Why Federalism is self-contradictory

[JAL]

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

Sorry, I do not as yet have a Moses-stye or Abraham-style face-to-face relationship with God. He doesn't come over to my house for supper as He did with Abraham (Gen 18). In other words, as His voice to me currently isn't loud and clear, I have to draw most of my conclusions from logical reasoning, biblical exegesis, and the influence of conscience.

 

[JAL]

Here's what I meant to add but forgot. Is a concept material or immaterial? Well, a concept isn't a substance. It is neither a material substance nor an immaterial substance. Consciousness is the experience of apprehending concepts. Thus we might say that consciousness is neither material nor immaterial.

However, I believe that minds are physical substances, and thus only physical substances experience consciousness.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

I asked the question last year about whether this is a scholastically informed comment, and got no answer.

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.

Scholarship is just that -- scholarship. It's not accuracy. It's not infallibility. It's not concurrence. To make this kind of argument is precisely the commission of an ad-hominem fallacy. If you wish to deal with Berkouwer, deal with him. If you wish to deal with Murray, deal with him. If you wish to deal with Johnson, deal with him.

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 !!!

So would Barth be a greater theologian because he can reach contradictory conclusions more forcefully than Berkouwer? "Shout louder -- argument weak here"?

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).

I would think Murray would point out, this position isn't successful in providing a fruitful alternative on the same grounds as Murray was pointing out its weakness. In parallel illustration, the conclusion of "scrapping" federalism in favor of something that simply ignores or actually opposes "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned", that would actually get you escorted out of the "theological convention" as well.

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 ask again, have you read "The Imputation of Adam's Sin"? If so, why are you reducing federalism in this way? To find a position to destroy? As I don't hold to federalism the way you're talking about it -- and apparently, Murray doesn't either -- exactly who is it you're talking about, on the assumption that Murray is actually a federalist (which assumption you seem to be making)?

If you haven't read it, I would wonder why you'd be trying to deal with federalism without reading one of its primary scholarly texts.

 

[JAL]

I asked the question last year about whether this is a scholastically informed comment, and got no answer.

Scholarship is just that -- scholarship. It's not accuracy. It's not infallibility. It's not concurrence. To make this kind of argument is precisely the commission of an ad-hominem fallacy. If you wish to deal with Berkouwer, deal with him. If you wish to deal with Murray, deal with him. If you wish to deal with Johnson, deal with him.

So would Barth be a greater theologian because he can reach contradictory conclusions more forcefully than Berkouwer? "Shout louder -- argument weak here"?

I would think Murray would point out, this position isn't successful in providing a fruitful alternative on the same grounds as Murray was pointing out its weakness. In parallel illustration, the conclusion of "scrapping" federalism in favor of something that simply ignores or actually opposes "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned", that would actually get you escorted out of the "theological convention" as well.

I ask again, have you read "The Imputation of Adam's Sin"? If so, why are you reducing federalism in this way? To find a position to destroy? As I don't hold to federalism the way you're talking about it -- and apparently, Murray doesn't either -- exactly who is it you're talking about, on the assumption that Murray is actually a federalist (which assumption you seem to be making)?

If you haven't read it, I would wonder why you'd be trying to deal with federalism without reading one of its primary scholarly texts.

Could you please write something of substance if you are going to purport to respond to me? I say this for two reasons.

First, if you read the opening post, you'll see I leveled several charges of contradiction against federalism. Instead of doing anything to resolve those charges, you instead question "what type of source material I am using." Fact is, I don't need any source material. The charges of contradiction stand.

Second, I proposed a solution devoid of these contradictions. Attempting to slander my position, you insinuate that it is contrary to Romans 5. Fact is, it is the only non-contradictory, fully intelligible exegesis of Romans 5 to date. Do you wish to debate this contention? Fine. Then write something of substance instead of a bunch of shallow comments on "my source material."

 

[JAL]

Calvinists on this forum don't mind going from thread to thread challenging others' views. But as soon as we criticize Calvinism, they go into crybaby mode, "Why does everyone persecute we Calvinists?" That's what you insinuate here:

I ask again, have you read "The Imputation of Adam's Sin"? If so, why are you reducing federalism in this way? To find a position to destroy?

I am not "reducing" federalism. That's what it means. One man sins, everybody pays the price. If you don't like it what it says, stop purporting to defend it.

You supposedly object to my use of Ezek 18. Adam was a father. Federalism claims that his own kids are guilty in him. Ezek 18 says children shall not pay for the sins of the father. You pretend to object to my use of Ezek 18 but offer no real objection !!!

As I don't hold to federalism the way you're talking about it -- and apparently, Murray doesn't either -- exactly who is it you're talking about, on the assumption that Murray is actually a federalist (which assumption you seem to be making)?

