A much neglected doctrine not taught in churches is the doctrine of imputed sin. Wuest writes of Romans 5:12 that “the reason why death affects all, Paul says, is that all sinned. Here Adam is looked upon as the federal head of the race, and that when he sinned, all of humanity sinned in him.” [1] Another view of 5:12 is given by Harrison that “when Adam sinned, the race sinned because the race was in him… Adam was the race. What he did, his descendants, who were still in him, did also.” [2] Here we see two of the most common views of imputed sin. Of these two, Thiessen says “both the realistic [or seminal] and the federal theory of the imputation of sin have seemingly insurmountable problems associated with them; yet they also solve certain problems. Perhaps there is a mediating position which contains both the representative concept and the natural relationship to Adam.”[3] In other words, it is hard to be so dogmatic on the issue.
It appears that there are some leanings within certain camps of theology. For instance, most covenant theologians support a federal/representative view since that fits into the notion of a covenant of works. Most dispensationalists hold to a seminal view. Why this is the case is not very clear (though it seems to me that the reason is to avoid any association to a covenant of works). There are of course exceptions to this, but this is the common trend in most instances.
So which view is correct? Being a strict dispensationalist, I am prompted to join my fellow adherents. Yet, after examining the doctrine, it does seem that a federal view makes the most sense in my mind. That is mainly because the seminal view is tough to explain much less understand. I also believe that there can exist a representation of Adam for the entire human race without accepting any form of a covenant of works.
The seminal view is a hard pill to swallow because it seems to be the least believable. Granted, no doctrine should be based on opinion, understanding, or even probability. But how is it possible that I could be “organically joined to Adam”[4]? Doesn’t that mean I existed before I was born? But that could not be. It goes against logic and probability.
Inevitably, in every defense of the seminal view, Hebrews 7:9-10 is mentioned. A question that I would ask is whether this is an occurrence that happens at all times or is it only confined to Abraham and Levi? It seems from the text that this only refers to the patriarch of Israel and no one else. Therefore, to view this as a similar happening with Adam and the human race is going beyond what the writer of Hebrews intended.
The most logical part of the imputation of sin is that imputation deals with a judicial appointment. The very word imputation carries with it the idea of charging to one’s account which is a judicial appointment. When we are saved, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to our account (Rom. 4:5). It is not that we receive it in a physical way. We do not become righteous and morally perfect, but we are declared righteous. That is exactly what justification is – a judicial act of being declared righteous. Therefore, Adam’s sin was charged to my account judicially since imputation is a judicial act. The federal/representative view is the most consistent with a judicial appointment. Since Adam represents me or is my federal head (a judicial relationship), then his sin is charged to my account.
The idea of appointment is seen further in Romans 5:19 – “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” The word “made” is misleading. It would carry the idea of a seminal joint. But the Greek word is kathistaymi. Paul uses this word only on one other occasion – Titus 1:5. There he tells Titus to “appoint elders in every city.” Obviously this is an appointment. The same is true of Romans 5:19. Hodge defends this view very well saying “[kathistaymi] never, in the New Testament, means to make, in the sense of effecting, or causing a person or thing, to be in its character or nature other than it was before.” He goes on to say that it “does not mean to make one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint him to be of that class. Thus, when Christ is said to have been ‘constituted the Son of God,’ he was not made Son, but declared to be such.”[5] Again we see a judicial appointment.
In the end, this is one of those debates that is interesting, but it will not change a whole lot. This is more of a subject that is interesting to me, especially since I know that I am going against the current flow of most dispensational teachings.
Timothy L. Decker
[1] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, pg. 84.
[2] Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Romans, E. Gaebelein, ed., pg. 62.
[3] Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed., pg. 189.
[4] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg. 258.
[5] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pg. 173.
[*] The picture is a recreation from Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg. 259.
Imputed Sin: The Federal View vs. the Seminal View
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Tim, you hit a home run with your assessment of this issue. I've always found it difficult to defend the seminal view.
