Federal Headship view of Original Sin.

[pbc561]

I've always leaned towards the Federal headship view of Original sin, but for some reason, the thought of it sounding a bit Molinistic popped in my head and made me think about how much this view sounds like there is some kind of middle knowledge involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if God perfectly and infallibly chose Adam to represent mankind 'knowing that we would all respond the same way', resulting in all future progeny being born as actual transgressors, what kind of knowledge is that based on? Decretive? If so, does that mean that we incur hard guilt based on decretive forekowledge? Because the only way I could comprehend anyone incurring hard guilt from a comissive sin is the closestly linked to the Realism view.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've always leaned towards the Federal headship view of Original sin, but for some reason, the thought of it sounding a bit Molinistic popped in my head and made me think about how much this view sounds like there is some kind of middle knowledge involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if God perfectly and infallibly chose Adam to represent mankind 'knowing that we would all respond the same way', resulting in all future progeny being born as actual transgressors, what kind of knowledge is that based on? Decretive? If so, does that mean that we incur hard guilt based on decretive forekowledge? Because the only way I could comprehend anyone incurring hard guilt from a comissive sin is the closestly linked to the Realism view.

God's decree is singular. He doesn't decree the beginning of things simply so He can then foreknow what they're going to be as they unfold. You create a category called "decretive foreknowledge" that does not exist. God ordains all things and His knowledge of them is because He has decreed all that should come to pass. There is no dependency of God's knowledge on the events themselves but they are known by God because He has ordained them.

As for your contention that Realism is the only way a person can incur hard guilt, is it your contention then that the only way to incur real righteousness is some manner other than imputation?

 

[pbc561]

I wouldn't say that imputed righteousness is hard/inherent righteousness. If someone else decides to pay my fine in court, that does not remove my guilt any more than it makes them guilty of the crime for paying the fine. Jesus never became a sinNER, from my understanding of imputation, but became sin (II Cor 5:21). His choice to receive this imputation was volitional as well. I don't see any correlation of how unborn people can have imputed hard guilt for something they didn't do themselves. I don't see how (Eze. 18:20) does not apply to Adams sin, unless the realism view is correct.

The scenario I'm thinking of is, say, an unborn babe dies and stands before the tribunal and gets condemned and says "what sin did I commit?". And God says, "well, technically you have never actually transgressed my law, but since i know you would have sinned just like Adam, had you been born, Im going to punish you". It doesn't sound logical.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The scenario I'm thinking of is, say, an unborn babe dies and stands before the tribunal and gets condemned and says "what sin did I commit?". And God says, "well, technically you have never actually transgressed my law, but since i know you would have sinned just like Adam, had you been born, Im going to punish you". It doesn't sound logical.

James,

It would help if you lay out your view of original sin, given the above.

AMR

 

[pbc561]

AMR,

I said I lean towards Federalism, but I am having mixed thoughts between Federalism and Realsm, and wondering if there is any other options. All I know is that in Adam all die. The reason I made the thread is because I am seeking a logical, just, explanation as to how all die in Adam.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

James,

Is not the following sufficient as an explanation:

Chapter VI - Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. (a) This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. (b)

a. Gen.3:13; 2 Cor.11:3.
b. Rom.11:32.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, (c) and so became dead in sin, (d) and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (e)

c. Gen.3:6-8; Eccl.7:29; Rom.3:23.
d. Gen.2:17; Eph.2:1.
e. Tit.1:15; Gen.6:5; Jer.17:9; Rom.3:10-19.