If you have some hard evidence that Murray wasn't a federalist, then cite it. Don't see how it supports your critique, though, to argue that a Calvinist professor rejected federalsim. Here I am critiquing federalism. That would only reaffirm my case !!!

 

[heymikey80]

Could you please write something of substance if you are going to purport to respond to me? I say this for two reasons.

First, if you read the opening post, you'll see I leveled several charges of contradiction against federalism. Instead of doing anything to resolve those charges, you instead question "what type of source material I am using." Fact is, I don't need any source material. The charges of contradiction stand.

If you don't identify the statement of the theology which is contradictory, then you haven't even risen to the first rung of alleging contradiction.

Here, let's apply what you've done so far.

"JAL's response is contradictory. I don't need any source material. The charges of contradiction stand."

I rest my case. Either provide the source material -- or my charges that your attack is contradictory stands.

Second, I proposed a solution devoid of these contradictions. Attempting to slander my position, you insinuate that it is contrary to Romans 5. Fact is, it is the only non-contradictory, fully intelligible exegesis of Romans 5 to date. Do you wish to debate this contention? Fine. Then write something of substance instead of a bunch of shallow comments on "my source material."

Nah. You didn't. And I don't need any source material to prove it.

The basic issue here is, you have some issue with federalism. Yet you have yet to state anything that excludes federalism as a reasonable theology, because various versions of federalism don't impute the verdict of sin from Adam's actions, into his descendants. They attribute the verdict of sin to Adam's nature, and that is communicated and imputed to Adam's descendants. That nature is communicated to us through numerous paths, only one of which is federal. Any theology which includes communication through federal imputation, is "federalism". But there is communication through other paths: covenantal inheritance isn't alone, there's also genetic inheritance, propagation of spiritual death, and teaching and training of wills in the paths of sin.

So, gee, reading only one of the shorter source texts would reveal this.

What is the nature of your complaint? Because every complaint I've seen here is either an ad hominem appeal, or an assertion that doesn't fit federalism. It appears to fit only "the imputation of Adam's actions". Which of course is not what's meant by federalism in the first place.

 

[RussT]

JAL,
I am getting into this discussion somewhat late, but I view God's justice through a different paradigm than what I've read in the posts on this thread. According to Kelly in his book, Early Christian Doctrines, the Old Latin version mistranslated Rom. 5:12, which in the Greek reads "...death spread to all men, 'inasmuch as' all sinned". The Old Latin (Jerome's) version has, "...death spread to all men, 'in whom' all sinned", and that led Augustine and others to the theory that all mankind was present in Adam and therefore culpable for his sin. Whether those theories contributed to Calvin's doctrine of Federalism, I don't know because I don't come from a Calvinist tradition and have not done much reading on its origins.
As the Romans passage says, it was death that passed to all men, because all men sinned. It does not say that Adam's guilt passed to all men, because Adam sinned. Adam's sin resulted in sin entering the world. In my paradigm, death was the consequence of Adam's sin. As a result of his sin, all of his descendants suffered the consequence of his sin, not the guilt. Guilt is incurred when each one sins.

Each one of us is born into the state of death, and are in bondage to the Evil One. A baby born to a crack addict sometimes inherits the addiction, even though that baby is in no way guilty. Children born to slaves were themselves slaves and became the property of their parents' masters through no choice of their own. Is this fair? Can we somehow call God unjust for this? I don't think so.

This is where the paradigm shift is helpful. Death was the consequence of Adam's sin and not God's punishment on Adam for his sin. A parent may tell a child, "Don't touch the stove or you will be burned and scarred for life". If the child disobeys and touches the stove, is the burning and scarring a punishment? No, it is certainly a consequence, but not a punishment. The parent did not say," If you touch the stove, I will burn and scar you". In the same vein, "God did not tell Adam and Eve, "If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I will put you to death". He did punish for their disobedience, in that He pronounced curses on the serpent, on Eve (extending to her daughters as well), and on Adam (extending to his sons also). I see no injustice on God's part in this paradigm. In fact, in His response to Adam's sin, I rather see grace, I see compassion, and I see infinite justice in that He actively works to seek out Adam and Eve, and restore relationship with them by covering their nakedness. And He has been working ever since to undo the consequence of Adam's sin, ultimately triumphing over it in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I see Jesus not as our 'federal head', but as God's representative on earth who on our behalf was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, who didn't need to be told what was in the heart of man because He knew (was experiencing) what was in the human heart, who bore the sins of mankind from the moment of His being made flesh up to His resurrection from the grave, and who destroyed the works of the devil, so that those who believe in Him might be transferred from the domain of darkness into His kingdom and experience newness of life.
I want to quote from Kelly's book, chapter 3 (Man and His Redemption), point 4 (The West in the Third Century), because Tertullian's thought seems somewhat similar to what you are presenting.