Interesting conclusions Tim but have you thought about this: Adam is a type of Christ (Rom 5:14). What does this do to the doctrine of imputation? Consider what Scripture says concerning our union with Him in His death (Rom 6:6-8). Christ is not pictured as a mere representation of my sin, but as the barer of all my personal lawlessness (Isa. 53:6, 12; 1 Pt 2:24). It is only through our union in His death that we gain His victory (salvation) and will one day join in His resurrection. Does this mean Adam is more than a representative? One must consider this point before coming to any real conclusions.
Todd Bishop
Just to be sure I understand your logic, are you saying that since we are joined w/ Christ at His death, Adam is a type of Christ, therefore we were joined w/ Adam? If that is the case, then I would respond that our union with Christ has nothing to do with imputation. We are not imputed to Christ. Our sins were imputed to Him on the cross. His righteousness was imputed to us at salvation. But our union with Christ is not imputed. It is an established relationship. I don’t think this is a parallel issue that you can as a figure.
Imputation has everything to do with our union with Christ's death. He died not as our representative but as our substitution. Our sin was laid to His account and now, after receiving His payment, His righteousness can be put on our account. To say that these are two separate discussions is to go against the logic of the Aopstle Paul. He writes that Adam is a type of Christ by means of imputation. It was the disobedience of Adam that brought about the sin that now effects all mankind, and it was the obedience of Christ that can set him free from sin's curse. To say that Adam is our representative is to say that Christ acted in the same manner.
Todd Bishop
It seems like your argument hinges upon the idea that Adam is a type of Christ by means of imputation. But is that really Paul’s logic? Rom. 5:14 just makes the statement. He does not explain what makes Adam qualify as a type of Christ. If you want to make it imputation, then you have to refer back to verses 12 and 13. But it is likely that the idea of a type is based on verses 15-16 – that it was Adam that brought about an act of transgression that affected the entire world whereas Christ brought about an act of righteousness that affected those who believe. Thus, Adam is a type of Christ for their obvious similarities of actions which affected the human race. The type is not based on imputation.
Also I am trying to figure out how much difference there really is between a representative and a substitute. Is not a representative someone that takes our place? If there is a difference, then does being a substitute mean that there was some union involved?
Could you try to explain a little more how imputed righteousness causes us to be united with Christ? Those both seem like 2 separate results of salvation. How could one cause the other? Where does the Bible teach that Christ’s imputed righteousness caused a union with Christ?
"Could you try to explain a little more how imputed righteousness causes us to be united with Christ?"
No one is caused to be the righteousness of Christ, we are imputed at the moment of conversion with the righteousness of God (Rom. 5:17-18; 2 Cor 5:21). As a person accepts by faith the work of Christ in satisfying the demands of God’s Law, God imputes or reckons Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Through our joining with Christ we are no longer joined with Adam Rom 6:3). It is then only in righteousness that we can ever approach the Holy character of God. One of these acts cannot be separated from the other or take place at a different time. We must refrain from drawing lines in the sand separating the effects of salvation and breaking down what was never intended to be broken down (Read all of Rom 5:12-18).
Todd Bishop
Todd, I think you misunderstood my question. I didn't ask what causes us to have Christ's righteiousness imputed to us. I asked essentially how is imputed righteousness associated with union with Christ? Where is that taught in Scripture? You assume that imputed righteousness is a parralel idea to union with Christ. But it seems that they are two seperate results of salvation like regeneration or redemption. Not all results of salvation are associated with one another. Especially since union with Christ isn't mentioned in Romans 5:12-19. In fact, our union with Christ seems more of an aspect of Spirit baptism into the Body of Christ. That seems more in line with Pauline logic of being united with Christ.
I find it difficult to be certain as to where Paul breaks in thought and begins a new paragraph. His words are so tightly interwoven that this task seems impossible. But let’s assume that the break occurs in 5:14b, as you so surely stated. Direct your focus back to the first paragraph. Let us consider what Paul is not saying. He is not saying that death (sin) entered into individuals because of Adam’s sin. “It is important to realize that Paul does not make men guilty of Adam’s sin or indicate that all men die because of the sin of Adam” (UBS Handbook). All men die because “all sinned”. From the aorist verb it has been assumed that when Adam sinned all of his physical descendants sinned along with him. But is this Paul’s meaning. “therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned --.” After re-examining this passage it seems that Paul’s use of “sin” is not pointed toward a specific sin but to the nature of sin. Because of Adam’s sin all men received the propensity to sin, but because of our own sin we die (spiritually and physically). Thus Paul’s argument is now strengthened; to die is our choice as a result of personal sin and to live is our choice as a result of trusting (receiving) Christ. “Death became a universal experience because of all men sinned” (Barclay).
