Romans 5:19

[tyheyn]

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous."

Hi, everyone,

I was listening to the 2016 Ligonier National Conference, and Steven Lawson notes through this verse that just as Christ represented the elect in the limited atonement, Adam represented the elect (not all of humanity) as well.

So, this concept is really new to me, and there are a bunch of theological questions that this raises. If someone is familiar with this train of thought and can enlighten me, I'd be very appreciative!

1) So, if Adam "passed" his probationary period, would the elect have been "promoted" to heaven and the reprobate simply have remained in Eden?

2) How does original sin convey to everyone if Adam represented only the elect? I get that he's our hereditary father, but I'm trying to reconcile the asymmetrical nature of Adam plunging ALL into original sin (while potentially generating righteousness ONLY for the elect) and Christ's atonement then being limited as well.

3) Is Lawson's interpretation universally accepted within Reformed circles? Or do some maintain that Adam did indeed represent all of humanity during his probationary period in Eden, which could have led to potentially having all of humanity being credited with righteousness HAD he passed the test?

Just trying to reconcile Lawson's assertion with the foundations of the Reformed faith. Thanks for your help!

 

[TylerRay]

I have a feeling there may have been some miscommunication. The Reformed view is that Adam represented all mankind:

Shorter Catechism Q.16:

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

As to your other question (1) regarding the reward, because Adam represented all of mankind, they all would have taken part in his reward. Whether that would have been heaven, continued life in the garden, or a blessed life in all the earth, Reformed folks are disagreed.

If I'm wrong, and Lawson taught that Adam did not represent all his posterity in the Covenant of Works, then Lawson is radically out of accord with Reformed theology. I really doubt it, though.

 

[TylerRay]

Let me also note that the reason that I say that such a view is radically out of accord with Reformed theology is not just because Reformed folks haven't taught it; it's because it strikes at the heart of the doctrines of the fall and of original sin.

In short, if some were not represented in Adam, then they stand on their own before God. God would be unjust to have them born into this world cursed. They would not have sin and they would not have misery until/unless they themselves sinned against God, thus meriting his curse.

 

[tyheyn]

Let me also note that the reason that I say that such a view is radically out of accord with Reformed theology is not just because Reformed folks haven't taught it; it's because it strikes at the heart of the doctrines of the fall and of original sin.

In short, if some were not represented in Adam, then they stand on their own before God. God would be unjust to have them born into this world cursed. They would not have sin and they would not have misery until/unless they themselves sinned against God, thus meriting his curse.

Thanks! I'm re-listening to Lawson now and will try to transcribe what he said. I was really trying to wrap my mind around how I had heard him speak, but I'm guessing that your assertion is right: I didn't hear him properly! Anyhow, will try to have a transcript available momentarily...

 

[tyheyn]

I just re-listened the the entire pertinent section from the 2016 National Conference, Session 10 ("No Hope without It: The Life of Christ") by Lawson, starting at the 21:00 mark. Lawson affirms that Adam represents the entire human race while Christ represents the elect. I think I must have not listened to that sentence carefully--sorry for creating confusion on what Lawson was teaching!

 

[TylerRay]

Good! I figured either that he was unclear or that you had misheard him. I'm glad to hear his orthodoxy confirmed!