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (f) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (g)

f. Gen.1:27,28 and Gen.2:16,17 and Acts 17:26 with Rom.5:12,15-19 and 1Cor.15:21,22,49.
g. Ps.51:5; Gen.5:3; Job 14:4; 15:14.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (h) and wholly inclined to all evil, (i) do proceed all actual transgressions. (k)

h. Rom.5:6; 8:7; 7:18; Col.1:21.
i. Gen.6:5; 8:21; Rom.3:10-12.
k. Jas.1:14,15; Eph.2:2,3; Mt.15:19.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (l) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (m)

l. 1 Jn.1:8,10; Rom.7:14,17,18,23; Jas.3:2; Prov.20:9; Eccl.7:20.
m. Rom.7:5,7,8,25; Gal.5:17.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, (n) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, (o) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, (p) and curse of the law, (q) and so made subject to death, (r) with all miseries spiritual, (s) temporal, (t) and eternal. (u)

n. 1 Jn.3:4.
o. Rom.2:15; 3:9,19.
p. Eph.2:3.
q. Gal.3:10.
r. Rom.6:23.
s. Eph.4:18.
t. Rom.8:20; Lam.3:39.
u. Mt.25:41; 2 Thess.1:9.​

AMR

 

[pbc561]

Ok. Point III says it was imputed. Given the concept of imputation, and the scenario I posted above of an unborn babe standing before the tribunal, would you say that is just for it to be condemned based on non-volitional imputation? If so, please explain.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Certainly. Anything God does is just, by definition.

Why is the child condemned? Because he inherits guilt. And because the child is, objectively, a sinner. He sins because he is a sinner, not vice versa. He is a "bad seed." All that is necessary for the natural corruption to be seen concretely is for the child to live long enough to act on his innate rebellious instincts. The little one is a world of iniquity, waiting for an outlet. He may even have sinned in utero. The child in this condition is a "tragedy" as well as a moral monster. He did not ask to be born in this condition, under the wrath of God. He may not be able to help his situation, but that doesn't mean he isn't an inveterate God-despiser by nature.

Obviously, the love of God is still able to turn such a situation for the divine advantage. God can save a little infant child, a sinner, and give a new heart. God takes many tiny ones to heaven. Who can change a sinner's heart? The Holy Spirit alone. And he can do it with an infant as well as any other, by any means he chooses. But he isn't REQUIRED to do so for any. Not even for "any" child (who is not so innocent, as already noted). The promises to believing parents are to hope in the mercy of God, which is shown to them already; and not excluding hope for their children also. This is why Christians have a better hope than non-believers. Those outside the covenant have no such promises. They have no such right to expect God to love their children for the sake of their fathers and mothers, who are dead-set against him.

 

[pbc561]

Contra,

Would the term infusion, rather than imputation of guilt, be more appropriate here? The way I understand imputation is that the receiver of the imputation is not directly responsible for the condition that is being imputed to him. From a judicial perspective, and Christ's perspective, it seems that imputation is more voluntary/volitional on the choice of the receiver of the imputation. While broad definitions of imputation allow for the concept of involuntary imputation, it would seem to me that the effect of the inherent guilt could not obtain the same degree of which the party directly responsible for the condition, would have— thus making original sin some kind of infusion of guilt.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm not following you, James.

To be "found guilty" is imputation by God of a quality or value. It doesn't matter (in one sense) whether a man is guilty, or thinks himself guilty or not-guilty (refuses the verdict), or accepts the verdict on some other basis. He IS guilty because he's been "found guilty" by competent authority.

There are other federal-relations that may help us understand the ideas, by analogy. For instance, if our country is "at war," then I am at war whether or not I'm fully abreast of the situation, fully agree with the leaders to whom I'm covenanted as to the rightness of the war, am not a soldier in the battle, or other factors. They have committed me to the war, whether I am intelligibly engaged or not. I am guilty-by-association.

Now, maybe there exists some process, some formula, some appeal by which I may disentangle myself from the at-war situation, once I become aware of it or move to a position of disapproval. But the truth is, that most folks when they become aware of the situation acquiesce to it, or otherwise support it. They become willing participants in it almost by default. They may even oppose the situation, but they are more committed to their country and its needs, than to a principle that would set them at odds with the country (given the at-war situation). They will not "commit treason," nor will they even announce their dislike for the situation. In other words, people commit to the war at many levels. But even the children of the nation are "at-war." Nobody asked them. Tough. Reality bites.

The Bible tells us, to begin with, how the situation IS, not how it might otherwise be. We are "guilty," born at-war with God, because Adam rebelled against God, and God condemned the whole human race to death, right there, right then. Of course, there is mercy present even at that moment, because Adam isn't executed. He is given room to repent, and he is allowed to have children (eventually even you and me), so as to give the elect opportunity to live, and to be saved from the condemnation. If God terminates Adam in the garden, then all of us "potential persons" in Adam are also eliminated then and there. We are condemned in solidarity with Adam.

