family man.

 

[JAL]

Sounds like psycological reasoning to me what has been written in the OP. Which has not bearing on truth per say but on mans reasoning.

This is simply a poor response. I outlined specific charges of contradiction and proposed a solution. You're not dealing with any of the actual material.

 

[moonbeam]

The very nature of a physical soul is that it can be viewed as multiple individuals (viz. the Trinity).

What distinctions do you make between that which is physical and that which is spirit in general?

And in regards the Being of God [Godhead] as one...and the individual persons of that one Being ie Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

 

[JAL]

What distinctions do you make between that which is physical and that which is spirit in general?

And in regards the Being of God [Godhead] as one...and the individual persons of that one Being ie Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

I don't believe in "spirit" if by "spirit" you mean immaterial substance. The true name of the Third Person is not "The Holy Spirit" much less the "The Holy Ghost." These are mistranslations of the Greek and Hebrew terms.

These languages lend no support to that translation, as far as I know.

For a discussion of this fact, see this thread.

 

[moonbeam]

I don't believe in "spirit" if by "spirit" you mean immaterial substance.

How would you define a thought...in terms of material substance?

Does a thought have substance?....or is it rightly classified in the realm of immaterial things?

Does the data stored on a CD increase its mass?

The true name of the Third Person is not "The Holy Spirit" much less the "The Holy Ghost." These are mistranslations of the Greek and Hebrew terms.

Have you discussed this with Him? .... What was His response?

 

[JAL]

How would you define a thought...in terms of material substance?

Does a thought have substance?....or is it rightly classified in the realm of immaterial things?

Thought is a physical process. It is the physical mind in action. This would mean, obviously, a physical flow. My preferred rubric is "currents of thought" or thought-currents.

The role of the brain is to organize these flows, that is, to help steer our currents of thought in directions and patterns conducive to intelligent thought, accurate sensory percepton, emotional well being, sensitivity of conscience, etc.

Thus the brain's electrochemical streams are saturated with our thought-currents and carry them in generally beneficial directions. Of course brain damage is detrimental to the flow of our thought-currents, thereby impairing our ability to think intelligently.

You ask if thought is immaterial. Let me put it this way. The physical mind where a given thought-current occurs has a conscious experience. Thus we can say that thought is a physical mind enjoying a conscious experience.