"The figure of commanding influence here was Tertullian, the salient feature of whose anthropology was the conception, borrowed from Stoicism, of the soul as material. Though simple and more subtle, he regards it as a body intimately united with and occupying the same space as the physical body to which it belongs. Hence, when he speculates about its origin, he can reject current theories of pre-existence (cf. Origen). He has equally little use for the view that it was created by God simultaneously with the coming of the body into existence ('creationism'). In contrast he is a thoroughgoing 'traducianist', teaching that each soul is derived along with the body with which it is united from the parent; the whole man,soul as well as body, is produced by one and the same generative act, and the paternal germ is not merely a portion of the father's body, but is charged with a definite quantity of his soul-stuff. There is a real sense, therefore, in which all souls, actual or potential, were contained in Adam, since they must all be ultimately detached portions of the original soul breathed into him by God. Every soul, is, as it were, a twig cut from the parent-stem of Adam and planted out as an independent tree."
​

How close is this to what you are proposing, JAL?
In Christ,
Russ

 

[heymikey80]

Calvinists on this forum don't mind going from thread to thread challenging others' views. But as soon as we criticize Calvinism, they go into crybaby mode, "Why does everyone persecute we Calvinists?" That's what you insinuate here:

I only state it when you actually do so -- as in -- hey, right here. I've no need to insinuate that which you are actually performing. I need only point it out.

I am not "reducing" federalism. That's what it means. One man sins, everybody pays the price. If you don't like it what it says, stop purporting to defend it.

Oh, if that's all you meant, then "by the one man’s offense many died" Rom 5:15.

Now, that's not what you said at first (nor at second). But now you see the problem. Your present reduction of the federalist is indistinguishable from Scripture.

I merely challenged you to cite, reference refer, quote, or otherwise state in the federalist's own words what a federalist actually considers to be the case as support for your view of what the federalist believes.

You supposedly object to my use of Ezek 18. Adam was a father. Federalism claims that his own kids are guilty in him. Ezek 18 says children shall not pay for the sins of the father. You pretend to object to my use of Ezek 18 but offer no real objection !!!

The nature of the objection is that it's not talking about what you're leveraging it to talk about. The accusation is against Israel for not dealing with the commission of sin under the Law in the way God actually wants. God wants the Law applied redemptively, not retributively.

But to think the Israelites were doing how God would judge at the Last Judgment is a bit of a stretch.

The Law is not talking about the nature of how sinfulness occurs in humanity.

If you have some hard evidence that Murray wasn't a federalist, then cite it. Don't see how it supports your critique, though, to argue that a Calvinist professor rejected federalsim. Here I am critiquing federalism. That would only reaffirm my case !!!

I never said Murray wasn't a federalist -- quite the opposite in fact. I pointed out that your concept of federalism doesn't appear to cover the nature of federalist theology.

Murray's a federalist. I'm a federalist. And your issue with federalism as you've reduced it presently appears to be an issue with the Bible.

 

[JAL]

HeyMikey, the smokescreen that you put up here is no different than what you did in the previous thread where we recently debated. You enter the thread with airs of, “I have read so many more books than you on this subject, and if you haven’t read this book or that book, then you shouldn’t be critiquing.” Specifically, last time you claimed that I shouldn’t be critiquing determinism until I had mastered the writings of a pagan named Spinoza. In other words, “Jal has no right to claim there is such a thing as free will until he has mastered the writings of this pagan.” This time you claim I need to have read a particular book on federalism which you named below.

There’s three things annoying about this.
(1) You put on airs of scholarly superiority as though that, in itself, disqualifies anything I have to say.
(2) You offer nothing in the way of challenging the logic of my arguments.
(3) You even pretend that I haven’t made any arguments.

Look, there are plenty of books and articles in the archives. No one has read them all. No doubt I have read some that you have not, and vice versa. So what? This forum isn’t supposed to be a bragging session on how many books you have read, but rather a presentation of content.

If any of these authors that you name made an argument that refutes my position, just state what it is. When you remain silent, which is generally the case, it only confirms my conviction that they accomplished nothing in the way of resolving my charges of contradiction.

With your usual airs of scholarly superiority you write:

The basic issue here is, you have some issue with federalism. Yet you have yet to state anything that excludes federalism as a reasonable theology, because various versions of federalism don't impute the verdict of sin from Adam's actions, into his descendants. They attribute the verdict of sin to Adam's nature, and that is communicated and imputed to Adam's descendants. That nature is communicated to us through numerous paths, only one of which is federal. Any theology which includes communication through federal imputation, is "federalism". But there is communication through other paths: covenantal inheritance isn't alone, there's also genetic inheritance, propagation of spiritual death, and teaching and training of wills in the paths of sin.

So, gee, reading only one of the shorter source texts would reveal this.

