What's new
Christian Community Forum

Welcome to Christian Community Forum. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Federal Headship and Original Sin

Growing in Grace

Well-known
This is probably very basic stuff to some of you.

I wasn't raised going to church and when I came to Jesus in my 50s, I'd never heard of things like dispensations, or words like hermeneutics. Sooo much to learn!

I have heard the concept of Adam's federal headship, how he was given the earth as his dominion to cultivate and populate with Eve as his helper. They gave that to Satan and here we are today.

My question is what does Adam's federal headship mean from a Calvinist's perspective? As Leighton Flowers debated James White recently on the topic of election, there was a followup review of the debate where Dr. Flowers mentioned that Calvinists get their 'doomed from the womb' belief from their federal headship doctrine.
:noidea:
 
This is probably very basic stuff to some of you.

I wasn't raised going to church and when I came to Jesus in my 50s, I'd never heard of things like dispensations, or words like hermeneutics. Sooo much to learn!

I have heard the concept of Adam's federal headship, how he was given the earth as his dominion to cultivate and populate with Eve as his helper. They gave that to Satan and here we are today.

My question is what does Adam's federal headship mean from a Calvinist's perspective? As Leighton Flowers debated James White recently on the topic of election, there was a followup review of the debate where Dr. Flowers mentioned that Calvinists get their 'doomed from the womb' belief from their federal headship doctrine.
:noidea:
From Got Questions:

Federal Vision Theology is a controversial faction within the Reformed churches. The aim of the promoters of Federal Vision Theology is to pursue a re-interpretation of the established teachings of Reformed theology. Federal Vision Theology had its beginnings in the Monroe, Louisiana, Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in 2002 with the teachings of Norman Shepherd. Shepherd, a systematic theology professor from Westminster Theological Seminary, proposed certain revisions to classic Reformed teachings especially on covenant and justification. His teachings, also known as Auburn Avenue Theology, have been rejected by several bodies of the Presbyterian churches, including the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North American (RPCNA), and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

The principles of contention underlying Federal Vision Theology involve the doctrines of election, justification, and the covenant. The theology also takes a different viewpoint regarding one’s salvation. This is especially true with respect to the relationship between one’s faith in conjunction with one’s obedience, the sacraments (baptism and communion), and the role of the church. The views of Federal Vision Theology are distinct from that of not only Reformed orthodoxy, but Protestant orthodoxy, as well.

Briefly, here are the views of those who hold to Federal Vision Theology:

 
Hmm. I don't know about Calvinists, but it's clear that due to Adam's federal headship, all who descend from Adam are "doomed from the womb."
So true!

James White holds to some form of 'high Calvinism' and believes that some infants, babies not born, plus those who will never attain to the age of accountability; are going to Hell. It's the 'U' of TULIP, Unconditional election. When he thinks doomed from the womb, his perspective is that the elect are not doomed from the womb.

The more I try to describe it the more I confuse myself :rofl:
 
I had to use Got Questions because this is a subject I have not heard before:

What is the meaning of Federal Headship?

In theology, federal headship is one theory used to explain imputation—how Adam’s sin was imputed to all his descendants and how Christ’s righteousness was imputed to those who believe the gospel. According to the federal headship theory, or federalism, Adam was the federal (or representative) head of the human race; Adam chose to sin, and all of us are considered guilty, too, because he was our representative. Federal headship is seen as a possible explanation of Paul’s comparison of the roles of Adam and Christ in Romans 5:18: “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (ESV). So, Adam’s sin brought condemnation on the human race; Christ’s sacrifice brought salvation for the whole race. The idea of federal headship involves the teaching that Adam was the first representative of the human race and Christ was the second representative.

The idea of federal headship is not explicit in the Bible; that is, the Bible nowhere calls Adam our representative. Federal headship is simply a way some scholars have chosen to speak about Adam’s, and then Christ’s, involvement in the destiny of humanity. The theory is based on Paul’s argument in Romans 5 that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (verse 12). From Adam to Moses, even before the Law was given, “death reigned” (verse 14). If there was no Mosaic Law, and if “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15), how could Adam’s sons have been deemed sinful? Applying the concept of federal headship, we can say it was because they were part of the human race; Adam was their representative, and therefore Adam’s transgression applied to all men.

