Last year, I wrote a post in which I said I would like to write more on the topic of original sin (link). In that post, I provided an introduction to some resources for Reformed readers who want to gain a sound perspective on what theologians have historically argued that original sin entails. I also briefly alluded to why I think that traducianism and a realistic view (a la Samuel Baird) of our participation in Adam's sin is biblical and vindicates the justice of God in imputing Adam's sin to us, his progeny.
As mentioned in the aforementioned link, what original sin entails has been debated by Presbyterians, a most notable account of which is contained in George P. Hutchinson's excellent book, The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology. This debate continues even today.
For example, at the invite of a friend, I had the opportunity to discuss and defend the realist position outlined in Hutchinson's book in a recent conversation with Dr. Lane Tipton and others on the Reformed Forum discord.
With the exception of my friend, Ken Hamrick, and I, most (if not all) of the other interlocutors explicitly rejected or leaned against the view that Adam's federal headship is grounded in his natural headship. That is, they reject a realist view of original sin.
Those who are interested in what the realist view is but don't have as much time or whose interest has yet to be piqued enough to read the resources in the above link might find the following conversation enlightening. I believe the comments by Ken and I show the strength of the realist position in its ability to answer tough questions that other positions seemingly can't. I'll indent the comments of others and leave my own comments without indent. All italics and bold emphases are each authors' own. At the end, I'll venture a few further thoughts that were not included in the conversation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler
The organic unity that exists between Adam and his posterity
is not the ground but the means for the transmission of Adam’s sin to us. Now
it can certainly be said that Adam must have one nature with us if he were to
be our covenant head and his sin were to be imputed to us. An angel, for
example, could not represent us federally. But, conversely, it does not follow
that Adam, because he possesses our nature, now must represent us. The unity of
the nature is only a conditio sine qua non. It is in no way the ground that
excludes the possibility of the opposite. The actual relationship is such that
God, with an eye to the covenant unity for which He intended humanity, also
created it as a natural unity. As being reckoned in Christ by election entails
that in God’s time one is born again of Christ through the Spirit, so being
reckoned in Adam by the covenant of works entails that in God’s time one is
born of Adam.
-Vos, R.D. II, pg. 32
Ken Hamrick
@Tyler Thanks! I now have this book, so I'll have to study
it...
Ken Hamrick
@Tyler I would say that not only could an angel not
represent us federally, but also, no angel could represent other angels
federally. Having a nature with the same characteristics misses the point of
representation. Only when the nature of the representative head contains within
it all those who are to be represented can the defining act of the head be
justly seen as having been participated in by the members. There must be a
genealogical principle involved in which the organic unity transcends the
merely physical. As to the supposed necessity of representation resulting from
such an organic unity, we need to look at the special act of Providence in God
condescending to make a covenant with Adam. By nature, Adam owed perfect
obedience; but that would never of its own attain to the eternal reward that
God graciously offered in His covenant. Adam’s disobedience was simultaneously
natural and Covenantal, since obedience by both was owed. So then, the organic
unity would of necessity result in his representation of us according to that
natural obedience that was owed and the natural results of disobedience; but it
would not result of its own in a necessary representation for Covenantal
rewards. The rewards offered to Adam by covenant exceeded what was naturally
due for obedience; but the penalties incurred were exactly what was naturally
due for his sin. It is true that we are naturally born in God’s time; but
naturally, we cannot be born other than to be born of Adam, since that is the
origin of our nature. We were not “reckoned in Christ by election.” We were
“chosen in Him” by election. It is a matter of the decree and not a matter of
union in Him according to His righteousness. In God’s time, one is born again
in Christ according to God’s plan and decree. Only when He is put in us are we
put in Him and given a proprietary title to His human actions and counted as
crucified and risen with Him.
Tyler
Decree
(WLC 14) "God executes his decrees in the works
of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the
free and immutable counsel of his own will."
Creation
(WLC 17) "After
God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the
body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man,
endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his
own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; having the law of God
written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and dominion over the creatures;
yet subject to fall."
Providence
(WLC 20) "The providence of God
toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in
paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of
the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for
his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering
into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and
perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to
eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of
death."
Creation (image) = means of imputation
Providence (covenant) =
grounds of imputation
Tyler
At least how I understand it...Vos does note prior to the
quote provided earlier that the distinction between natural relationship and
the covenant of works is logically and judicially distinguished but not
temporally distinguished.
Such that "even when the covenant of works has
served its purpose, the natural relationship remains in force in all
circumstances, and also all the demands that stem from it still apply to
man." Of course this is a must - https://reformedforum.org/courses/union-with-christ-the-benefits-of-his-suffering-and-glory/
(youtube links coming soon??)