What is the nature of your complaint? Because every complaint I've seen here is either an ad hominem appeal, or an assertion that doesn't fit federalism. It appears to fit only "the imputation of Adam's actions". Which of course is not what's meant by federalism in the first place.

Smokescreen. With you, this is par for the course. From what you just admitted, I clearly had in mind “federalism” in the sense of “the imputation of Adam’s verdict to his descendants.” As I suggested, this was the view most commonly advanced by Reformed thinkers during the period of the Reformation. However, the implications of my arguments are broader. Based on my arguments, any version of Adam-centricity (i.e. any version of federalism) that ascribes negative consequences of Adam’s sin to his posterity is arguably unjust for obvious reasons.

Look, if you know a variety of federalism immune to this charge of injustice, just state what it is because, if you don’t, I’ll be forced to conclude that all your talk is a bunch of hot air, yet another smokescreen.

Wikipedia defines federal headship as follows: “According to this understanding, as humanity's federal head Adam brought the entire human race into sin, misery, and death due to his disobedience.”

Charles Hodge, Calvinist professor of Princeton Theological seminary, wrote a three-volume systematic theology that is one of the most respected treatises in Protestant history. There two important things to note about Hodge.
(1) He was a genius with encyclopedic knowledge. If anyone could defend a doctrine it was he.
(2) He was very thorough in his defense of Calvinism. It was three huge volumes, not three small ones.

In that treatise, Hodge defined federal headship as the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. Now here’s what deeply solidifies my convictions. In his lengthy defense of this doctrine:
(1) Hodge implies that federalism is hopelessly unjust by any conventional definition of justice, that it is a humanly incoherent theory of justice. Totally unintelligible. He implies this when he says that if any human judge acted in this fashion (punishing the whole world for one man’s offense), we’d recognize him to be utter wickedness. Hodge’s principal “defense” is to say that God gets to do whatever He wants. He makes the rules. Justice is what God does. Sorry, doesn’t wash. Theodicy is supposed to be an intelligible explanation of His justice that intelligibly reconciles the data (worldwide suffering) with the notion of His goodness.
(2) As I recall, the only other noteworthy defense that Hodge produced was to claim that Christ’s headship was federal, and therefore those who accept Christ imply, by so doing, that federalism is a valid concept. I refuted this argument in the Opening Post by demonstrating that His headship wasn’t federal. Funny how you, Mr. HeyMikey, didn’t address this refutation. Rather conspicuous.
(3) Hodge did not address the other charges of contradiction that I raised.

Back when I studied this issue many years ago, I witnessed the same deficiencies in several other treatises written by capable theologians. I didn’t keep a record of all my sources. Again, this is not a debate who has the most sources. It’s a debate about content.

Theodicy typically arises in the following context. The atheist claims, “Your God seems unkind and unjust. He just sits back and watches innocent babes starve to death, experience abuse, and suffer deadly diseases.” Federalists typically reply, “God is just because whatever He does is just, since He is God.” That’s not an explanation, it doesn’t reconcile the suffering with His goodness. It’s not theodicy. It is not a defense of His goodness and justice.

 

[JAL]

I only state it when you actually do so -- as in -- hey, right here. I've no need to insinuate that which you are actually performing. I need only point it out.

General Theology Forum is for "discussion and debate." That's how Christian forums described its purpose for years. So when I debate, why do you Calvinists always have to make an issue of it? As if I am doing something inappropriate or offenseive? Sounds like a crybaby attitude to me.

Oh, if that's all you meant, then "

by the one man’s offense many died" Rom 5:15.

Now, that's not what you said at first (nor at second). But now you see the problem. Your present reduction of the federalist is indistinguishable from Scripture.

I merely challenged you to cite, reference refer, quote, or otherwise state in the federalist's own words what a federalist actually considers to be the case as support for your view of what the federalist believes.

Hot air.

The nature of the objection is that [Ezek 18] is not talking about what you're leveraging it to talk about.

Why? Because you say so? Ezekiel 18 mentions a principle of justice that virtually any judge would deem self-evident, namely that a child should not pay for the crimes of his father. (We hardly need Ezekiel 18 as proof of this principle. Tell you what, let's suppose I just found out my dad was a serial killer. In your view, do I deserve the death penalty for it?). You claim that, Ezek 18 wasn't specifically addressing Adamic imputation so it doesn't apply. You claim it was a discussion of the Law:

The accusation is against Israel for not dealing with the commission of sin under the Law in the way God actually wants. God wants the Law applied redemptively, not retributively.

But to think the Israelites were doing how God would judge at the Last Judgment is a bit of a stretch.

The Law is not talking about the nature of how sinfulness occurs in humanity.

