Why Federalism is self-contradictory

[JAL]

I wanted to pose an objection to those (if any are watching) who would say that “Justice is whatever God does. He is licensed to do whatever He wants, and we have no right to question it. For Him, there is no such thing as the notion of doing evil. For Him, there is no distinction between ‘what is good’ and ‘what is evil’ because anything that He chooses is good, simply by virtue of Him choosing it.”

James 1:13, however, says this:

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”

This verse suggests that there is, indeed, a category of activities out of bounds for Him, specifically, evil activities. When He sees these activities, they do not tempt Him to partake. He abstains. Partaking would not be good, according to James, but evil.

Therefore God doesn’t create the definition of morality. He abides by it. He is not an ethical relativist, He does not make up the rules as He goes along.

 

[RussT]

JAL,

You said,

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.

I think if one includes all of Ezek. 18, it would be better phrased thus: Justice entails, "The one who does not turn from his or her sin and practice righteousness shall die". In fact, Ezek. 18 implies a distinction between souls; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son are both God's, and it is only the soul that sins (and does not turn from those sins) who will die (vs. 4). The soul of the son will not die because of the sins of his father, nor will the father die for the sins of his son (vs.20). For God to phrase it that way, it seems hard to argue for the traducianist view. It would not be contradict the traducianist view for the son's soul to have come from his father, but I don't see how the father's soul could in any way be construed as coming from his son.
A second line of reasoning would be the following: If the souls of all human beings (past, present, and future) existed in Adam, did my soul pass directly from Adam to me, or did it pass to me through all of my ancestors. And if it passed to me through my ancestors, how did their actions, good or bad, affect the portion of Adam's soul which is mine. Assuming that everyone of one's ancestors sinned themselves, and one is present in each of one's ancestors in such a way that it can be said that one is guilty of committing the same sin, then the further removed one is from Adam, the more sins one has committed. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Still, regardless of whether one is guilty of only committing Adam's sin or all the sins of one's ancestors, Ezek. 18 says that if one turns from those sins and practices righteousness, God will not remember the previously committed transgressions against him; he shall live and not die (vs.21,22). To me, this is 'justice'. So often for us, we put 'justice' and 'mercy' on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is not what Scripture does. 'Wrath' and 'mercy' are opposites. Justice is 'wrath' to the unrepentant, and 'mercy' to the repentant. "Judgment will be merciless to the one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).

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.

I don't think your analogy is quite right. The devil doesn't burst in, but rather is let in by Adam, and everyone else in the room suffers for it. God, not wishing any to perish, offers His Son to redeem those in the room held captive by the devil. All have the opportunity to escape, the Son defeats the devil, Justice is done.


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.

As a result of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, no one will be going to hell only because of Adam's sin, but because of one's own sin. What does happen because of Adam's sin, is that all of our earthly bodies will die. Jesus' body, made as it was in human likeness, also died. This was the first death. The second death is reserved for those who because of hard and unrepentant hearts, are storing up for themselves wrath when God comes to judge the thoughts of each one's heart.

What can be thought of as just or unjust in a temporal framework is hard humanly to evaluate. What we consider as unjust today, we may consider as just when we look back 10 years from now. Joseph's treatment by his brothers was not 'just', yet Joseph did not blame God for allowing the injustice, but later in life realized that God had used what had happened, unjust as it was, for ultimate good. Even though blameless, Job suffered at the hand of Satan, with God's permission, and for a time Job considered God to be unjust because of it. But when granted an audience by God and confronted with God's greatness, Job admitted to having spoken without really understanding how God worked, and he repented. The book ends with God restoring Job's fortunes; the impression is that God was ultimately just.

In Christ,
Russ

 

[JAL]

JAL,

You said,

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.

I think if one includes all of Ezek. 18, it would be better phrased thus: Justice entails, "The one who does not turn from his or her sin and practice righteousness shall die". In fact, Ezek. 18 implies a distinction between souls; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son are both God's, and it is only the soul that sins (and does not turn from those sins) who will die (vs. 4). The soul of the son will not die because of the sins of his father, nor will the father die for the sins of his son (vs.20). For God to phrase it that way, it seems hard to argue for the traducianist view. It would not be contradict the traducianist view for the son's soul to have come from his father, but I don't see how the father's soul could in any way be construed as coming from his son.
A second line of reasoning would be the following: If the souls of all human beings (past, present, and future) existed in Adam, did my soul pass directly from Adam to me, or did it pass to me through all of my ancestors. And if it passed to me through my ancestors, how did their actions, good or bad, affect the portion of Adam's soul which is mine. Assuming that everyone of one's ancestors sinned themselves, and one is present in each of one's ancestors in such a way that it can be said that one is guilty of committing the same sin, then the further removed one is from Adam, the more sins one has committed. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Still, regardless of whether one is guilty of only committing Adam's sin or all the sins of one's ancestors, Ezek. 18 says that if one turns from those sins and practices righteousness, God will not remember the previously committed transgressions against him; he shall live and not die (vs.21,22). To me, this is 'justice'. So often for us, we put 'justice' and 'mercy' on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is not what Scripture does. 'Wrath' and 'mercy' are opposites. Justice is 'wrath' to the unrepentant, and 'mercy' to the repentant. "Judgment will be merciless to the one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).