Todd Bishop
I think we are opening a whole new can of worms on this one.
I never mentioned anything about a break in a paragraph. I was just saying that the statement at the end of verse 14 is not stated based on verses 12 or 13. If Adam was a type of Christ based on imputed sin, then Paul would have said so with a resultant statement using a hina or a hoti. But rather he just makes the statement as a fact based on nothing said previously. The content of being a type of Christ is based on the context of verses 15 and 16 with the one act of sin compared to the one act of righteousness (the gift). In other words, there is not paragraph break. That wasn’t my point. I am just saying that Adam is a type of Christ not b/c of imputed sin. That is not Paul’s point.
It also seems that we have different views on imputed sin. I would disagree and say that all men are guilty of Adam’s sin b/c his sin has been put on everyone’s account. In fact, I disagree completely with your exegesis of verse 12. Paul’s consistent use of the definite article before “sin” is clearly used as a prior reference to Adam’s sin. So Paul was pointing to a specific sin. You also say that we die b/c of our own sin. But that does not account for infant death. Babies die all the time, yet they never have the ability or chance to sin. I believe they die b/c they have Adam’s sin on their account. You said that “to die is our choice as a result of personal sin” yet there is no choice in the matter of a baby wanting to live or die based on acts of sin. Babies do not have the capacity to choose or to sin.
That brings me to my initial disagreement. You say that Paul “is not saying that death entered into individuals because of Adam’s sin.” But isn’t that exactly what imputed sin is? We are charged with Adam’s sin. His sin has been put on our account. The aorist verb used at the end of the verse is where everything hinges. Yet it is unclear exactly what Paul was driving at by using an aorist. Due to the context, imputation is clearly the idea so personal sin is not an option. The popular view is to take the aorist as a constative aorist (Wallace & Robertson both list Rom. 5:12 as an example of this kind of aorist). I wrote a paper on this. It is accessible from the blog. Read through it about the constative aorist. I prefer a gnomic aorist in this case. I think it conveys the idea of imputation the best. My arguments are best explained in that paper I was talking about.
Tim I think your approach to this text is based on theory rather than exegesis. Forget what you’ve been taught about the verse and consider Paul’s true meaning. If Paul is referring to a specific sin in verse 12 than why would he make the statement in verse 14, “even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam”. Although not everyone has sinned in the same sin as Adam, all have still sinned and therefore death reigned even before the Law. We have not been charged with the specific sin of Adam, yet we all inherit his nature.
As to infant death, Paul supplies the answer in verses 12-14. He states that the result of sin entering this world is death. Sin is why dogs, cats, cows and infants all die. Sin is why you grow old and why disease may very well take your life. Sin has taken effect on all humanity as well as this earth (Rom 8:22; 1 Cor 15:22). The effects of sin are clear but, I’m afraid, your doctrine of imputation is not. Would an infant die and be condemned to Hell? Absolutely not! They die because of the universal effects of sin but personal sin has not been charged to their account. If Adam’s specific sin has been justly dealt to all humanity, as you state, then the infant would be condemned to Hell for the offense of Adam.
Todd Bishop
Sorry for the tardiness and the length of this commnent.
Todd, that was quite a bold and perhaps overzealous statement to say, “forget what you’ve been taught…and consider Paul’s true meaning.” My representative view might fly in the face of dispensational thought, but your view seems to fly in the face of orthodoxy. If Paul is not saying that “we have not been charged with the specific sin of Adam” as you contended, then what exactly is imputed? The sin nature is inherited. David speaks of receiving it from his parents at conception (Psalm 51:5). What else is left?
