Federal Headship - Imputation or Counterfactual
Theojunkie, a friendly levelheaded Calvinist, recently made an interesting comment about original sin:
Some people explain original sin in that we would have done the same thing as Adam. I am not dogmatic about this, but I am inclined to disagree. Adam’s sin is foreign to us, but imputed to us. What we would have done (under compatiblist assumptions) seems to me to be an indictment of our character, not an imputation of something foreign. Also, it seems like a veiled pre-depravity depravity, but when God created Adam, He said Adam was good. If it’s not a pre-depravity depravity, then I find the idea that everyone could choose differently but wouldn’t incredible.
To me, the idea of “we would have done the same thing” seems to be an attempt to defend the justice of God in punishing us for something Adam did. But when we examine the biblical evidence, a different explanation presents itself.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is like the imputation of Adam’s sin. Those in Christ have Christ’s righteousness due to their union with Christ. Those in Adam have Adam’s sin through their union with Adam. So in what sense are we united to Adam? Not in that we would have done the same thing. Certainly our union to Christ isn’t in the sense that we would have done the same thing Christ did. Rather, in that Adam is our federal head. He is our father, political leader and representative in the covenant God made with man. Most people are OK with the concept of a representative, but some might protest, “but I didn’t vote for Adam”. But God made the covenant with Adam. God elected Adam and if Adam hadn’t sinned, we would have been blessed.
This might make me different than some Calvinists, but I doubt it makes me different than all of them. I can dig up quotes if you would like.
God be with you,
Dan
I doubt that you TRULY deny the federal headship of Adam (though your last
sentence strongly suggests that you do). I think however that you misspoke,
because just recently you stated that Arminians (yourself included) affirm the
full reality (that is, the Reformed view) of Total Depravity in post-fall man.
You stated that the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology does not
lie in the doctrine of TD. Note that it is because of the federal headship of
Adam that all men are naturally born into this condition of total depravity. (context)
Some people explain original sin in that we would have done the same thing as Adam. I am not dogmatic about this, but I am inclined to disagree. Adam’s sin is foreign to us, but imputed to us. What we would have done (under compatiblist assumptions) seems to me to be an indictment of our character, not an imputation of something foreign. Also, it seems like a veiled pre-depravity depravity, but when God created Adam, He said Adam was good. If it’s not a pre-depravity depravity, then I find the idea that everyone could choose differently but wouldn’t incredible.
To me, the idea of “we would have done the same thing” seems to be an attempt to defend the justice of God in punishing us for something Adam did. But when we examine the biblical evidence, a different explanation presents itself.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is like the imputation of Adam’s sin. Those in Christ have Christ’s righteousness due to their union with Christ. Those in Adam have Adam’s sin through their union with Adam. So in what sense are we united to Adam? Not in that we would have done the same thing. Certainly our union to Christ isn’t in the sense that we would have done the same thing Christ did. Rather, in that Adam is our federal head. He is our father, political leader and representative in the covenant God made with man. Most people are OK with the concept of a representative, but some might protest, “but I didn’t vote for Adam”. But God made the covenant with Adam. God elected Adam and if Adam hadn’t sinned, we would have been blessed.
This might make me different than some Calvinists, but I doubt it makes me different than all of them. I can dig up quotes if you would like.
God be with you,
Dan
Comments
Dan,
I'm truly puzzled by your statements.
Your suggestion that Adams sin is imputed to us-- that Adam's sin is a foreign sinfulness applied to us...
1)
seems to contradict Romans 5:12...
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
and most bizarrely 2)
seems actually itself to be a statement (albeit perhaps unintended) that God is punishing us for something Adam did!
If Adam's sin is imputed to us, then that means that in truth we personally are not guilty!! EVEN AS when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us we personally are still sinners.... AND when our sins are imputed to Christ, Christ personally is really sinless.
Strange that your complaints against my view are actually those of your view, and your logical arguments to refute my view actually refute yours. ...Or maybe not so strange.
By the way... I never said anything about indictment of character. What we are indicted for is the sin we commit. However, what I did say is that what we choose/do is a function of our character (or rather, our nature).
huh?
You have again misapplied Scripture to "justify" you reasonings which do "seem" into and do not establish into Truth.
Do you understand what Paul is talking about? Apparently you do. But when I read your response to TheoJ I come away with a sense of confusion on your part.
Let me do a Greek Word study for you and ask you to simply, on your own, relying purely on the Holy Ghost and not the words of another to tell me what it means when Paul uses "two" "2" Greek words, one at Romans 5:16** and another at Romans 5:18**?
Here are the two Greek words. Place "their" meaning into context with the Verse and intent and understanding Paul is putting forth here under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
In verse 16 of Romans 5 the Greek word the translators translate into English, Justification is:
δικαίωμα
dikaiōma
dik-ah'-yo-mah
From G1344; an equitable deed; by implication a statute or decision: - judgment, justification, ordinance, righteousness.
In verse 18 the Greek word is:
δικαίωσις
dikaiōsis
dik-ah'-yo-sis
From G1344; acquittal (for Christ’s sake): - justification.
I do believe if we can start here on this TRUTH, this Foundation of Christ, this LIFE changing Word from Paul we can go onto understanding the differences you are trying really hard to make, which sadly, you fall flat in making.
By the way, let me state this about myself. I am not learned or can offer any scholarly opinion about Arminius or Calvin.