To confine Ezek 18 to such a narrowed focus is one of the most ridiculous execuses for an exegesis I've ever seen. Read it again. It is a discussion of ethics in general, it is a contrast between righteousness versus wickedness. Yes, of course it pertains to the Mosaic Law since that law, as well, contrasts righteousness or wickedness. But it isn't dealing with anything unique to the Law (for instance animal sacrifices). The definition of rigtheousness that it provides is equally applicable to those who preceded Mosaic Law (such as Abraham), those who lived "under Mosaic Law" (so to speak), and Christians of today.

It is in THAT broad context that God mentions an important facet of justice - a child shall not pay for the sins of the father. The passage even tell us WHY this is so, namely, because "The soul that sins shall die." In other words, "let's punish the perpetrator alone, let's not extend his blame forward to others."

I never said Murray wasn't a federalist -- quite the opposite in fact. I pointed out that your concept of federalism doesn't appear to cover the nature of federalist theology.

Murray's a federalist. I'm a federalist. And your issue with federalism as you've reduced it presently appears to be an issue with the Bible.

Hot air. Nothing clear, cogent, or tangible about this response. What's your point? Here again, you put on airs, but provide no content.

 

[JAL]

I want to quote from Kelly's book, chapter 3 (Man and His Redemption), point 4 (The West in the Third Century), because Tertullian's thought seems somewhat similar to what you are presenting.

"The figure of commanding influence here was Tertullian, the salient feature of whose anthropology was the conception, borrowed from Stoicism, of the soul as material. Though simple and more subtle, he regards it as a body intimately united with and occupying the same space as the physical body to which it belongs. Hence, when he speculates about its origin, he can reject current theories of pre-existence (cf. Origen). He has equally little use for the view that it was created by God simultaneously with the coming of the body into existence ('creationism'). In contrast he is a thoroughgoing 'traducianist', teaching that each soul is derived along with the body with which it is united from the parent; the whole man,soul as well as body, is produced by one and the same generative act, and the paternal germ is not merely a portion of the father's body, but is charged with a definite quantity of his soul-stuff. There is a real sense, therefore, in which all souls, actual or potential, were contained in Adam, since they must all be ultimately detached portions of the original soul breathed into him by God. Every soul, is, as it were, a twig cut from the parent-stem of Adam and planted out as an independent tree."
​

How close is this to what you are proposing, JAL?
In Christ,
Russ

Yes, I often cite Tertullian as one who endorsed a view very close to mine. I reached my conclusions before learning about him, and I tend to believe my specific version of the solution solves the problem slightly better than he did. Whereas at other times I suspect that I may have misunderstood some of his claims.


The bottom line is this. Justice entails, "The one who sins shall die" (Ezek 18). You suffer because of what Adam did. Since God is just, this implies that you are Adam. That's the origin of my view. The only reasonable way to explain this, it seems to me, is the idea of a physical Adam subdivided after the Fall to form the rest of the human race.

JAL,
I am getting into this discussion somewhat late, but I view God's justice through a different paradigm than what I've read in the posts on this thread. According to Kelly in his book, Early Christian Doctrines, the Old Latin version mistranslated Rom. 5:12, which in the Greek reads "...death spread to all men, 'inasmuch as' all sinned". The Old Latin (Jerome's) version has, "...death spread to all men, 'in whom' all sinned", and that led Augustine and others to the theory that all mankind was present in Adam and therefore culpable for his sin. Whether those theories contributed to Calvin's doctrine of Federalism, I don't know because I don't come from a Calvinist tradition and have not done much reading on its origins.
As the Romans passage says, it was death that passed to all men, because all men sinned. It does not say that Adam's guilt passed to all men, because Adam sinned.

Death is frequently a technical term, in the NT, for spiritual death, meaning alienation from God, have a status of "child of the devil doomed to hell." In John's writings, for instance, Life is contrasted with Death. "He who hath the Son hath life, he who hath not the Son hath not life." In Rom 5 the contrast seems to be what Christ gave (life) to all those in Him versus what Adam gave to all those in him (death).

Adam's sin resulted in sin entering the world. In my paradigm, death was the consequence of Adam's sin. As a result of his sin, all of his descendants suffered the consequence of his sin, not the guilt. Guilt is incurred when each one sins.

But ultimately this amounts to the same thing. The whole world ends up condemned because of what Adam did. This is inherently unjust.

Secondly, your distinction between "suffering consequences" versus "suffering judgment for guilt" is surely moot. The consequences follow upon the sin and are therefore penal. Had Adam not sinned, there would be no such consequences. I don't believe your distinction is valid. Here is what you say to defend this idea of "consequences"

Each one of us is born into the state of death, and are in bondage to the Evil One. A baby born to a crack addict sometimes inherits the addiction, even though that baby is in no way guilty. Children born to slaves were themselves slaves and became the property of their parents' masters through no choice of their own. Is this fair? Can we somehow call God unjust for this? I don't think so.