I am a little taken back at your last comment. I think the definite article before “sin” points strongly to the idea that Paul had in mind only 1 specific sin (especially with the repeated use of the definite article). Paul actually says that through one man “the sin” entered the world. Since Paul is pointing back to the fall, “the sin” must refer to Adam’s original sin. Even the context argues that it was “the transgression of the one the many died” (vs. 15). “The judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation” (vs. 16). “The transgression” (vs. 17) & “through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men” (vs. 18). It seems pretty clear that it was one act of Adam that was in Paul’s mind to be imputed. Therefore Paul was saying that we have been charged with the specific sin of Adam.
As for verse 14 and the phrase “those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam” (which also points to the idea that Paul was referring to the original sin of Adam); if you follow the logic of Paul, then you would understand his reasoning for mentioning that. Verse 12 lays out the fact of imputed sin. Verses 13-14 prove (notice the gar indicating a proof statement as a marker of reason ((cf. Thayer’s Lexicon, pg. 109, sec. II or BDAG, pg. 189, sec. 1))) that imputed sin took place even before the Law of Moses. Since there was death before the Law, there must have been imputed sin (especially when Paul had previously stated in 2:14-16 that there is a law written on the hearts of men). This is proven further that people died even when they committed a different sin than Adam’s original sin. The issue is not committed sin. The issue is imputed sin. Thus verses 13-14 build a strong case that imputed sin took place before the Law of Moses. That is the flow of thought. What is interesting is that the last statement of verse 14 is a transition into the next idea. It does not relate to the proof of imputation. It is Paul rabbit-trailing about Christ as he so often does in his writings.
I am reminded of what Chafer writes upon this doctrine, “The scope of the doctrine of imputation controversy centers upon the one most theological context in the Bible – Romans 5:12-21…The worthy student of theology will spend much time on this portion of Scripture. It will not do to accept merely the findings of the best of men, but painstaking exegetical effort must be bestowed” (Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pg. 297). I think you are right when you say that our approach needs to be based on exegesis and not a theory. I feel like I have spent a lot of time in this passage and come to the conclusion that many many theologians have come to, granted the majority is not always correct. But you have caused me to go back and study the text further. Chafer goes on to quote Stearns with a very pertinent statement that relates to the depth of this passage in particular and the depth of theology within Scripture: “If you wish to know whether a man is a theologian, turn to his Greek Testament, and if it opens of its own accord to the fifth chapter of Romans, and you find the page worn and brown, you my safely set him down as a devotee of the sacred science” (Present Day Theology, pg. 321).
Imputation is a presupposition rather than a Biblical doctrine. Your explanation of the text is noted and is simply a rehearsal of combating views. Is my view wrong because it opposes the two popular views? I have tried to consider the exegesis of the entire text, not just one participle. For example, the preposition of the closing clause in verse twelve seems to make my point.
The prepositional phrase here is often debated. It is possible that ᾧ refers back to “one man” (ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) mentioned earlier in the verse. If so, the idea is either “all sinned in one man,” or “all sinned because of one man.” But the distance to ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου is too great for this to be a natural reading. But if ἐφ ̓ ᾧ functions as a conjunction, it does not look back at any antecedent, but explains how death passed to all: “Death is universal for the precise reason that sin is universal” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)
“Adam's sin had a more direct and powerful effect than that of a bad example (v. 15). It resulted in his descendants inheriting a sinful human nature that accounts for our sinfulness Adam's act resulted in his descendants sinning and dying. We inherit Adam's nature that was sinful, and this accounts for the fact that we all sin and die. We are sinners not only because we commit acts of sin but also because Adam's sin corrupted the human race and made punishment inevitable for his descendants as well as for himself” (Robert L. Thomas).
"Death, then, is due immediately to the sinning of each individual but ultimately to the sin of Adam; for it was Adam's sin that corrupted human nature and made individual sinning an inevitability" (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans).
Are these well known scholars of prestigious institutions unorthodox?
You stated, “I think the definite article before “sin” points strongly to the idea that Paul had in mind only 1 specific sin (especially with the repeated use of the definite article)”. Have you noted the absence of the article in verse 13? It would make sense that if “the sin” of Adam was the guilt transferred, then he would have used the article in this crucial text. Your article theory doesn’t seem to hold up in light of other Pauline text. Take note of Rom. 6:23 – is this to be taken as a reference to Adam’s sin (1 Cor. 15:56)? Certainly not!
