Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Federal view of imputation

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    I don t have a problem with discussion or questions, Ben, but the contrived flippancy doesn t cut it. That s the way it comes across. It s also again
    Message 1 of 34 , Jun 3, 2009
      I don't have a problem with discussion or questions, Ben, but the
      contrived flippancy doesn't cut it. That's the way it comes across.

      It's also again elementary that what Adam did after he failed the test
      does not apply to us. So why bring it up? IOW do your homework before
      pushing send. Don't tell me you can read Liebniz, Edwards and Dabney
      before the Scripture and the Confession.

      Rationalism means it has to be something I can figure out/fair to me.
      But whether we voted for Adam to represent us or not is again
      immaterial. What does that have to do with anything? Your job is first
      to listen to what the Bible says before you start jumping to conclusions
      or objections.

      Romans 5:12 says what? Adam's sin, offense and disobedience is our sin,
      offense and disobedience. Do you think that might also include guilt?
      Does the Scripture have to come right out and say everything before we
      put 2 and 2 together?

      If you don't know who ee is you haven't been following the forum.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Hart
      <benjamin.hart1@...> wrote:
      > Bob,
      > One quick thought though on something I picked up on what you said. I
      > there to be an underlying challenge to the fruitfulness of these kinds
      > questions, and if that was intended, I am sympathetic. If we took our
      > from Jesus, we'd see that theologizing and philosophizing weren't his
      cup of
      > tea when, ironically, he was better suited to do them than we are!
      > ministry was one less of words than of action, of doing virtuous deeds
      > showing us how to love than of figuring out arcane philosophical
      > Instead of speculating as to the nature of the problem, he showed us
      how it
      > gets answered--by loving God, our neighbor, and our enemy. And that's
      > more important that figuring out how we've been infected with sin.
      > If that was any part of your suggestion, then I appreciate it and
      found it
      > quite edifying. If not, at least it reminded me of how to put a
      > perspective on things.
      > Take care,
      > Ben
      > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:21 PM, bob_suden bsuden@... wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Ben,
      > >
      > > To be sure, yours has not degenerated to the slap dash evangelical
      > > eloquence of ee cummings, but can you give me one good scriptural
      > > other than perhaps stopping the mouth of the gainsayer, why anyone
      > > reply to your assertions masquerading as questions,which go on to
      become non
      > > sequiturs?
      > >
      > > Further, is it not both true and elementary that the Cov. Of Works
      was a
      > > one time deal and that what Adam did after he failed the test, is
      > > immaterial to it? Then why bring it up at all?
      > >
      > > Two, is it not the spirit of rationalism, if not unbelief, to think
      > > such a one as ourselves and that he cannot justly make Adam our
      > > head if we don't get to democratically vote on it? Is not the
      > > rather, "Who art thou O man?"
      > >
      > > Which same question is to the point.
      > >
      > > While it is true that disputations and polemics are part of the
      > > education and training of well rounded theologians, the tone and
      attitude is
      > > key and that is precisely what is missing. Impertinent, vain, over
      > > confident and light dismissal for example, is unacceptable.
      > >
      > > >. . . .(*whatever that means* [it. add.]--when I'm born, is God
      > > > like a heavenly bank-teller who opens up my moral account and puts
      me in
      > > the
      > > > inifinite debit column?Anyway...)
      > >
      > > It means what it says. What's so hard to understand, in at least
      > > rudimentary fashion, that "we have Adams guilt and punishment
      "laid to our
      > > account"" ? Or is it that we don't believe it?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Hart
      > > benjamin.hart1@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Here are two quick questions about how I understand the "federal
      view" of
      > > > imputation. Both the Reformed doctrines of original sin and
      > > substitutionary
      > > > atonement make use of this idea so our understanding of two of the
      > > > fundamental Christian doctrines stand on how we view this idea of
      > > > imputation.
      > > >
      > > > My question is directed specifically at how imputation works in
      > > doctrine
      > > > of original sin. According to the federal view, Adam was the
      > > representative
      > > > of all of mankind in an analogous way that a president is a
      > > representative
      > > > of his country; hence the talk of Adam as a "prince" of sorts. As
      > > > representative, God made a deal with Adam--the covenant of
      > > works--according
      > > > to which, if Adam obeyed one rule he'd live a life of eternal
      bliss, and
      > > if
      > > > he disobeyed, he'd inherit death for himself and for all of us. So
      > > he
      > > > disobeyed God, he did so on behalf of all of us, and we have Adams
      > > and
      > > > punishment "laid to our account" (whatever that means--when I'm
      born, is
      > > God
      > > > like a heavenly bank-teller who opens up my moral account and puts
      me in
      > > the
      > > > inifinite debit column? Anyway...)
      > > >
      > > > So if that is the right way to understand things, then we have
      > > > evidence that Adam is in hell, and here's why--we are still
      condemned in
      > > > him. See, if Adam repented (looking forward to the future Christ,
      > > same
      > > > situation we think OT believers were in) then as our
      representative, we
      > > > should have had his good act of repentance laid to our account,
      since he
      > > is,
      > > > after all, our representative.
      > > >
      > > > So do we have evidence that Adam never repented? If so, I think we
      > > > good reason to reject the federal view of imputation.
      > > >
      > > > Here's another reason to reject the view.
      > > >
      > > > The federal view rests on a false analogy between an elected head
      and a
      > > > "natural" or "generic" head. One reason we might think the
      > > > people have the guilt of their representor laid to their account
      > > because
      > > > they've duly authorized them to be their agent. Not so with us and
      > > > We weren't around to do so, making him an unauthorized
      representor. God,
      > > no
      > > > doubt, could have authorized him to "represent" us in some sense,
      but not
      > > in
      > > > the sense the federal view wants to say he represented us.
      > > >
      > > > I doubt these are new arguments, but I thought some of you have
      > > these
      > > > some consideration and wanted to know what (if anything) you all
      > > was
      > > > wrong with this way of thinking.
      > > >
      > > > -Ben
      > > >
      > >
      > >
    • puritanone
      ... I reject that imputation and inheritance are foreign to our normal experience and practice. Actually, it is quite common in the parent-child relationship,
      Message 34 of 34 , Jul 6, 2009
        > 2. I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole idea of
        > imputation with how we typically understand justice. My argument was that
        > we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings of people
        > morally responsible. I mean how often do we allow a deal people made
        > thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another party? How
        > often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be made over
        > to ourselves? How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for the
        > guilty? These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly against almost
        > all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the Reformed
        > understanding of the Gospel.