I'm not sure to whom you are responding. I rejected Traducianism in favor of my own view as stated in the opening post. You do realize this, correct?




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.

I don't think your analogy is quite right. The devil doesn't burst in, but rather is let in by Adam, and everyone else in the room suffers for it. [/quote] Sorry, that's unjust. As for justice, it's not going to wash if God told those innocent angels, "I'm letting the devil torment you because Adam sinned."

God, not wishing any to perish, offers His Son to redeem those in the room held captive by the devil. All have the opportunity to escape, the Son defeats the devil, Justice is done.

Two wrongs don't make a right, nor vice versa. You can't begin with an unjust view and then try to "fix" it at the cross.

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.

As a result of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, no one will be going to hell only because of Adam's sin, but because of one's own sin.

But it's not clear that they would sin, if Adam had abstained, so this is unjust. The question is, what effect did Adam have on the human race?

What does happen because of Adam's sin, is that all of our earthly bodies will die.

Was there a judicial consequence of Adam's sin? Are we born guilty? Are we born with a sinful nature? Whether you answer Yes or No, it leads to problems (except in my view of Adam).

If you say Yes, we have a sinful nature from Adam, you have two problems. (1) How did we get it? (2) How is this fair?

If you say, "No. We inherit no guilt and no sinful nature", then we are born clean and innocent, in which case we should be able to make it to heaven by simply abstaining from sin, as Jesus did. Righteousness by good works. This is called Pelagianism. Visit some adolescent schools. Take a look at how cruel and viscious little children typically are. It's hard to believe they are born pure like Jesus.

What can be thought of as just or unjust in a temporal framework is hard humanly to evaluate.

It is true that we may vacillate over the degree of penalty. It is patently false that our definition of justice changes. "Punish the guilty, reward the innocent."

You then proceed to "prove" that God allows the innocent to suffer:

What we consider as unjust today, we may consider as just when we look back 10 years from now. Joseph's treatment by his brothers was not 'just', yet Joseph did not blame God for allowing the injustice, but later in life realized that God had used what had happened, unjust as it was, for ultimate good. Even though blameless, Job suffered at the hand of Satan, with God's permission, and for a time Job considered God to be unjust because of it. But when granted an audience by God and confronted with God's greatness, Job admitted to having spoken without really understanding how God worked, and he repented. The book ends with God restoring Job's fortunes; the impression is that God was ultimately just.

In Christ,
Russ

You're not proving anything by this example. You haven't proven that Joesph was innocent. God has every right to let him suffer this way if he is not innocent.

 

[cygnusx1]

anyone who has read Jeremiah and Lamentations will easily percieve God views men federally not simply individually - Jeremiah suffered with the wicked , so did other prophets. The nation several times was taken into captivity not just the "wicked" .

 

[JAL]

anyone who has read Jeremiah and Lamentations will easily percieve God views men federally not simply individually - Jeremiah suffered with the wicked , so did other prophets. The nation several times was taken into captivity not just the "wicked" .

That doesn't prove your point. In fact it contradicts it. You suggest that nation was taken captive as a result of a few wicked. In effect, these wicked men served as federal reps. This contradicts the claim that Adam was our federal rep, that HIS actions define our status.

Secondly, I've already addressed this sort of issue. If we are already guilty in Adam (as only my metaphysic can intelligibily claim), then it is fine for God to let the sins of a few fall upon the whole nation, as long as He doesn't punish the nation beyond what they already deserve in Adam.

Nice try, though.

 

[cygnusx1]

That doesn't prove your point. In fact it contradicts it. You suggest that nation was taken captive as a result of a few wicked. In effect, these wicked men served as federal reps. This contradicts the claim that Adam was our federal rep, that HIS actions define our status.

Secondly, I've already addressed this sort of issue. If we are already guilty in Adam (as only my metaphysic can intelligibily claim), then it is fine for God to let the sins of a few fall upon the whole nation, as long as He doesn't punish the nation beyond what they already deserve in Adam.

Nice try, though.

federalism isn't related merely to Adam , and who said anything about a "few" wicked ? the few are those 'innocent'.

the consequences of Adam's sin upon the whole human race is absolutely consistant with personal accountability for sin , these may seem opposed , they are not at all.

federalism beyond Adam ;


[SIZE=-1]In the 2nd commandment, revealed in Exodus 20:4-6, God warns man, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, (1) visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and (2) shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Exodus 34:6-7 says, "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, (1) merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and (2) that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."


[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Numbers14:17-18 similarly says, "And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The LORD is (1) longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and (2) by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."


[/SIZE]

should sinners claim that God will overlook their own sin and merely punish the generations to follow is rebuked by Ezek , as is the idea that it is pointless doing what is right if punishment for our "for-fathers" sin is unavoidable likewise is rejected by Ez. These facts in no way deny OTHER SIN/S that ARE COMMUNICABLE , the sin of Adam brings death even over those who have not sinned under the same conditions (law) as our first parents. Ez doesn't deny this fact , instead he is dealing with fatalism and other sins.