I guess you forgot to post a response to your question concerning infants. Your theory of imputation would leave you no other choice but to condemn infants to Hell. Would you disagree? If so, then please supply Scripture to support their pardon.
I again apologize for the length. This kept getting longer and longer. I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am. One thing I always appreciated about you, Todd, is that you weren’t afraid to swim against the current of the view held by the majority.
I am sure you are referring to imputed sin when you say that “imputation is a presupposition rather than a Biblical doctrine.” That would seem to negate anything you said about the seminal view since there is no imputed sin as you say. But the text does deal with imputation. That is a fact not a presupposition. Verse 13 lays down that truth by using the word “imputed.” Now maybe you think my view on imputed sin is not Biblical but imputation is present. That might be more correct for you to say.
I am not sure if I have given the perception that I am basing everything on one phrase. If I have I apologize. That is truly far from the truth. If you read my paper, I built a case for imputed sin in verses 13-19 long before I wrestle with verse 12. In fact, this is probably the best way to approach this passage. Since there are so many questions in verse 12, perhaps it is better to look to the immediate following context to suggest an interpretation of verse 12. That is what I try to do. To this Chafer writes, “This context [of Romans 5:12-21] is, in the main, an elucidation of the primary declaration set forth in verse 12. It therefore follows that any interpretation of verse 12 which is not harmoniously unfolded in verses 13 to 21 is proved by so much to be wrong” (Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pg. 297). To that I would agree and say the fact of Adam’s sin being imputed to the entire human race is built on verses 13-19. Verse 17 says that it was just one transgression committed by Adam that “the death” reigned. The term “the death” refers back to “the death” in verse 12 which is physical death. That will have an important part on infants. Verse 18 says that it was through one transgression of Adam that resulted condemnation for all. This might not refer to imputation were it not for verse 19 where we are said to be appointed or constituted as sinners because of Adam’s sin. The idea of the word for appointed is a judicial appointment much like imputation.
I don’t think the idea of imputation rests and falls with the meaning of the preposition and pronoun at the end of verse 12. To me, it seems likely that a conjunctive idiom was Paul’s intended meaning. The idea of the usage of a simple preposition and pronoun was probably built from the Latin translation of the NT (way to go Augustine). We can deal with that in more depth later. But needless to say that the argument of the text might simply be saying that physical death spread to all men b/c all men sinned. Here is where the idea of imputation rests and falls. Not on the preposition and conjunction but on the aorist verb. If isolated from the context then I would agree that it seems like personal sins are Paul’s thought. But the context builds a case for imputed sin, thus the aorist must be interpreted likewise as either a constative aorist or a gnomic aorist.
That leads me to Daniel Wallace. His take on the preposition and pronoun does not affect the idea of imputation unless verse 12 is isolated from its context.
You did make an excellent point on verse 13 and the absence of the def. article. I think there is good reasoning for this, but that is going to wait for now so I can develop it more. Suffice it to say that the idea of unlawful imputation of any sin without a law in which to judge is my take on the passage. Thus Paul was making a general point so he used a general reference to sin by leaving “sin” anarthrous. I will say about my “article theory” is that you must keep it in context. By the time 6:23 rolls around, Paul has moved on to another area of theology. Thus the use of the definite article with “sin” would also change. Context again is the deciding factor. You are prooftexting and ignoring the context.
I didn’t forget to post my response to infants. I think that is a side issue and I didn’t want to use a lot of room for it. But you also neglected a question I asked you. What is imputed here in Romans 5 if not Adam’s sin? If it is just the guilt of Adam’s sin, where is the word guilt or even that idea? That seems to be unlikely since Paul refers to the one transgression of Adam repeatedly.