        I reject that imputation and inheritance are foreign to our normal experience and practice. Actually, it is quite common in the parent-child relationship, so it should not be at all surprising in the Adam-mankind and Jesus-adopted children relationships.

        Just some examples:

        1. Children who are born to rich parents are born rich; children who are born to poor parents are born poor.

        2. Children who are born to mortal parents will be mortal.

        3. Children often inherit the genetic diseases of their parents. Children of parents with healthy genes inherit those genes.

        4. The children of terrorist parents are more subject to have their house (along with themselves) blown up. (What is it like to be born the child of an Al Qaeda leader? Does the US military really have to wait until the wife and children are out before destroying the house in which a terrorist leader is residing? Do you think that the US military waits until everyone is out except the terrorist leader?)

        5. Rich parents buy their children presents which the children never worked for; penniless parents can buy their children nothing.

        6. Rich parents often open up a bank account for their children and put money in it for the children (a form of imputation), even though the children never earned it. Penniless parents do not do the same.

        7. When a rich couple walks through an orphanage and selects a child, upon adoption that child is immediately rich, even though the child did no more to earn it than the next child that never gets adopted.

        8. Parents are under no moral requirement to lay up money to the children of other parents, but they should lay up for their own children, "for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children." But their own children did not do some special work to receive this blessing.

        Imputation and inheritance are alive and well in the real world we live and act in. We are very familiar with it in our moral practices. But some people try to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

        - J. Parnell McCarter
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.