And, we are redeemed in solidarity with Christ. We aren't redeemed or justified because we finally start looking good enough for God to accept us. Sanctification doesn't lead to justification. Justification leads to sanctification. Justification is NEVER related to our inherent sanctity, in a like-parallel to our condemnation NOT on the basis of inherent guilt (primarily) but legal identification.

Adam can't produce "good seed." So, in a sense we are even less responsible for our sins proceeding, than for our basic federal-relation in Adam. The idea being: all things equal I'd rather be alive than not, but on that basis I'm tied to Adam (and his guilt). What he gives me, in cnsequence, is a corrupt nature, from which then proceed all my actual sins.

Please tell me if this post addresses your concerns.

 

[pbc561]

Contra,

Thanks for the lengthy response. I agree with what you said, but would like clarification on the following statements:

"He IS guilty because he's been "found guilty" by a competant authority."

I dont understand how merely being "found guilty" can result in actually being guilty. Guilt, by definition, being the state of having committed a crime, violation, or wrong.

And

"...in a sense, we are even less responsible for our sins proceeding,"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We are condemned because Adam acted FOR us. We may be odious to God on the basis of what we are (sinners), however no one has ever been condemned simply for being what he is (evil) by nature. We are condemned by an act of solidarity (just as we are justified by an act of solidarity).

Original sin consists in both (and in order):
1) the guilt of Adam's first sin
2) the want of original righteousness
To those demerits are added all our actual transgressions, so that our full guilt is replete.

We need to appreciate that no matter our feelings on the matter, we ARE guilty even before we are born, before we are even potential (in the sense that our parents haven't even come together). We are instantly guilty, but we are guilty by the will of God in a logical priority before we are ontologically guilty (by reason of innate corruption), and long before we have historically committed any sins.

You seem to be "defining" guilt, so that it has to have an ontological basis. Well, in that case, you'd be on the road to saying the same thing about justification--that it requires an ontological base in the person so declared. But that doesn't happen, because we confess there is no righteousness in us worth saving. God will bring about righteousness in us, and there are only "righteous" (ontologically as well as forensically) in heaven, but that's not why (the basis on which) we were justified.

We should be careful in explicating our definition of guilt. Scripture tells us that we HAVE committed the crime--in Adam. Guilt (or righteousness) is what God declares. It is a "state" one enters into by virtue of that declaration. It isn't entered into independent of law; the law simply explains what ought to be, and the penalties incurred when that "ought" isn't. "Sin/guilt is not imputed where there is no law." The law condemns us before we have individual personal existence. The penalty (death) passing upon all (even infants) is demonstrative of the FACT that we are guilty.

God could condemn his creatures for being moral monsters before they act like monsters. But he chose not to. He didn't simply create an evil race for the purpose of condemning it. He didn't even condemn the race due to the fact that they became moral monsters. He bases his condemnation (and later his justification) on action, specifically representative action. What we (as men) often demand of the Maker, is that he make us ALL individual Adams, so that we can all stand or fall on our own. Or, we tend to view the human as a sin-stained carcass, which is ontologically worthless, and condemnable on that basis (an infusion of guilt, perhaps). But God chose federalism over individual standing or falling (which is something of the story of angels).

Our innate sense of justice winces when we honestly reckon with the fact of the "can't help it" condition. That's where my comment, "less responsible," is coming from. Our sin acts are blameworthy, and deserve condemnation, because if we wanted to (our desires are broken) we could refrain from various sins. But our most basic condemnation isn't earned due to our acting "according to nature," and our depraved desires, but because of Adam's act (when he was created upright). Once alive, the default preference is to have existence rather than anti-existence. But that preference (however instilled) ties us to the human race, and thus to a preference for a guilty-existence over NO existence. So, the moment we prefer to live than to die, we bind ourselves to the sin of Adam, and consequently to his condemnation. But then, every act of mine is tainted by sin, as I act according to my nature. I simply ask if the acts proceeding are more or less blameworthy (not are they, or aren't they) than the (logically) prior attachment to Adam.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Great post Bruce. The reason I brought up Christ's imputation of righteousness in my first reply is because whatever may be denied about the imputation of Adam's sin is, by definition, applicable to Christ's righteousness.