As for infants, I believe that God’s grace stretches out to save those that are unable to believe whether it is because of a mental disorder or a baby. I always remember Dr. Bowman saying that there will be many in heaven who never believed in Jesus – “infants and imbeciles, class.” An issue surrounding this is what death is referred to in this passage – physical, spiritual, or both? Also note that whichever death is referred to, it is the same death throughout the passage (again with the repeated use of the definite article). I hold to this death being physical. I am not going to lie, I made that by inferring that this text deals with Adam’s imputed sin. As Ryrie puts it, “Some understand it [“all sinned” at the end of verse 12] to mean that each individual sins personally and because of these sins people die…However, babies die even though they have not committed sins personally” (Basic Theology, pg. 257). If spiritual death is in view here in any way, then you might have a point. But it does seem to be a natural reading for physical death to be in Paul’s mind, especially in verse 14. So the result of imputed sin is that all people are able to die physically. A baby would not go to hell for imputed sin since that is not the penalty of imputed sin. Even if imputed sin resulted in spiritual death, we are still dealing with infants. The same grace that keeps believers from the hour of testing would also keep infants from hell. The same grace that says that not all will sleep but be Raptured would also keep infants from hell. The best Biblical proof that I can provide for infant salvation is 2 Sam. 12:23 to which I am sure you are aware of.
I feel like I am repeating myself. If you read the paper provided on the blog, then you will get a fuller view of my arguments. By the way, I am still looking forward to reading your paper on Johannine Christology.
"To believe, or not to believe, that is the question."
Can you guys help me understand which is the coin... The heads side or the tails side?
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Federal or Seminal at least we know the answer to the problem.
(and all the kids in VBS said... "JESUS!")
Class dismissed.
I really enjoy this theological blog. Could it be possible that you guys put RSS feed? I think this way will make things easyer to keep up with new posts.
Thank You
Thank you for that last comment. I will be honest and say I don't know how the RSS feed works. There is an email reminder every time a new article is posted. If you would like to be on the list, you can email me (my email is on my profile) or you can sign up on the email subscription portion on the blog. If the RSS feed will do more, I would love to know how it works.
Quite the issue, Timothy. And I agree with Mr. Kirby, you did a good job with it.
I hold to a somewhat modified view. I believe in both (sort of)! I believe that we are born under Adam - that his sin is passed-on not only reperesentationally ("federally"), but also through flesh and blood ("seminally") We inherit the sin nature not just because we happen to be humans, but also because we inherit sin from our parents (both nurture and nature). I think this makes the best sense of the Scriptures that deal with punishment and blessing of further generations in the law (Deuteronomy).
As far as believers in Christ go, his righteousness is imputed to us through our faith in him (only on account of the Holy Spirit's causing us to believe). Nothing within us or our human natures caused us to believe "so that no man can boast." So our nature is sinful and fallen because of Adam, both through the inheritence of Adam's nature, and because of the imputed sin through representation. With faith in Christ, however, Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us not through flesh and blood, but through representational headship ("federal"). It is a legal understanding, in which we are declared clean by God because he sees Christ's righteousness, legally speaking. The debt is paid, the sin is washed away.
Our flesh, then, is still technically under the effects of the nature of Adam, fallen and sinfull, but our Spirits are declared clean. This is Paul's dichotomy. This is why he can say "I do what I do not want to do." We are still under the curse of Eden, even if we are no longer under the curse of the Law. We are in an "already-but-not-yet" situation as we wait for the advent of Christ's second coming and the day of judgment so that we will be given new bodies that are not under the curse of Eden.
Tell me what you think.
Also, Timothy, I would like to invite you to my blog, www.theyodelingrabbit.blogspot.com it is mainly a personal blog, but I sometimes do like to post theological/philosophical considerations/rants. I would be honored to have comments from and debates with you there.
Blessings,
Steve (Mathaetaes)
Wow! I just read through all the comments. Looks like a really in-depth debate. Sorry I gave such an overview. I will read these more in-depth.
Steve
Steven, I don't think your view is modified at all. I think you are right on with imputed sin being representative and inherrited sin being seminal (in that it is passed from parents to children). The issue is whether imputed sin is seminal or not. It seems unnatural for such an interpretation of Romans 5, but it is popular within the dispensational camp. Todd did mention some good points for the seminal view though. I am reminded of what Thiessen said on the issue: "both the realistic and the federal theory of the imputation of sin have seemingly insurmountable problems associated with them; yet they also solve certain problems. Perhaps there is a mediating position which contains both the representative concept and the natural relationship to Adam" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, pg. 189). It seems that it might be impossible to be completely dogmatic on the issue.
I do disagree with your view of faith, but that is an argument saved for another day (which I won't lie, I have been purposefully putting it off).