Yes, that is injustice, if that's what God does. If He allows the innocent to suffer these things, He is unjust. In my theory of corporate Adam, these babes are not innocent.
That is why God permits them to suffer.

It's not that I don't see your point. The problem is that you are probably speaking from the perspective of the imperfect justice seen in the courts When men do evil (viz. an arsonist), their actions have consequences (sometimes permanent) which the courts can't prevent. However, keep in mind that the courts would have liked to prevent those consequences, in the interest of justice. They are unable.

But God has no such excuse. For example, suppose a bunch of holy angles, in heaven, are sitting around enjoying good conversation, happily. Suddenly the devil bursts in, drags them off to hell, and tortures them forever. The angels are suffering consequences of his bad behavior. But is this really appropriate for God to permit, if these angels never sinned? Justice isn't merely God's prerogative, it is His responsibility and obligation as Supreme Judge. If He allows the innocent to suffer the consequences of a perpretator's bad behavior, He is operating unjustly. He's not doing His job of executing justice.

You have more to say on "consequences":

This is where the paradigm shift is helpful. Death was the consequence of Adam's sin and not God's punishment on Adam for his sin. A parent may tell a child, "Don't touch the stove or you will be burned and scarred for life". If the child disobeys and touches the stove, is the burning and scarring a punishment? No, it is certainly a consequence, but not a punishment.

The child disobeyed. In several places the Bible suggests that God often allows consequences to function as punishments. So I'm not sure your example supports your point.

The parent did not say," If you touch the stove, I will burn and scar you". In the same vein, "God did not tell Adam and Eve, "If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I will put you to death". He did punish for their disobedience, in that He pronounced curses on the serpent, on Eve (extending to her daughters as well), and on Adam (extending to his sons also). I see no injustice on God's part in this paradigm....

You seem to be equivocating. You admit that He extended Adam's punishment to others, contrary to your earlier suggestion that we derive no guilt from Adam.

Arguably you are only calling all this "just" because you want to think that you have found a theodicy. Ordinarily (i.e. in worldly affairs) you would not want the punishments of one man to extend to the innocent.

In fact, in His response to Adam's sin, I rather see grace, I see compassion, and I see infinite justice in that He actively works to seek out Adam and Eve, and restore relationship with them by covering their nakedness.

The cross isn't sufficient for theodicy, especially not for those (like me) who believe that many will go to hell. Why? Because some other guy, named Adam, sinned? That's not "infinite justice" but rather an "infinite lack of justice".

What is just is a metaphysic where I am Adam. If I am going to hell, it should be on account of my own sin, not on account of somebody else's sin.

You have more to say on the cross:

And He has been working ever since to undo the consequence of Adam's sin, ultimately triumphing over it in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I see Jesus not as our 'federal head', but as God's representative on earth who on our behalf was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, who didn't need to be told what was in the heart of man because He knew (was experiencing) what was in the human heart, who bore the sins of mankind from the moment of His being made flesh up to His resurrection from the grave, and who destroyed the works of the devil, so that those who believe in Him might be transferred from the domain of darkness into His kingdom and experience newness of life.

 

[cygnusx1]

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.)

Greetings brother Mikey .

the imputation of sin is openly testified throughout scripture , is it not minds that are conditioned by our world that find this fact a problem ;

the fact Cain was not slain by the Lord is no proof God was in a contrary mind over the death penalty , this next verse depicts a reserved judgment for the Jews at the time of Christ , a judgement of wrath and indignation reserved right from the beginning ;

“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias” (Matthew 23:35; also Luke 11:50,51).

Sola Deo Gloria

 

[heymikey80]

Greetings brother Mikey .

the imputation of sin is openly testified throughout scripture , is it not minds that are conditioned by our world that find this fact a problem ;

the fact Cain was not slain by the Lord is no proof God was in a contrary mind over the death penalty , this next verse depicts a reserved judgment for the Jews at the time of Christ , a judgement of wrath and indignation reserved right from the beginning ;

“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias” (Matthew 23:35; also Luke 11:50,51).

Sola Deo Gloria

Yes. At first I was wondering who JAL was talking about, as so many labels sound like what he's talking about.

And then as he projected further and further I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not attacking federal imputation -- he's just attacking immediate, federal imputation without any other mode of communication of sin.

As I don't know the first person who holds to no other mode of communication of sin, I'm finding the whole argument pretty vacuous.

Traducianism has been out there quite awhile, and it doesn't jab federalism in the eye -- some people, particularly Jonathan Edwards, made statements that tend toward traducianism in terms of immediate imputation of Adam's first sin.

 

[heymikey80]

HeyMikey, the smokescreen that you put up here is no different than what you did in the previous thread where we recently debated.

What you do is not debate, JAL. What you do is smear, label, mislabel, polemicize, and attack.