 

[RussT]

JAL,

Did Jesus also receive a portion of Adam's sin stained soul? If yes, then He was not innocent. If no, then He was innocent, yet He still suffered. If He suffered even though innocent, then by your reckoning, God is unjust.

The problem is your concept of 'justice'. Temporal suffering does not merit accusing God of being unjust. The Psalmist talks about the seeming injustice of the wicked prospering while the righteous suffer, and confessed that it was troubling in his sight, until he came into the sanctuary of God and perceived the end of the wicked, how they will eventually be destroyed. Ultimately, God's justice prevails.

Often our view of God's justice is the same as Job's friends:
1) Suffering is God's punishment for sin;
2) Job was suffering;
3) Therefore, Job had sinned.

Job's complaint was that he had not sinned (a fact attested to by God Himself in chapter 1), yet he was suffering. How could God be just if He allowed or caused the innocent to suffer? God in the end never answers Job's dilemma directly, but answers in such a way so as to make clear to Job that he doesn't know the whole picture, which leads Job to retract his accusation against God.

We who have confessed Jesus as Lord, and have been justified by Him, we still suffer in this life, often unjustly. Does the fact that the justified still suffer mean that God is unjust? No, and in the same way, He is not unjust if sin and death pass to Adam's offspring even though they did not all sin in exactly the same way that Adam did.

In Christ,
Russ

 

[heymikey80]

You are essentially implying that Adam was the perfect rep, that his actions expose or prove how we ourselves would have acted in his shoes.

In one sense there would be a sense of justice in this system.

I think that's what God meant by stating His creation of Adam was very good.

One problem with this theory is that it is too deterministic. If we all act alike – if we all act just like Adam – there must be a reason for it, namely that God designed our dispositions in a way that causes us to act as we do. The fault would lie with God in that case.

I tend to think "too deterministic" tends to ignore the point that determinism assesses responsibility in a different way from libertarianism -- of course determinism is going to be assessed this way by a libertarian.

Another way to show that this theory is deterministic is to demonstrate that where there is libertarian free will, chances are that we won’t all act alike. The best example of this is the angels. Some of them chose to follow Lucifer, others abstained.

I don't grant that we have libertarian free will. I simply grant that our wills operate without fatalistic restrictions. They do what they want and are impacted by means. Deterministic. Not fatalistic in the sense of people inevitably forced against their wills into a destiny.

Predestination is stated in Scripture.

A second problem is that, if we all act alike, then God should not make differentiations in justice. He shouldn’t mete out different rewards and punishments individualistically. But from Genesis to Revelation, that’s precisely the sort of thing that He does.

Not the case. We don't act alike. But we're responsible for some things in common. So God metes out a condemnation on all mankind for those things mankind holds in common -- that were the perfect human placed in the perfect garden and given a perfect life, he like everyone else would be held accountable for what evil he causes through his limited will.

If we all act alike, the child should suffer for the sins of the parents, and the parents for the sins of their children. But this is precisely what Ezek 18 disavows.

And yet, what we do act alike for, we suffer in common for. We're also affected by the sins of others because of our relationships with others.

So all this already exists. I don't see a strong need to deny it.

A volition is responsible for that which it has done. Let’s roll the clock back, if Adam is currently sinning, any particles (volitions) in him that consent to the action are guilty. Any particles that dissent (try to resist) are innocent. (We have no hard evidence that any dissented).

Now, moving forward through time. I said that God removed most of Adam’s sin-stained particles to a place of suspended animation after the fall.

You now ask, basically, “Who is to blame for what, and why?” Simple. My answer is the same. A volition (a particle) is to blame for anything that it consents to, wherever that particle may be.

The particles that are in me are no longer in the body of Adam. His body no longer has those particles that constitute me. Therefore if I sin today, it would be inappropriate for God, as an act of judgment, to respond with an assault of, say, a deadly disease upon Adam’s body, in direct response to me. The judgment should be launched against my own physique.

Hope this clarifies.

I'm not really getting this. To remove Adam's sin-stained particles, we're talking about ... well, why would we conclude this? It seems to attack the morality of condemning many through one man (and thus justifying many through one man):

For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man Rom 5:15-17
​

But then, I'm not really getting the metaphysical view of this. To me all human nature as human nature gains the charge of Adam's sin. The judgment applies to all, because all have Adam's nature or worse, and all are in Adam's situation or worse.

I believe that God's grace continues past our faith. And so I haven't been removed from my sinfulness, yet God still shows me grace in my sin. But I don't really get how the particles are transferred between you and Adam, so I relent on that. I simply don't get the point.

Not sure I follow you. Just because someone repented doesn’t exonerate them in itself. We are not fully saved by repentance alone. It’s repentance plus atonement.

Hm. So if Ezekiel 18 already has atonement included in its point, how that atonement might work would be contained in God's response, right? Atonement is implicit in Ezekiel 18 -- it's certainly not explicit. And so the question would come, if Ezek 18 is implicitly including the atonement how-ever it might operate -- what prevents it from being a federalist view?