The weakness of federal headship is that it is an interpretive tool, not an explicitly biblical truth. Romans 5 does not say that Adam was the representative of the human race, only that “by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man” (Romans 5:17). God never says exactly how the transference of the sin nature occurred, only that it did occur.

What we know for certain is that death entered the world through Adam’s sin. The idea of federal headship is not stated outright in Scripture, but Adam’s sin was definitely the origin of the problem, and sin was inherited by all of us through him. Then Christ came and by His sacrifice became our Savior. Thus, there is a parallel between Adam and Christ: “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19).

 
From Got Questions:

Federal Vision Theology is a controversial faction within the Reformed churches. The aim of the promoters of Federal Vision Theology is to pursue a re-interpretation of the established teachings of Reformed theology. Federal Vision Theology had its beginnings in the Monroe, Louisiana, Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in 2002 with the teachings of Norman Shepherd. Shepherd, a systematic theology professor from Westminster Theological Seminary, proposed certain revisions to classic Reformed teachings especially on covenant and justification. His teachings, also known as Auburn Avenue Theology, have been rejected by several bodies of the Presbyterian churches, including the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North American (RPCNA), and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

The principles of contention underlying Federal Vision Theology involve the doctrines of election, justification, and the covenant. The theology also takes a different viewpoint regarding one’s salvation. This is especially true with respect to the relationship between one’s faith in conjunction with one’s obedience, the sacraments (baptism and communion), and the role of the church. The views of Federal Vision Theology are distinct from that of not only Reformed orthodoxy, but Protestant orthodoxy, as well.

Briefly, here are the views of those who hold to Federal Vision Theology:

Thank you so much brother! Just what I need to read :hug:
 
there is a parallel between Adam and Christ: “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”
I love this truth :thankyou:
 
God never says exactly how the transference of the sin nature occurred, only that it did occur.
And that's all we need to know. What does it matter the process? What matters is the result. And it is the result with which we have to deal. Adam was the very first human being ever created. We all descend from Adam, thus we all inherited what was placed into Adam. Adam by his misuse of free will chose to take a path separately from God. This broke the intimate relationship he had with our Creator, and resulted in a fallen nature within himself. We have inherited that nature. Call it what you will-- Adam being our federal head is as good as any explanation. But the fact is regardless of what you call it, regardless of how the process worked, Adam fell and we as his descendants have inherited his fallen nature.
 
And that's all we need to know. What does it matter the process? What matters is the result. And it is the result with which we have to deal. Adam was the very first human being ever created. We all descend from Adam, thus we all inherited what was placed into Adam. Adam by his misuse of free will chose to take a path separately from God. This broke the intimate relationship he had with our Creator, and resulted in a fallen nature within himself. We have inherited that nature. Call it what you will-- Adam being our federal head is as good as any explanation. But the fact is regardless of what you call it, regardless of how the process worked, Adam fell and we as his descendants have inherited his fallen nature.
Right.
It’s so weird how people have to put a name for everything and make it so much more complex than it is. All of a sudden it becomes something to argue about rather than a simple truth to observe.
 
Right.
It’s so weird how people have to put a name for everything and make it so much more complex than it is. All of a sudden it becomes something to argue about rather than a simple truth to observe.
Exactly. That's why I am currently planning a YouTube channel that I'm going to call God Simply / Simply God. On it I am going to ignore all the man-made complexities of theology and just give people --simply...from the Word of God-- what He says about Himself, what He says about us, and how He advises us to live.
 
Exactly. That's why I am currently planning a YouTube channel that I'm going to call God Simply / Simply God. On it I am going to ignore all the man-made complexities of theology and just give people --simply...from the Word of God-- what He says about Himself, what He says about us, and how He advises us to live.
I can’t wait to follow your channel!!!! You have blessed us and myself with wisdom from God’s Word. I deeply appreciate the times you have challenged me as Iron sharpens Iron. God bless you and I’ll pray for God’s help with your channel.
 
Back
Top