Reformed
Forum
Lane Tipton
Union with Christ: The Benefits of His Suffering and Glory
This course aims to build up the saints in their understanding
of two basic features of Reformed theology: 1) redemption accomplished by
Christ for the church in his humiliation and exaltation, suffering and glory;
and 2) how that redemption accomplished by Christ is applied by Christ’s
Spirit, work.
Ken Hamrick
To what do we mean by the ground of imputation but the
ground of justice for imputing? And what is just about God imputing sin to
those who did not yet exist, due only to His choice to view all future men in a
"moral union" with Adam? Covenant alone cannot be the ground of
justice, because even covenants must morally conform to the greater framework
of God's moral law. If a covenant stipulated that its members must blaspheme
God daily, then it would be immoral to keep that covenant. Covenants are only
moral insofar as they comply with God's moral law, and that law does not
abdicate its authority in the presence of a covenant, as if anything specified
by covenant is justly grounded in that covenant, regardless of whether it would
be just in the greater moral framework of God's law. Specifically, if it is
unjust in the greater moral framework of God's law to hold as guilty those who
had no part in the crime other than to be--years or millennia in the
future--physically propagated from the criminal, then it cannot be claimed to
be just based only on the fact that a covenant was made which specified that
they would share the legal standing of the progenitor who happened to be the
covenant representative. If it is immoral outside of the covenant, then it is
immoral regardless of any covenant.
Ken Hamrick
@Tyler God, in wanting a covenantal union of men in Adam,
created mankind in such a way that all men are propagated out of the substance
of Adam--both the material and immaterial natures--such that all men had a
germinal, spiritual existence in Adam and a participation in his sin. In this
way, the justice of imputation is grounded in the creation, while the grace of
covenantal reward would have been strictly a matter of special providence.
However, even if God had not condescended to covenant with Adam, if Adam had
remained righteous then his righteous state would have been passed on to his
progeny in the same way that his sin was passed on. Often it's said that one
cannot object to the imputed sin of Adam unless one also objects to the imputed
righteousness of Christ. But notice that God was not content to reckon us with
Christ's righteousness and leave it at that: rather, God also spiritually joins
us to Christ by putting His Spirit within us in a union so intimate as to call
us one new man in Him, so that we are crucified with Him and seated in heavenly
places in Him. God's ways in this are very realistic, but we tend to ignore the
realism and emphasize that God imputes based only on His will. And in the
Trinity, we also ignore the realism and focus instead on the representation.
But without realism, there could be no understanding of the Trinity. Three
Persons in one substance is realism. Three Persons reckoned and treated as one
substance would be nominalism. Although Vos appeals to the representation
involved in the Trinity as archetypical of the representation involved in
covenantal representation, it can only serve as archetype for realistic union.
Ken Hamrick
The covenant union worked with the natural union as created.
It could have stood without the natural union in the event that Adam passed the
test, but it could not justly stand without it in the event that Adam failed.
Gratuitous benefits, such as imputed righteousness or eternal life, are grace;
but gratuitous condemnation can be nothing other than injustice. We do not earn
God's salvation, but we did earn our condemnation as a race while, as Augustine
said, "We all were that one man." Not only did we earn the
condemnation, we also earned the depravity and spiritual death with which we
are conceived.
Ken Hamrick
Adam wasn't merely the representative of mankind, he was the
root of mankind. And his sin was not conveyed merely by imputation, but his sin
was conveyed by natural propagation. Adam wasn't merely a representative. He
was a public person--a person who contained the whole public within him. What
I'm advocating isn't something foreign to Reformed thinking. It's the root of
Reformed thinking.
vantil101
What is so helpful here by from Vos and from the WSC 12 is
the distinction between nature and covenant. The covenant--and with it Adam's
federal representation--accrues by virtue of an act of special providence. The
covenantal probation and reward come by way of special revelation in the
covenant of works. So also does representation. The terms of the covenant
enshrine the ex pacto justice of God, so that the relation is not nominal or
arbitrary. The natural relation is necessary for the representation; the
covenantal relation is sufficient for representation. Thus, the
"organic" or natural relation between Adam and his descendants is not
the ground but the means to federal representation. Everything within the
confessionally Reformed view hinges on that distinction and its outworking. To
deny this is to fold the entirety of covenantal representation into creation
and then either to deny the act of special providence altogether or to make it
redundant in accounting for Adam's federal headship.
Me:
Vos: “Now it can certainly be said that Adam must have one
nature with us if he were to be our covenant head and his sin were to be
imputed to us. An angel, for example, could not represent us federally.”