I am learned in the Scriptures now over 35 years. I purposefully have only allow myself to studied in Arminius and Calvin by Arminians and Calvinists.
I bet you if TheoJ is indeed a scholar of Calvin as you suggest, if you were to ask him, he probably would agree that I don't do John Calvin a service nor do I Joseph Arminius a service from your point of view either.
I come into these debates purely from a Biblical basis, reasoning the arguments you guys put out and place that reasoning along side Scripture.
Of course I read books. My library grows and grows.
For the purposes of debate though, I stand squarely with the Word of God representing myself to you as a "Son of God" along the lines of the identity God places on me from a verse such as this:
Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
That is why I do not hesitate to say, I too have been given the Mind of Christ so as to search the deep things of God, His Thoughts as revealed in Scripture by the same inspiration as the writers of Scripture.
My only position in this is "to be judged" by the typed out words from my heart and mind. Judge me basis the Scripture and the Holy Ghost. That would be a safe place to judge me from, yes?
honoring my own words here:::>[[My only position in this is "to be judged" by the typed out words from my heart and mind.]]
Let me correct my typed out words:
I wrote:
I am learned in the Scriptures now over 35 years. I purposefully have only allow myself to studied in Arminius and Calvin by Arminians and Calvinists.
Here is my edit of my own correcting myself:
I am learned in the Scriptures now over 35 years. I purposefully have only allowed myself to study Arminius and Calvin by Arminians and Calvinists.
I was hasty to blast you Dan! :)
Forgive me this typo, not the blasting!!!! :)))))
How does Romans 5:12 contradict the idea that we are judged for Adam's sin (Adam's not ours)?
We sinned in Adam corporately, not individually. We were part of a community that broke a covenant.
God be with you,
Dan
theojunkie, Can these words mean that just as Adam sinned and death came to him, all men (also) sin and death (also) comes to them?
I would argue that Romans 5:12 indicates that because Adam sinned, all men sin. In other words, that we inherit Adam's corrupted nature that occurred because of the fall, and so we sin (and surely sin).
I realize that quite a few Calvinists (and non-Calvinists too) consider that we actually inherit the guilt of Adam's transgression itself (as though we also co-ate of the fruit in the garden).
However, I personally find this concept inconsistent with scripture (particularly notable is God's statement that "the soul that sins will die"-- indicating that we are not punished for the sins of others).
Rom 5:14 seems to also indicate against imputed guilt....
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam
Don't get me wrong: I affirm Federal Headship. However, I affirm it in the sense of how our natures become corrupted... just not in the sense of imputed guilt.
I understand and am tempted to agree with you, but for now I am holding the line. This issue for me is the imputation of Christ's righteousness. That said, some folks say that we inherit depravity and when we sin we are also imputed Adam's sin. I don't know. But at least it leaves the double imputation in place.
God be with you,
Dan
The double imputation" is the double transaction of the Cross: 1) our sins are imputed to Christ on the Cross... 2) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we believe.
The LACK of imputation of Adam's guilt to us, has to do with justice.
The double imputation of the Cross, in contrast, has to do with grace (while preserving justicice-- while making God "both just and the justifier of the one who believes").
Note that the double imputation of the Cross is balanced... the big picture of justice is preserved. We get nothing but grace in that, while Christ gets injustice. But because of the two-way transaction, Justice as a whole is preserved.
However, if Adam's guilt were imputed to us, that would be unbalanced... one way, with no "counter transaction" as it were.
finally I believe I have a controversy with you.
I do not for a moment find any balance in what Christ suffered and what I gain.
He suffered for all sins giving His all.
I have the curse of the Law removed and I give nothing.
How is that balanced? :)
Here is something that dropped into my spirit one day about what lost humanity gets and what Christ Jesus got!
Grace, as defined is What God Gives us that we don’t deserve.
Mercy, as defined is What God does not give us that we do deserve.
Peace is the outcome of both Grace and Mercy from God in our daily lives.
What about Jesus, what did He get and did not get??
Jesus did not deserve what He got from God and was given, so hence, He was shown no Grace.
Jesus did not deserve what He got from God and was not given, so hence, He was shown no Mercy.
Therefore Jesus was deprived of Peace from God.
Michael,
We don't have a controversy, we have a misunderstanding.
I agree with you.
But note: We do give something-- we give our sin to Christ (indeed, he takes it upon himself from us). (In this, we receive mercy).
We also receive something-- Christ's righteousness. This is grace.
The justice equation is what is balanced by Christ's work on our behalf.
Note:
We sin-- but we do not die.
We are guilty-- but we are found innocent.
We are unholy-- but we are found righteous.
Christ never sinned-- and dies.
He is innocent-- and found guilty.
He is holy-- but is become sin.
Note that what we receive has no basis outside the transaction that occurs on the cross. If God simply let us off scott free, that would be injustice.
Likewise, what Christ endured is total injustice, when viewed in isolation.
But when we see that our sins are truly imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is truly imputed to us... then the justice equation (the BIG PICTURE-- the total situation, the final answer)... is brought back into balance.
This is how God can be "just and the justifier" per Romans 3.
Hope I wasn't to hard on your soul with my humor?
It is indeed frightening to weigh carefully some of what is being taught as "pure" unadulterated Christianity!
thanks for the sharpness of your sword. Please allow Him to continue sharpening it! :)
No harmful intent taken.
May He sharpen every sword.