R.C. Sproul on Original Sin

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I was a bit surprised by a certain argument R.C. Sproul gave in this sermon for original sin. He said that Adam represented us perfectly (or truthfully) so as to imply that were we in Adam's place, we would have done the exact same thing, although not by any necessity of nature, since Adam could have chosen not to sin. Is this really how we should understand God's justice of original sin? My understanding was that Adam represented us regardless of what we would have done, as did Christ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You'd have to give the exact quote. That's not how I remember R.C. ever presenting the issue. I've heard him begin with the Biblical teaching that Adam was our federal head and, as such, represented humanity in the Fall. He then goes on to note that we're accustomed to the idea of representation and are accustomed to electing our own representatives but that, in this case, the Elector was Perfect and chose a perfect candidate. The manner in which Adam represented us is not in noting that he represents us because we would have fallen likewise but he simply notes that we would have fallen too. I think it's primarily intended to help people think through the idea that Adam's representation is, in fact, just and right because many knee-jerk in reaction to the imputation of Adam's sin.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Quote starting at 20:02,

Now, has anybody had the experience of voting for a candidate who, after he was in office, did not represent you according to your desires? Happens all the time! But we have to grant that in federalism it is God who selects our representative. But this is the only time, apart from the Cross, in all of human history, where you were ever perfectly represented. Because the representative that God chose was, first of all, a righteous choice by a perfectly holy being, and it was done on the basis of his perfect knowledge of his omniscience, knowing you in advance, and knowing your representative. So, we cannot say to God that Adam misrepresented us. That’s the basic assumption when we try to escape the transfer of guilt. We try think and flatter ourselves saying, “If I would have been there, in the garden, and would have been confronted by the temptation of the serpent, I would have been smart enough or good enough to say ‘NO!’ to the temptation. So, why do I have to suffer for the consequences of what Adam did?” Well, because Adam represented you, and he represented you flawlessly and perfectly because He was God’s selected representative. Now, that means that we still could be held accountable by works done by somebody else, if they perfectly represent us. We understand that in our own justice system. If I hire somebody to kill somebody else, and I make sure they do it while I’m out of time and have an established alibi, even if I don’t pull the trigger, if this person is acting in my behalf, representing me, with my consent and direction, I can be held responsible for first degree murder. Now, I realize that analogy breaks down because, again, I didn’t select Adam, I didn’t pay Adam, I didn’t put the idea in Adam’s head. But the only point of the principle is this that we do understand the justness of being held accountable for something that somebody else did, if they are carrying out our will. Well, again, even though I didn’t hire Adam, I didn’t pay Adam, He was chosen perfectly by an omniscient, righteous God, and Adam was doing my work for me according to God’s judgment. So, in any case, because of the sin of one man, here we are facing this ruin and our only hope to escape from it is the righteousness of another representative.

End of quote (and sermon).

I think Sproul was clearly leaning on wrong justification here.

 

[KGP]

When I was younger I wondered about the whole federal headship deal and whether Adam's sin was typical of human failure in general, and therefore signified it. I lost those notions thoroughly when I came to understand the way believers are justified in Christ, and when I read my Bible a bit closer.

I didn't watch the video; but his quote introduces an unnecessary emphasis on God's foreknowledge into original sin, which seems to makes God's choice of Adam contingent on our will to a degree. While I wouldn't disagree that God's choice of Adam as a Federal head was in keeping with the divine omniscience and wisdom God obviously possesses, I would hesitate to say that our fallen will was factored in somehow. In fact, I would outright deny it.

The more I read it and consider it; the more I have trouble with what he said here. The human race, corporately and individually, were constituted as enemies of God because of Adam's sin. Our wills are by default anti-God because we have been born into a state of separation from God that is traced back to that original breach. To say Adam was carrying out our will doesn't make any sense; it is the cart before the horse.

What he says seems to take the focus off of the singular offense of Adam and it's devastating consequences. God was not the active agent in Adam's sin, Adam was. God did not actively transfer the guilt of his sin to us, Adam constituted us sinners by his disobedience. We merely inherited it, we were not a part of it in any way; and that is not changed whether we would have done the same or not.

Sin is, by nature, unfair, unjust, and definitely NOT OKAY! The gravity of sin is not felt when we explain it's consequences away. The weight of sin is not felt when we say that we fell with him because he represented our sinful wills and was acting on our behalf. We fell with him, because he fell. We sinned in him; because he sinned. What a disaster! What a mess!

And, as has already been mentioned; the implications of his statements here do not carry forward to the typical counterpart, in my opinion.

 

[earl40]

Justification like reprobation is not based on our works. The amount of reward or punishment is based on works done by those represented by Jesus or Adam.