Does
Vos explain why would it be unjust for God to impute the sin of an angel to
men?
vantil101
Yes. Earlier on in the same section he engages in extensive
discussion of that precise fact. The natural image of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7) is
the necessary condition for representation. Angels lack just that
psycho-somatic image endowment.
Me:
Do you have a reference? I only have the kindle version.
vantil101
My best advice for you is to read about 20 pages on either
side of your own quotation. It will give you the context.
Me:
I don't see where Vos says anything about the image of God
being the necessary condition for representation.
vantil101
Image = natural relationship in the quotations above.
Ken Hamrick
I’ve read all of it. It seems circular. Man was made in
God’s image. It is man’s nature to be in God’s image. Representation requires
the natural relationship insofar as we are related to each other by our common
nature in which we all are in the image of God.
Me:
Does Vos argue that angels have no natural relationship to
God, though? The following statements suggest that they do have a natural
relationship to God:
Pg 290:
"a) Adam by nature was obliged to obey God, without
thereby having any right to a reward.
b) God had created him mutable, and he
also possessed no right to an immutable state.
c) His natural relationship to
God already included that he, if sinning, must be punished by God.
d) All this
was a natural relationship in which Adam stood."
Pg. 592: …one must distinguish
three kinds of relationships in which man stands to the law:
"1. The natural
relationship of a rational being. No due possession can be earned from God by
this relationship. Even if a person in this relationship does all that is
demanded from him, he is still an unprofitable servant [Luke 17:10]."
Pg 1053:
"[Good works] are also required by the natural relationship in which he, as a
moral creature, stands toward God’s law."
Angels are rational beings, moral
creatures, by nature obliged to obey God, punishable by sin, mutable, required
to do good, etc. Do they not, then, stand in a natural relationship to Him?
Ken Hamrick
“The terms of the covenant enshrine the ex pacto justice of
God, so that the relation is not nominal or arbitrary.” If the union between
Adam and mankind existed only in God’s mind, and not substantively within Adam
himself, then the relation is nominal—regardless of assertions to the contrary.
Is God’s justice according to truth? Truth is necessarily in accordance with
reality. That which exists in God’s mind alone does not exist in reality. And
if all men are reckoned by God as if all sinned when Adam sinned, but yet it is
admitted that the souls of these men did not in any way exist in Adam or
participate in his sin, then the so-called ex pacto justice is indeed an
arbitrary act of sovereignty and not an act of justice—unless it is a justice
“in name only” (nominal).
Ken Hamrick
They don’t stand in a natural relationship to us, though.
Me:
Right. To be clear, I, like Vos, believe that:
"…it can
certainly be said that Adam must have one nature with us if he were to be our
covenant head and his sin were to be imputed to us. An angel, for example,
could not represent us federally."
The reason I believe this, however, is
because I think God’s only justly charges persons of sin if they participate in
sin. Did we participate in angelic sin? No. In fact, we could not have
participated in angelic sin for the reason you just mentioned and Vos (in the quote
above) mentions. Therefore, it would be unjust to impute angelic sin to man. On
the other hand, it was just of God to impute Adam’s sin to his posterity. Why?
Because we can and did participate said sin.
Our participation was not grounded
in an arbitrary or nominal representative, as you say. In such a case, the
question would be begged as to “why would it be unjust for God to impute the
sin of an angel to men?” In fact, I think the foregoing conversation did beg
this question… which is why I asked it!
As it stands,
then, the following answer to my question appears insufficient: “The natural
image of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7) is the necessary condition for representation.”
Ken Hamrick
@vantil101 “The covenantal probation and reward come by way
of special revelation in the covenant of works. So also does representation…
The natural relation is necessary for the representation; the covenantal
relation is sufficient for representation. Thus, the ‘organic’ or natural
relation between Adam and his descendants is not the ground but the means to
federal representation… To deny this is to fold the entirety of covenantal
representation into creation and then either to deny the act of special
providence altogether or to make it redundant in accounting for Adam's federal
headship.” Is it true that the special act of providence added the Covenantal
reward for obedience but added nothing to the penalty for disobedience? Ah! You
will likely contend that the covenant alone caused the progeny to be included
in the penalty. So the real bone of contention on this point is that
traducianism & realism would make special providence “redundant in
accounting for Adam’s federal headship.” But can’t you see how they work together?
