Replies

My most thorough discussion of this possibility of a "combination perspective" is in post #223 here.

(The problem is, I can't convincingly argue--i.e., prove [satisfyingly]--that federal theology is involved in the first place. It's not the argument contained in the Book of Romans.)

Although i am not certain that i can be of any assistance to you, a thought did go through my head. Where is the passage in Ezekiel that goes something like...Son of man, there is a proverb in Israel 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? Perhaps need to read that in more detail, but can't find it.

My most thorough discussion of this possibility of a "combination perspective" is in post #223 here.

Oh, gads, you're absolutely right; I remember the discussion now.

I humbly plead memory loss due to the passage of 18 months. Thanks for the refresher!!

(The problem is, I can't convincingly argue--i.e., prove [satisfyingly]--that federal theology is involved in the first place. It's not the argument contained in the Book of Romans.)

Hmm. You know, you're absolutely right about that. Looking at the Westminster Larger Catechism, none of the cited Scripture references in Question 22 directly support Federal Headship:

Answer: 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.

References: Acts 17:26; Gen. 2:16-17; Romans 5:12-20; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

It's just sorta "assumed into" the argument. None of those verses explicitly support the Federal-Covenantal view of Adam, per se. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Headship view is Biblically incorrect, but it does not appear to be Biblically explicit in the claimed sources.

And for that matter, even the wording of the Westminster Catechism tends to incorporate at least some elements of the Traducian view -- almost as though the authors felt that they needed some Traducian elements to "strengthen" their Federal-Covenantal argument a bit (Hm. Perhaps they did).

Really, the closest thing I can find to an "explicit" argument for the Federal-Covenantal view isn't even cited in the Catechism (probably because you have to mentally invert the logical order of the covenantal passage in order to mirror it "back" on Adam), but rather in Romans 11:

ROMANS 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

But, like I said, even here you have to mentally invert the logical covenantal order of the passage (particularly verse 32 and verse 27) in order to take the "all in unbelief" indirect reference to Adam in verse 32 (and its corollary, "mercy upon all") for the purpose of establishing an inverse-covenantal relation of Man in Adam which is oppositional to the Elect's federal covenant in Christ of verse 27. None of which argues against Traducianism, anyway.

Which is, admittedly, a pretty darn roundabout way of getting to a Federal-Covenantal view of Adamic Sin, but it's the best I could think of off the top of my head. (grin)

best....

And, come to think of it, even in Romans 11 a mental inversion of the Covenantal logic might not convincingly establish a Federal-Covenant theology of Adam, given that you first have to extend the passage's "conclusion" of Israel in "unbelief" back to the "conclusion" of Adam in "unbelief" (prior to his regeneration, anyway).

Which, I think that you can legitimately do, but it does mean that you not only have to mentally-invert the federal-covenantal logic of Romans 11: 27-32 ("this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins"; "all in unbelief", "mercy upon all"), but you have to mentally-extend the "conclusion in unbelief" of apostate Israel, back upon apostate Adam, in order to make the logic "stick".

Gads. Did I mention that this was a pretty roundabout way of establishing a Federal-Covenantal view of Adamic Sin??