Your last two posts demonstrate that in spades. I ask a simple question whether I can assume you know something about what you speak, whether we assume even the first bit of 2000 years of theology. You retaliate that I'm "putting on airs". I just want to know if there's something to your position that's been vetted through any comparison of a theologian advocating what you're attacking.

That's not scholarship. That's just responsibility -- knowing who you're shooting at.

You attack federalism as if it confronts your view with some particular issue. You assert that federalism doesn't account for God's judgment of the sin of Adam. Yet there are a half-dozen different views of federalism on the subject.

If you want a few questions to distinguish your view ...

How does the justification of others occur? How does God judge the righteousness of Jesus as ours? In Romans 5 Jesus' justification declared to be a parallel to the verdict of sin on the family of Adam. How does traducianism handle that? Are we somehow given a part of Jesus' soul? Wouldn't that ... not be us, but the soul of a new person? Are you saying we utterly lose ourselves when we accept Jesus' soul?

How did Jesus escape the soul of Adam?

What are the implications of traducianism for us? In other words, is there any practical value in talking about us all having some kind of soul, as distinct from one another?

It's unreasonable to conclude the issue on these grounds because the grounds of federalism don't override other grounds of the attribution, reckoning, and transmission of sin. For instance, most federalists agree that there's a genetic component (don't think science & DNA here, that's not what they meant 150 years ago) to transmission. There's also a clear familial-training component. And of course we've spent quite some time trying to explain the individual's responsibility for sin. That's been the mantra of much of the past 200 years. Each of these factors into the verdict of sin. But there are still Scriptural factors remaining, after each of these concepts is accounted for in Scripture. There is a remaining component. The remainder is a covenantal component, whereby the whole world system, the entire culture of Adam, is also held to account for sin's continuance and propagation.

We're part of that system. We share its blame. We're federally responsible.

It's not completely or entirely what you understand from these words above, and I'm sure there'll be a tirade of response from you, JAL. It's to be expected. Every single time, your response has been confrontational, abusive, questioning the motives of my questions without answering the questions. Sound familiar? If you're permitted such latitude, surely you can permit others the same. Yet you don't. Whatever.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

Your position continues to draw this charge. If God could actually state Ezekiel 18, under traducianism how is it that God would find our one soul not responsible for the sins of our fathers?

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.

Substitutionary Atonement is the position that Christ took our place (ie, represented us) on the Cross.

As no Reformed federalist has a quibble with Substitutionary Atonement, your mischaracterization is so obviously invalid as to be absurd.

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.

Actually, that's not the case. No one will permit you to substitute for a murderer on Death Row. "Regular ol' fairness" actually considers this a heinous miscarriage of justice. What's more, Jesus was condemned falsely -- so the clearer illustration is that you are tried, condemned and sentenced for someone else's crime.

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.

Nothing of the sort. In federalism the status of the whole determines ... the status of the whole. Otherwise as you said there would be no need for the Cross. However -- the entirety is treated as a whole, of which the head is the representative. If the head resolves the sins of the whole -- then the sins of the whole are resolved.

In addition, the blamelessness of the head can mitigate the sins of the whole, so that favor on the head may benefit the whole.

Clearly Moses' blamelessness did not exculpate the idolatry of Israel. Josiah's blamelessness did not remove Judah's sin. But then, federalism never said it did. And it did provide an environment for grace to operate. It didn't accomplish justification. But it did accomplish grace.

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).

Yes, that's fine.

Here's another proposal. Metaphysically, the natures of human souls are all the same. They don't need to be "broken apart" from the same one soul to have the same essential nature. They need only be human.

God's verdict on Adam was not simply retribution for the commission of a physical act. God's verdict on Adam was a public recognition of something about his soul -- and ours, because ours are essentially the same. So God's verdict against Adam is a public statement about all of humankind. The verdict of God isn't some cause or shared action. It's a determination of fact on the basis of the action shown to be evil. Evil comes from an evil nature.

The verdict need not await each person's individual action, because it's a statement about all human nature. We can't escape our natures. And we're ultimately held to condemnation for our sin natures, because of Adam's sin.

And no, federalism doesn't really directly attack either view of the soul. As I pointed out before, that's not the point of federalism.

 

[JAL]

Greetings brother Mikey .

the imputation of sin is openly testified throughout scripture , is it not minds that are conditioned by our world that find this fact a problem...

“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias” (Matthew 23:35; also Luke 11:50,51).

Sola Deo Gloria

I agree that the sins of the ancestry feel upon Christ's generation. However, this is not by imputation, which is inherently unjust. Perhaps I'll discuss this verse you mentioned.

 

[JAL]

What you do is not debate, JAL. What you do is smear, label, mislabel, polemicize, and attack.