You know, when Covenant Theology first gained acceptance among Reformed, it was
seen as complementary to the popular view of an Augustinian-Realistic
participation of all men in Adam’s sin. They were seen as two sides of the same
coin. When pressed about the justice of imputing only Adam’s first sin, they
pleaded federal headship; and when pressed about the justification imputing
Adam’s sin to those who supposedly had no part in it, they pleaded a realistic
participation. And I think you will find if you look into it that even those
who produced the WCF held that the imputed sin of Adam was to us a sin of
participation rather than an alien sin.
vantil101
The covenant of works includes dual sanctions of blessing
and curse. Those sanctions are conveyed not by nature or natural revelation but
by covenant or by special revelation. The sanctions are not concreated and
natural to Adam by virtue of creation but specially revealed to him by virtue
of an act of special providence. That is the interior logic of what WSC 12 and
Vos are after. The natural relation established by special creation and the
covenantal relation established by special providence--distinct yet
simultaneous--are not two sides of the same coin but distinct aspects of God's
creational relation to Adam in covenant. The natural simpliciter, while
necessary, is not sufficient to account for the terms of probation, the
advancement of Adam's estate, the sanctions of blessing or curse, or the
imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption. The revelation of God's ex
pacto justice in covenant that brings blessing or curse to Adam and his
posterity is not a bare "different side" of the same natural coin.
The federalism of WSC 12/WCF 7.1 and Vos is simply not the realism for which
you advocate.
Me:
I'm not sure if this response was meant to address what I
wrote, what Ken wrote, or what both of us wrote. For my own clarification, may
I ask if it would be unjust to impute sin to a non-participant in sin?
“The
natural simpliciter, while necessary, is not sufficient to account for… the
imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption.”
Why not?
For example, if
we can agree on that it would only be unjust to impute sin to a non-participant
in sin, the only question would be: “how did we participate in Adam’s sin?” If
traducianism is true, we bear a natural relationship to Adam not only
biologically but also spiritually. In that case, I am struggling to see why
“The natural simpliciter, while necessary, is not sufficient to account for…
the imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption.”
Keith Hernandez
I think the answer is, in short, because Adam is a
federal/covenantal head, not an ontological head. He is the fount of humanity
proceeding from him by ordinary generation. But as legal representative, his
public position is federal and covenantal. As such imputation is the only
proper mechanism for relating his guilt to others.
Me:
"Adam is a federal/covenantal head, not an ontological
head."
George P. Hutchinson discusses the question of natural and federal
headship in his book, "The Problem of Original Sin in American
Presbyterian Theology." There certainly appears to be room for debate
about your assertion, especially if traducianism is true. That is, the above
quote appears to 1) beg the question and 2) be a false dichotomy.
"As such
imputation is the only proper mechanism for relating his guilt to others."
I don't think anyone is denying this, so I'm not sure what it has to do with
the issue. The question is not whether sin is imputed but on what grounds it is
imputed. On that note, may I ask you too if it would it be unjust to impute sin
to a non-participant in sin?
paulhuang
If I may venture a question…if the imputation of Adam’s sin
to us is based upon natural propagation, then how is it that we who are not
related to Christ by natural propagation can be imputed with His righteousness?
Me:
Ken can answer for himself, of course, but if I may venture
a relevant quote:
"According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it
was provided in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually
ingrafted into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and justification is
by virtue of this their actual union to him… Thus, the sin of Adam, and the
righteousness of Christ are severally imputed to their seed, by virtue of the
union, constituted in the one case by the principle of natural generation, and
in the other, by ‘the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ the Holy Spirit, the
principle of regeneration…
If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be
founded in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in
regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the
covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,)
incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real
inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the
provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation.
Samuel Baird (https://archive.org/details/rejoindertoprinc00bair/page/32/mode/2up?view=theater)
vantil101
The responses Jim and I gave above keep us from the sorts of
remedial departures from the federalism in the WCF and in Vos as found in
Baird.
Brad Anderson
In our young men's group we have had many discussions about
the fairness of Adam's sin being imputed to all people. But we have found
consolation in the reverse flow dynamic of the imputation. The same dynamic
whereupon the sins of one man transferred to all men, allows for the sins of
all men to transfer to the one man Jesus. Maybe we have this wrong? But that's
how I understand Romans 5. I enjoy reading these discussions and the beautiful
precision that you brothers are laboring toward.
Me:
I believe Baird would take exception to this! Baird
certainly argues that his realist position is represented by the WCF and the
divines (e.g. pgs. 39-46; 463ff.; etc. in The Elohim Revealed). https://books.google.com/books?id=945HAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
vantil101
Thanks, brother. Vos is as incisive as a dogmatic theologian
as he is a biblical theologian. I think he is the best since Calvin. Blessings!
Me:
Thank you for the kind words!