Thanks for the invite for your blog. I love the name. I look forward to making it part of my blog reading routine.
Hey Timothy,
Thanks for stopping by the Rabbit. I have read through the postings and will post my thoughts (such as they are) later. I have some projects due the next few days. I have found our discussions helpful, usually helping me to make things more concrete. I must say that I am still slowly struggling with that nature of Christ topic. It is an issue that will take great care to get to the bottom of rightly. I think there is a point in there that I just can't quite wrap my mind around.
My interest is peaked about your disagreement over faith. I trust you have your reasons to hold-back, so I won't pester you about it. But when you are ready, let's work it out! Blessings.
Steve
Timothy,
I am curious about your comment, "whether imputed sin is seminal or not." Could you please clarify that?
It would seem that when we use these distinctives, it separates one from the other (i.e., if it is imputed it is not seminal).
Have we left the consideration of how sin is transferred and moved to how imputed sin is transferred?
My phrasing “whether imputed sin is seminal or not” was probably not the best. What I was getting at is that I believe in inheriting the sin nature from parent to child. I believe Adam’s original sin is imputed straight from Adam to each human (thus the diagram at the beginning of this article). Inherited sin is definitely passed through a seminal joint. The issue is the joint in imputed sin. How are we related to Adam for his sin to be put on our account – seminal or representative? So to clarify my unclear statement: the issue is whether imputed sin is passed because of a seminal tie to Adam or a representative tie to Adam.
Gotcha. Well, as I mentioned before, I think it is both. I believe we inherit the sin seminally, and therefore are held responsible for our own, personal sins. I also believe that Adam's representational sin is placed upon us, which is removed when we are brought under Christ's headship.
This "imputed sin," is placed upon us by the mere fact that we are humans. We must, therefore, make the distinction between man and the rest of creation. All of creation is fallen and under the curse of Eden. That curse is passed on seminally... Whoah! I just realized some of the implications. here. If Jesus was not seminally affected by Adam's sin, thus being sinless, was he under the human, Edenic, curse? Would he have lived forever if he had not been crucified (I don't really like the question because it starts moving into the realm of Molinism - God knows how things would be if they were different. I believe that God has predetermined and worked to bring things about according to his will from the beginning. Christ HAD to die.). Also, what about Christ's representation of humanity. To be our High Priest (cf. Hebrews), he had to be fully human. Would he be under the Edenic curse, and under the Law? He transcended the Law, does that mean he was not influenced by the curse? There are numerous implications for the nature of Christ debate. I think that brings up a whole other group of questions. Was it because he was not under the curse that he had such influence over the created order (a la Gen 2-3), or merely because he was God?
Imputed Sin. Eve was the cause of sin, yet Adam was responsible for Eve. Adam had headship over Eve, and thus foremost responsibility for human sin. This has implications both for imputed and inherited sin. As representative of "humanity," his sin meant that all of humanity, anything of his "kind," would be held responsible for that sin. We have all eaten of forbidden fruit. We have all wanted to be like God. The inherited sin (seminal) insures that we will always continue to act this way, but even if we were to live "perfectly," we would still be held responsible.
I do believe that children are sinful from conception because they are human. They, along with the rest of humanity, bear responsibility for rebellion. There is no mention in Scripture of an age of accountability. Rather we have assumed things because of David's lament in 2 Sam 12:23, and Jesus' suggestions about how we are to act in the Gospels. It is absolute inferrence.
Is it possible that Jesus may still have been under the Edenic curse, merely by the fact he was fully human? Like a human who came from space or scientifically created without egg and sperm.
These considerations can run to the wild and speculative, but I am not sure we'll ever get to the bottom of it on this side of life. I believe that imputed sin is related to Adam's representation of humanity before God in a judicial context. When we become Christians we are "new creations," because we are now under the headship of Christ and bear his image before the judgement seat of God. God deems us righteous ("justified") on account of the righteous Christ. Imputed sin is traded in for imputed righteousness.
Hopefully this gets closer to our answer. Sorry I rambled, but my brain really started to run on these things. Blessings, Timothy, and I pray you will have a blessed Resurrection Day with your congregation and family.
Steve
Post a Comment