Clarification on Immediate Imputation

[TooManySystematics]

I have made an attempt to look into the ideas of doctrine of imputation over the last couple of weeks. My issue is that I do not know how every man sinned in Adam. It seems to me that there is only really two possible ways that we sinned in Adam:

1. Mankind sinned. By this it seems that the whole human race, which at the a time consisted of only Adam and Eve, sinned, as such, we are imputed with original sin since we are human. The entire human race, without division, sinned.

2. Every man sinned in Adam. By this I mean that we were in Adam, as he was our federal head, and we sinned along with him. Every single man sinned with Adam, because we were in him.

Perhaps this seems like a useless distinction, however it has been bugging me for some time. I will clarify if necessary.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have made an attempt to look into the ideas of doctrine of imputation over the last couple of weeks. My issue is that I do not know how every man sinned in Adam. It seems to me that there is only really two possible ways that we sinned in Adam:

1. Mankind sinned. By this it seems that the whole human race, which at the a time consisted of only Adam and Eve, sinned, as such, we are imputed with original sin since we are human. The entire human race, without division, sinned.

2. Every man sinned in Adam. By this I mean that we were in Adam, as he was our federal head, and we sinned along with him. Every single man sinned with Adam, because we were in him.

Perhaps this seems like a useless distinction, however it has been bugging me for some time. I will clarify if necessary.

Welcome to PB!

The second observation comports with the Reformed understanding, in that all mankind was in the loins of of Adam as our federal representative, and thereby sinned in Adam, as we are all his progeny, just as if we were there with him in the Garden.

Arguments by those the deny the original sin of Adam sometimes proceed along the lines that, well, I could have done better than Adam did, it is really not our fault we are sinners, and do not deserve the imputation of his sin. These arguments overlook the plain fact that a perfect God made our perfect representative. The argument is analogous to claiming that we did not vote for our representative and thereby are not liable for his misdeeds in office. Of course, the popular vote for a representative, is no substitute for God's creating our representative. Further, as we see in society, the acts of our representatives obligates us no matter how much we may protest.

Adam represented the very best of man and no one of us could have done better than what he did.

 

[TooManySystematics]

Thank you for welcoming me!

I have no doubt that it is a part of Reformed theology, however may I ask for associated biblical references? I ask so that I can read for myself.

My post mostly arose from my confusion over Romans 5:12.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you for welcoming me!

I have no doubt that it is a part of Reformed theology, however may I ask for associated biblical references? I ask so that I can read for myself.

My post mostly arose from my confusion over Romans 5:12.

The passage is actually on point for my response, along with the discussion of the First and Second Adam in Romans.

Suppose we reason that for Adam's guilt to be imputed to his posterity, they would have to actually have committed the act they are being judged for. Thus, it must follow in order to be counted righteous in Christ (Romans 5) we would have to actually possess the righteousness for which we are reckoned by God. Obviously, this is very Roman Catholic (and appeals to human philosophy) but does not align with Scripture.

God has revealed that all men are guilty in Adam but, correspondingly, they are found righteous in Christ. This is not merely legal fiction but comes about by the union to whom the party is reckoned. Either we are in the first Adam or in the Second Adam.