I recommend this book: Amazon.com: The Imputation of Adam's Sin (9780875523415): John Murray: Books

In brief, let us reason that, for Adam's guilt to be imputed to his posterity, they would have to actually have committed the act they are being judged for. Correspondingly, in order to be counted righteous in Christ (Romans 5) we would have to actually possess the righteousness for which we are reckoned by God.

This idea is very Roman Catholic (and appeals to human philosophy) but does not square with the Word of God.

God has revealed that men are guilty in Adam but, correspondingly, they are found righteous in Christ. This is not merely "legal fiction" but comes about by union with the party reckoned to. Either we are in the first Adam or in the Second.

 

[MW]

I've always leaned towards the Federal headship view of Original sin, but for some reason, the thought of it sounding a bit Molinistic popped in my head and made me think about how much this view sounds like there is some kind of middle knowledge involved.

In dogmatics "mediate imputation" is the via media between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is the view that Adam's guilt is imputed mediately upon the fact that the individual himself sins. The Calvinist view is "immediate imputation," which means that Adam's guilt is imputed without the mediation of the individual himself sinning.

 

[MW]

I dont understand how merely being "found guilty" can result in actually being guilty. Guilt, by definition, being the state of having committed a crime, violation, or wrong.

The violation was committed by the representative head of the human race in the same way that a head of state might involve a whole nation in war with another country. Upon the proclamation of war the nation as a whole becomes an enemy of the nation it is at war with even though only one man has declared war.

Incidentally, the fact that the citizens of the nation wholeheartedly engage in the conflict demonstrates that they love the choice that their head of state made for them. Sinners love to be at war with God. They wouldn't have it any other way. They love the choice that Adam made for them.

 

[Peairtach]

Robert Dabney

The difficulty then recurs: Is the doctrine of original sin founded on that which seems to the natural conscience an intrinsic injustice, punishing innocent persons, without their consent, for another man’s sin? Let the student bear in mind, that we have no intention of denying the mysteriousness of the divine dispensation of the fall of our race in their first father. It is an inscrutable providence. But while the view I sustain, leaves it enveloped in a mystery which the wisest and best of us most clearly see will never be solved in this world; the advantage I claim is, that it leaves the doctrine in a state where no man can convict it of injustice. This advantage appears in two ways. First: man reasons chiefly by parallel instances; his reasoning is comparison. Consequently, in a case wholly unique, where there is no parallel, while he may not comprehend, he cannot convict of injustice. The case is above his grasp; he has no experimental scales in which to weigh it. Second: our fall in Adam, as properly stated, lacks the essential point wherein the caviler finds, in the instance of his pretended parallel, the intrinsic injustice. But it is evident, on consideration, that, upon the theory of immediate imputation, that essential point is yielded to the caviler. It is, that the innocent is punished, without his consent, for the guilty. Let us suppose the case usually cited for illustration, the peaceful citizen charged, under human laws, with the putative guilt of a murder to which he had not consented. This injustice is indisputable. But let us see what is involved in the fact of personal innocency in this case; for there lies the basis of our moral judgment about it. It means that this peaceful citizen has complied with the prohibitory laws of his country, in refraining from all injury to others’ lives. But a law, sustained by sanction, is of the nature of a covenant with the citizens. The man who has actually kept the law has thereby earned his covenanted title to immunity. This is what this man means, by claiming his innocency. He has been invested by the covenant of the law itself, with this title to immunity, before the putative murder was committed, and he can now be righteously divested of this title only by his own transgression. To impute to this man now, the guilt of peccatum alienum divests him of this pre–existent righteous title to immunity. There is the impregnable ground upon which he will resist the charge.

Robert Dabney believed that guilt and corruption are both transmitted immediately, and found the doctrine of original sin mysterious.