That is Hodge's view, yes. To draw out the implication, on Hodge's view, infants did not personally commit any sins. According to the reasoning in bold, then, they are subjectively blameless, and that means God punishes those who are subjectively blameless.
I'm still working on Murray's critique of Hodge. I might start another thread if that suits you because I can then provide additional testimony to the thread as I dig out quotations from others.
"Imputation" gives them that liability to punishment, an imputation based on federal headship and representation. They are not subjectively blameless in the sense that they are sinless. They are reckoned sinners in Adam., but they are not personally to blame for eating the forbidden fruit. They weren't alive when that happened.
Quote: "It's absurd to suppose that covenantal
fiat could somehow render just a verdict of guilt or divine punishment upon a blameless person without their consent (e.g. Christ's voluntary sacrifice)."
There is no "fiat" unless you mean the covenant of works which constitutes Adam the head of the race is a positive appointment. That much is granted; and that is where all the old issues related to headship tend to be fought. But what follows from that point is all "legal," "forensic," etc. Adam is acknowledged as the covenant head of the race; the justness of punishing his posterity has various analogies to justify it in human affairs.
Quote: "Further, it means God ascribes (imputes) to those who participated in no crime a criminality (sin). Such an ascription would be a lie."
This is the issue of "legal fiction." If we deny it we have lost the doctrine of imputation.
Quote: "I don't think sin is imputed to Christ."
I quoted 2 Cor. 5:21. What does "made sin" mean there? He was punished for our sins, i.e., he was made liable to satisfy justice for them. Hodge's definition. Do you deny Christ was punished for our sins? As far as I am aware, the Southern theologians who rejected Hodge's view maintained there was not exact symmetry in the imputation of sin; they did not deny that our sins are imputed to Christ in the sense Hodge explains it.
Quote: "To ascribe sin to Christ without qualification is a lie, of course. Or if one suggests it is "our" sins which are imputed to Christ,
whose sins, and
when would said sins have been imputed to Christ? Surely they are not imputed to Him while He currently reigns on high and as children of wrath daily convert to become sons of God. I also assume we both reject eternal justification."
I reject eternal justification as an "act." The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ decretively from eternity, Rev. 13:8 AV, and He bare our sins in His own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2:23. He was justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. 3:16, hence released from the liability; and so raised for our justification, Rom. 4:25.
Quote: "But if, say, sin was imputed to Christ on the cross, are those who are elect in the NT age born condemned and under divine wrath? That would be ironically suspect to Owen's double jeopardy argument."
This is all pretty basic stuff. I find it hard to believe you would enter into discussions on this matter as if it were debatable. As an "act," we are justified by faith. These things are all connected in the covenant of grace.
Quote: "Let me be clear: I affirm Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. But insofar as I think union with Christ via the Spirit logically precedes imputation of His righteous to us, this imputation corresponds to reality. The Father really sees Him in us, whereas on the cross, we were not, as yet, in Him."
That is all true; but all this is only possible because of Christ's headship in the covenant of grace. Without that positive appointment nothing He did could be done for us. So that headship logically precedes union.
Quote: "God created our nature. Absolute voluntarism and necessitarianism constitute a false dichotomy. God was not necessitated to create our nature such that many propagate out of one (e.g. angels), but given that He freely did so decree, what follows is a divinely ordained and real relation between a federal head and those whom he represents such that what the head, the first Adam, communicates to those represented is that in virtue of which they may be really said to have participated in his sin."
We are back to the De Moor/Hoornbeek distinction. All natural headship provides is the communication of human nature. It does not provide that the nature shall be good or evil. Moral headship is required for that, and that is a positive appointment.