I think the symmetry between
the two Adams and the grounds of our imputations, as presented by Baird
(natural birth vs. spiritual rebirth), is not only beautiful but also accounts
for how it is fair that we are charged guilty for Adam's sin. For given traducianism,
we really participated in the sin, albeit in a different mode of being.
I would
also like to echo Vos as an excellent theologian, even if I differ with him on
this point. I own his Biblical Theology, Pauline Eschatology, Eschatology of
the Psalter, and Reformed Dogmatics and have profited tremendously from them.
Keith Hernandez
There were many in the Presbyterian church, more of the New
School types, who denied the classically reformed position. The men at old
Princeton, however, really did a good job defending the position.
Me:
I definitely appreciated George Hutchinson's breakdown of
the various schools in his book. I too disagree with the New School. His book
was quite helpful to my understanding Baird, Hodge, Murray, etc.
The issue I
have with Charles Hodge (Princeton) is his insistence that "imputation
does not imply a participation of the criminality of the sin imputed."
Even John Murray seems to demur from Hodge on this point (The Imputation of
Adam's Sin pg. 88). Robert Landis in particular took Hodge to task on this
aberration from the view of the Westminster divines in his book, The Doctrine
of Original Sin (https://books.google.com/books?id=SX4rAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Keith Hernandez
And the position of the Westminster Standards is - far as I
can tell - clearly that of the Federalist kind. I dont even think that is under
serious dispute. "They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this
sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to
all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation." WLC:
"Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression? The covenant
being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his
posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in
him, and fell with him in that first transgression."
Me:
Absolutely. To be clear, Baird agrees with this. He just
grounds federal headship in natural headship. See pages 309ff. in The Elohim
Revealed:
"Here, it is necessary to guard against overlooking the
inseparable and essential relation which Adam’s natural headship sustains to
his federal office; and at the same time to avoid confounding them together, in
disregard of the important distinction which subsists between them…
It is
perfectly conceivable that Adam might have been so made as to be the natural
head of the race, without being either its moral or federal head…
But although
it was thus possible for Adam to have been made merely the natural, or the
natural and moral, head of the race, without being its federal head, - the
reverse was impossible. In order that he should be their federal head, it was
necessary that they should derive from him both their being and the moral
attitude of their nature."
Actually, Baird cites the language you quote as
evidence for his position: "They being the root of all mankind, the guilt
of this sin was imputed..."
Me:
vantil101
Jim, Strimple, Vos, and I addressed that kind of argument
above. I am finished with the discussion. Just disagree fundamentally with
Baird’s realism. And the arguments have been made. All the best.
Me:
Okay. Thank you for the conversation. If anyone else is
interested in continuing to talk, I'm happy to do so. But I'll not try to
monopolize the board.
Brad Anderson
“If the imputation of Christ’s righteousness be founded in a
real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit in
regeneration,—if it is thus that we are brought within the provisions of the
covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we will venture the word,)
incontestably, that the imputation to us of Adam’s sin, is founded in a real
inbeing in him, by natural generation, by virtue of which we come under the
provisions of the covenant of works, to our condemnation.”
I have been reading
the context around Baird's statement above and he strikes me as emphasizing a
mystical union with Christ over and against a legal standing in Christ. That's
very concerning.
Me:
I believe he means to emphasize both. Take the following
statements he makes:
“...the righteousness in which we are justified is
extrinsic and foreign to our nature. We were so far from being natively in its
author, when he wrought it, that our native positive toward him is that of
alienation and antagonism. And it is only by factitious means, - by renewing
influences, superimposed upon our nature, - that we are brought into a relation
of membership in him. The righteousness, therefore, of which we become
possessed, by union with Christ, is not ours in any such sense as though we had
a part in the merit of working it; but only, as the robe wrought by Christ and
bestowed by his grace, covers the nakedness of all his members.”
Surely, the
legal standing of Christ is present. Baird goes on to note, however, that even
Hodge grounds the legal standing in the mystical union:
“Dr. Hodge denies any
“mysterious oneness” between us and Adam, by which his sin is really and
criminally ours. By parity of reasoning, a similar denial should be made in the
case of Christ and his people. But, here, the professor takes the opposite
position: - “To be in Christ Jesus signifies to be intimately united to him in
the way in which the Scriptures teach us this union is effected, viz., by
having his Spirit dwelling in us. The phrase is never expressive of a merely
external or nominal union” [Hodge, a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans].
