Traducianism and CoW?

[RamistThomist]

I'm reading Shedd right now. If one holds to traducianism, and so that posterity sinned in Adam geminally (Shedd 431-435), then what is the point of Adam's being a covenantal representative?

 

[Dachaser]

Because that would be the reason to have Paul explain to us that we are either linked in Adam or Jesus, as One failed as representaive before God for us, and other one succeeded!

 

[Justified]

David, I'm not sure you understand Jacob's question. Jacob is asking, "if we all sinned in Adam geminally (that is to say, in the loins of Adam, just as Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham, from whence the author of Hebrews proves the supremacy of Christ's priestly office, then the imputation of Adam's sin as our federal head seems redundant. So why then do we need Adam to be our covenantal head if we sinned in a realist way in Adam?"

I think it's an excellent question. Not sure as to the solution. I find trudicianism more plausible in many regards. However, Rom. 5 is difficult. There seems to be an isomorphic structure to Paul's argument such that it is exegetically forced to assume imputation of Christ's righteousness on one hand, and a realistic view with respect to Adam's sin.

Nonetheless, I still lean towards traducianism, at least with respect to the origin of the soul.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm reading Shedd right now. If one holds to traducianism, and so that posterity sinned in Adam geminally (Shedd 431-435), then what is the point of Adam's being a covenantal representative?

In his Systematic Theology, the late Robert Duncan Culver generally sides with Shedd when he differs from Charles Hodge. Culver embraced traducianism and rejected federalism.

I think J. Oliver Buswell held to traducianism while also embracing federalism. Perhaps some time later this week I can dig that book out and see if he addresses your question.

 

[Dachaser]

If we adopt though that position, does it not render Paul explanation for Jesus as being our stand in representative before the father moot?

Perhaps both positions could be true then?