Your last two posts demonstrate that in spades. I ask a simple question whether I can assume you know something about what you speak, whether we assume even the first bit of 2000 years of theology. You retaliate that I'm "putting on airs". I just want to know if there's something to your position that's been vetted through any comparison of a theologian advocating what you're attacking.

That's not scholarship. That's just responsibility -- knowing who you're shooting at.

You attack federalism as if it confronts your view with some particular issue. You assert that federalism doesn't account for God's judgment of the sin of Adam. Yet there are a half-dozen different views of federalism on the subject.

And in response to this, I said, "Fine. Show me one variety of federalism which isn't vulnerable to the sort of objections I am raising." I'm still waiting (gee what a surprise).

If you want a few questions to distinguish your view ...

How does the justification of others occur? How does God judge the righteousness of Jesus as ours? In Romans 5 Jesus' justification declared to be a parallel to the verdict of sin on the family of Adam. How does traducianism handle that? Are we somehow given a part of Jesus' soul? Wouldn't that ... not be us, but the soul of a new person? Are you saying we utterly lose ourselves when we accept Jesus' soul?

How did Jesus escape the soul of Adam?

But clearly these questions about Christ's atonement are generally irrelevant to the question of whether God's verdict on Adam exhibited justice. (It's like saying, God did a good thing in Christ to make up for the bad way He handled Adam). As is clear from the first post, the only reason I mentioned the atonement was to refute the fallacious argument that it somehow establishes federalism.

What are the implications of traducianism for us? In other words, is there any practical value in talking about us all having some kind of soul, as distinct from one another?

What are you getting at, here?
I have already affirmed the cogency of Tertulian's materialistic traducianism (which is very close to my own views) because it isn't federalistic (imputational).

It's unreasonable to conclude the issue on these grounds because the grounds of federalism don't override other grounds of the attribution, reckoning, and transmission of sin. For instance, most federalists agree that there's a genetic component (don't think science & DNA here, that's not what they meant 150 years ago) to transmission. There's also a clear familial-training component. And of course we've spent quite some time trying to explain the individual's responsibility for sin. That's been the mantra of much of the past 200 years. Each of these factors into the verdict of sin. But there are still Scriptural factors remaining, after each of these concepts is accounted for in Scripture. There is a remaining component. The remainder is a covenantal component, whereby the whole world system, the entire culture of Adam, is also held to account for sin's continuance and propagation.

We're part of that system. We share its blame. We're federally responsible.

It's not completely or entirely what you understand from these words above, and I'm sure there'll be a tirade of response from you, JAL. It's to be expected. Every single time, your response has been confrontational, abusive, questioning the motives of my questions without answering the questions. Sound familiar? If you're permitted such latitude, surely you can permit others the same. Yet you don't. Whatever.

I see so much dishonest debating on these forums that perhaps I'm overly suspicious. You can easily put my suspicions to rest. Show me the relevance of all these "other issues" which you claim to be so "crucial to handling this issue." (This is what I have been begging you to do).

I'll explain again. I claim, if you penalize others in any way for what one man has done, this is unjust. I have never heard of a brand of federalism that escapes this charge. You said, "there many varieties of federalism." I replied, fine, name one that escapes that charge.

If you can't do that (I'm still waiting), than I am inclined to suspect that this is all hot air. I'm sorry if you're bearing the brunt of my reaction to all the dishonest debating I see. But, again, you can easily put my suspicions to rest. This is what I was begging you to do from first response to you.

 

[JAL]

Your position continues to draw this charge. If God could actually state Ezekiel 18, under traducianism how is it that God would find our one soul not responsible for the sins of our fathers?

Alright, let me spell it out for you. Historically, immaterial substance is understood as antithetical to material substance. Material substances are defined as extended in space and divisible into parts. Naturally, immaterial substance is defined as unextended in space and indivisible into parts.

Immaterialism doesn't lend itself to the kind of corporate Adam that I postulated. In a similar way, it doesn't lend itself to Traducianism

You are free to argue otherwise - that's what the debate is about. I am simply asking that if you have an objection, just say what it is. Don't run around telling me that I have to read this book or that book before I qualify to participate in a discussion of the subject.

 

[JAL]

Substitutionary Atonement is the position that Christ took our place (ie, represented us) on the Cross.

As no Reformed federalist has a quibble with Substitutionary Atonement, your mischaracterization is so obviously invalid as to be absurd.

Nonresponsive. I argued that it was not representation, and instead of responding to the argument, you reassert the conclusion. This is precisely the sort of approach that arouses my suspicions.

Christ did not represent us on the cross. He paid for our sins. In my opening post I explained the distinction between the two. Deal with it.


You're telling me to run around reading all these books, and you won't even deal with a simple argument right in front of your face. What am I to make of this?

 

[nobdysfool]

Maybe you should just do as the song says, and "go where the weather suits your clothes". You're not going to find traction for your self-admitted heretical ideas here. You're wasting your time.