Thus we are justified, not by Christ’s righteousness extrinsic to us and only
nominally ours, but the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death.” – Rom. Viii. 1, 2. The power of the Spirit
of Christ was the law or principle of holiness in him, the cause of the
righteousness of the Mediator; and that Spirit, given to us, and uniting us to
him, conveys a title in that righteousness thus wrought in him." (The Elohim
Revealed, pgs. 430, 448)
Tyler
The mystical union is not the basis on which I appear just
before God but a gift that is extended to me from God’s justification. When one
reasons otherwise, one constantly reasons secretly in a circle. If all the
actions of grace following upon the mystical union become mine on the basis of
this union, the question must still always be asked: On what basis do I share
in the unio mystica with Christ Himself? If it is true that no grace can come
to me on the basis of Christ’s merits as long as I am not in Christ, how is it
ever possible that I would be implanted in Him? This implanting cannot occur on
the basis of being in Christ, for it is precisely the implanting that effects
being in Christ.
-Vos
Ken Hamrick
The sin of Adam is actually immediately imputed to us at the
moment that we all--within Adam--sinned. First, we sinned, becoming sinners in
fact. Then, depravity and imputation of guilt were equal consequences. Our
propagation from the substance of Adam means that we were involved and justly
implicated in his sin due to a participation in his nature and being (as Baird
calls it, "inbeing"). We were in Adam when he sinned, participating
in it according to our mysterious, germinal (or "seminal") presence.
On the Christ-side of the parallel, it is the opposite in a sense. We are
guilty of Adam's sin because we were in him when he sinned, and subsequently born
out him. But we are not born out of Christ; we are reborn into Him. We were not
in Christ when He lived a humanly righteous life and suffered the wrath of God
on the cross; but we are in Him now, and the Christ in us now brings all of His
human experiences with Him when He is spiritually joined to us through the Holy
Spirit. Just as the spiritual union of all of us in Adam identified us with
Adam and implicated us in his sin, our new spiritual union with Christ
identifies us with Him--so that it can now be said of us that we have been
crucified with Him and seated in heavenly places in Him. We gain an ownership
in the deeds of the Head to whom we are spiritually united as one man, whether
Adam or Christ. As sinners, we stood in need of two human experiences in order
to satisfy the law of God: 1) We need the experience of having lived a
perfectly righteous life from cradle to grave; and 2) we need (as sinners) the
experience of having endured the complete wrath of God against sin. Christ
brings these two human experiences to the union when His Spirit is sent into
our hearts. That's how His atoning death and righteousness are applied to us.
Adam's sin was propagated to the many, but the many are being justified by
union into the One. God did not merely impute righteousness--He put Christ in
us!
Me:
WLC Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with
Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s
grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably,
joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual
calling.
This effectual calling logically precedes justification, not proceeds
from it.
Ken Hamrick
Are we saved strictly and only for our benefit? Are we not
saved for the higher purpose of God's glory? Faith and regeneration are indeed
needed for our salvation, but so are the atoning death of Christ and election
itself; so if we cannot be saved without our faith and regeneration having first
been purchased by the cross, then what purchased the benefits of Christ's
atoning death and our election? God in the decree chose to save a people for
Himself. He works out this decree in time by regenerating and bringing to faith
whom He will. Without the cross, God could not save anyone; but with it, He is
able to save anyone, since anyone who is joined to Christ will share in atoning
death and in His righteousness.
Tyler
The legal basis for all grace lies in being reckoned in
Christ by the judgment of God. This actual relationship in the justice of God
is reflected in the consciousness of the sinner when he believes, for by faith
he acknowledges that there is no righteousness in himself, and that the
righteousness by which he stands righteous before God is transmitted to him by
imputation. Now as far as what is judicial is concerned, it could have remained
at this. Without effecting a life-union between Christ and believers, God still
could have transmitted His righteousness to them. Then, however, imputation
would only appear in the consciousness. Grace would have only been revealed as
grace to the consciousness, without its imprint having been stamped deeper into
the life of the believer. Now, however, God acts otherwise. He does not stop
with this acknowledgment in the consciousness that righteousness is transmitted
and that, consequently, each gift of grace is given for Christ’s sake. To
strengthen this impression, He also has all grace actually come from Christ and
establishes a life-bond between the Mediator and believers. The legal
fellowship reflects itself in a fellowship of destiny. All that the sinner
receives flows from the living Christ. The result is that the sinner not only
knows as an idea that he will receive everything for Christ’s sake but also
experiences in life how everything comes from Christ. He is regenerated,
justified, sanctified, glorified, but all this is in the closest bond with the
Mediator.
Me:
"...the righteousness by which he stands righteous
before God is transmitted to him by imputation... Without effecting a
life-union between Christ and believers, God still could have transmitted His
righteousness to them."
This appears to be quite a stunning statement. Am
I correct to understand that Vos thought that the God of truth could have
viewed a sinner as righteous apart from life-union to Christ?
What do you make
of WLC 66 making the mystical union logically prior to justification?
Ken Hamrick
Hodge and the men at old Princeton really did a good job of
making out their position to be the only "classically reformed
position." You would benefit from reading George P. Hutchinson's book,
"The Problem of Original Sin in American Presbyterian Theology." The
classically reformed position was not a Federalism scrubbed of Realism, but one
that included a realistic understanding of a "sin of participation"
in Adam. As Robert W. Landis, in "Original SIn," said, prior to the
Princeton School's position, Adam's sin was imputed because it was ours, but
Princeton saw that the sin is ours only because it was imputed.
Ken Hamrick
George Fisher states, “The Augustinian and the Federal
Theories of Original Sin Compared,” Discussions in History and Theology, (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880):
The fundamental idea of the Augustinian theory is that of a
participation on the part of the descendants of Adam in his first sin; in
consequence of which they are born both guilty and morally depraved. The fundamental
idea of the federal theory is that of a vicarious representation on the part of
Adam, in virtue of a covenant between God and him, whereby the legal
responsibility for his first sinful act is entailed upon all his descendants;
participation being excluded, but the propriety of his appointment to this
vicarious office being founded on our relation to him as the common father of
men. The Augustino-federal or semi-federal theory is a combination of the two,
the covenant relation of Adam being prominent, but participation being also,
with more or less emphasis, asserted […] […]The federal doctrine is the
offspring of the seventeenth century. In fact it may also be said of it, in the
form in which it is now held, that it is the offspring of the eighteenth
century; since, in the preceding age, the great majority of the theologians who
adopted the theory of a covenant coupled with it the Augustinian principle.
That is to say, they maintained the Augustino-federal or semi-federal doctrine
as above defined.
Fisher understands the modern mistake:
The mistake of the modern defenders of imputation is in
ignoring and denying the capital fact of a TRUE AND REAL PARTICIPATION IN
ADAM’S SIN, which still formed the groundwork of the doctrine of original sin
long after the federal theory came into vogue. They mistake history likewise,
by ascribing their own purely federal view to the great body of Calvinistic
theologians in the seventeenth century, who were Augustinians as well as
federalists, holding to the second type of doctrine which we mentioned in the
beginning–the Augustino-federal.
Ken Hamrick
To abstract legal standing from ontological involvement in
the crime is to abstract justice from truth. Was it necessary for there to be a
real Adam in history? If God can justly reckon us to have been in a union with
Adam which itself did not exist in substantial reality but only existed in
God's mind, then He can justly reckon us to have been in union with an Adam who
did not exist in reality but only in God's mind. Was it necessary for Christ to
die for our sin? Could not God have merely reckoned Him to have suffered and
died? No, God is a God of truth and a God of reality. He is not satisfied to
merely reckon things as if they comport with His justice, but instead, He
brings those things into being so that reality will satisfy His justice.
Ken Hamrick
@vantil101 I sincerely thank you for the discussion and for
your patience. You and I agree on far more than we disagree. I have enjoyed
many hours of your podcasts and teaching videos, and hope to enjoy many more.
May God continue to bless this ministry!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for a few comments as an addendum:
1. I still have not been able to verify that the reason why Geerhardus Vos states it would be unjust for God to impute the sin of an angel to men is, as Dr. Tipton's asserts, that Vos "extensively discusses" that the "natural image of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7) is the necessary condition for representation. Angels lack just that psycho-somatic image endowment."
If anyone knows where Vos discusses this, please let me know, as I am quite interested in what "psycho-somatic image endowment" angels apparently lack. From recollection, the belief angels are not images of God is not a monolithic one amongst Reformed theologians.
2. In one comment, Dr. Tipton stated:
The natural relation established by special creation and the covenantal relation established by special providence--distinct yet simultaneous--are not two sides of the same coin but distinct aspects of God's creational relation to Adam in covenant. The natural simpliciter, while necessary, is not sufficient to account for the terms of probation, the advancement of Adam's estate, the sanctions of blessing or curse, or the imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption.
Initially, I was going to give a fuller response to the entirety of this comment. What I actually did - which was, I think, the correct approach, as it avoided getting bogged down in too much detail - was to self-edit and simply ask for the justification of one particular assertion:
For my own clarification, may I ask if it would be unjust to impute sin to a non-participant in sin? "The natural simpliciter, while necessary, is not sufficient to account for… the imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption." Why not?
In my opinion, neither he nor another commenter could justify this assertion without begging the question and posing a false dichotomy. For example, the comment that "Adam is a federal/covenantal head, not an ontological head" seems to be a false dichotomy. Adam does not have to be one or the other.
Or, if the assertion was simply that Adam actually is not an ontological head (although he could have, in principle, been one), unfortunately, no argument was given as to why he is not an "ontological head" (if, by that, we are referring to traducianism).
Now, while I think my approach was the correct one, as it focused on the implicit assumptions of the idea of what special providence entails, on the other hand, I will say that in my initial writeup, I was actually going to agree (at least for the sake of argument) that, in my mind, "the natural simpliciter, while necessary, is not sufficient to account for the terms of probation, the advancement of Adam's estate, the sanctions of blessing or curse..." That is, my primary pushback was against the inclusion of "the imputation of guilt and transmission of corruption" as something for which Adam's nature was merely necessary and not sufficient, not the other covenantal features mentioned.
Thus, federal headship, while grounded in natural headship, does not completely collapse into it. For I, like them, would agree that certain facets of the covenant do not appear to follow by necessity from Adam's natural headship and relationship with us. That is, there appear to be facets of the covenant contingent on God's free choice.
For example, I don't personally see any reason why the probation must have included a command not to eat from a certain tree rather than, say, not to sleep on a certain island (e.g. C. S. Lewis's excellent book, Perelandra). Of course, God's command not to eat of a tree is certainly compatible with His nature. This is unlike, say, a divine command to commit idolatry, which I think is impossible. But I can see how certain commands might be the result of God's free choice.
Thus, as Dr. Tipton states, there does appear to be a natural relation established by special creation distinct from a covenantal relation established by special providence (the latter of which could have been otherwise in some respects, such as in the specifics of the probation).
This agreement is qualified by two points, though: 1) the covenantal relation is grounded in the natural relation such that any commandments God gives, judgments He makes, or truths He reveals would be consistent with His own nature and the nature of the reality He freely chose to create; 2) to argue that the reason the imputation of Adam's sin is just or even sufficiently possible is grounded in the [contingent features] of the covenantal relation over against the natural relation begs the question (as I pointed out) and calls into question whether there is a real participation and/or union with Adam corresponding to God's imputation and knowledge.
3. One area in which I think I can improve my apologetic for a realist understanding of original sin is to better my understanding of the historic context of the WCF and its authors. As I tend to find myself in these sorts of discussions with fairly strict confessionalists, mastering the historical theological background on this subject might help to persuade others that the realist view deserves a fair hearing (even if I think it already deserves a fair hearing on the merits of the arguments for it rather than its historical pedigree).
An open question I have is whether something like Van Dixhoorn's The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly would have any relevant material on if, when the WCF was formulated, its authors discussed natural and federal headship, traducianism, etc. Baird and Landis themselves cite individual Reformers, the WCF, and its authors on the issue of participation in Adam's sin et al. - I would imagine that Shedd does too - but perhaps having a list of transcribed, primary source material also would be helpful in showing that the realist view deserves a fair hearing in contemporary Reformed discussions on original sin.
On the other hand, on some level, even the best Reformed theologians are fallible. All sides of the above discussion know our rule of faith is Scripture. In future discussions, then, I hope to see more interaction with questions regarding why Reformed theologians believed what they did.
As an example, I notice that in his most recent podcast on Vos' Biblical Theology (link), Dr. Tipon and Camden Bucey make a passing allusion to the realist view of original sin, only to note that Vos rejected the position. Given that the topic of the podcast was Vos' view of the nativity of Christ - not original sin per se - I doubt that their mention of it was meant to suggest that a realist view of original sin necessarily implies that Christ would have had a sin nature passed to him.
For example, paternal traducianism - in which the father's spirit is propagated to his offspring and through which the offspring is ultimately said to have participated in Adam's sin - is a species of realism about original sin which would avoid the suggestion that the virgin born Christ inherited a sin nature. Thus, I rather suppose the point of the passing comments by Dr. Tipton and Cameron Bucey was to disassociate someone like Vos from even having to entertain such a question as a traducian or realist about original sin might be asked about Jesus' human nature. That's fair enough.
There are, however, other questions which someone who, as Vos indeed does, rejects the realist view should, at some point, answer. For example, I consider it unfortunate that the discord conversation seemed to fizzle out precisely at the point I was hoping to receive an answer about whether "Vos thought that the God of truth could have viewed a sinner as righteous apart from life-union to Christ." I would have found any response to this question illuminating and (potentially, depending on the answer) persuasive. I hope the cordial spirit of the discussion will enable more opportunities for such answers in the future.
