Admin
|
The Federal or Representative view of The Fall.............
Posted : 16 Jan, 2012 08:34 PM
THE FEDERAL OR REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL
For the most part, the federal view of the Fall has been the most popular among advocates of the Reformed view of predestination. This view teaches that Adam acted as a representative of the entire human race. With the test that God set before Adam and Eve, he was testing the whole of mankind. Adam�s name means �man� or �mankind.� Adam was the first human being created. He stands at the head of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendents. Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal head of mankind.
The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned, he sinned for all of us. His fall was our fall. When God punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness, we were all likewise punished. The curse of the Fall affects us all. Not only was Adam destined to make his living by the sweat of his brow, but that is true for us as well. Not only was Eve consigned to have pain in childbirth, but that has been true for women of all human generations. The offending serpent in the garden was not the only member of his species who was cursed to crawl on his belly.
When they were created, Adam and Eve were given dominion over the entire creation. As a result of their sin the whole world suffered. Paul tells us:
For the creation was subjected to futility not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now (Romans 8:20-22).
The whole creation groans as it awaits the full redemption of man. When man sinned, the repercussions of the sin were felt throughout the whole range of man�s domain. Because of Adam�s sin, not only do we suffer, but lions, elephants, butterflies, and puppy dogs also suffer. They did not ask for such suffering. They were hurt by the fall of their master.
That we suffer as a result of Adam�s sin is explicitly taught in the New Testament. In Romans 5, for example, Paul makes the following observations:
�Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin� (v. 12).
�By the one man�s offense many died� (v. 15).
�Through one man�s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation� (v. 18).
�By one man�s disobedience many were made sinners� (v. 19).
There is no way to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture that Adam�s sin had dreadful consequences for his descendents. It is precisely because of the abundance of such biblical statements that virtually every Christian body has composed some doctrine of original sin linked to the fall of Adam.
We are still left with a big question. If God did in fact judge the entire human race in Adam, how is that fair? It seems manifestly unjust of God to allow not only all subsequent human beings but all of creation to suffer because of Adam.
It is the question of God�s fairness that federalism seeks to answer. Federalism assumes that we were in fact represented by Adam and that such representation was both fair and accurate. It holds that Adam perfectly represented us.
Within our own legal system we have situations that, not perfectly but approximately, parallel this concept of representation. We know that if I hire a man to kill someone and that hired gunman carries out the contract, I can justly be tried for first-degree murder in spite of the fact that I did not actually pull the trigger. I am judged to be guilty for a crime someone else committed because the other person acted in my place.
The obvious protest that arises at this point is, �But we did not hire Adam to sin in our behalf.� That is true. This example merely illustrates that there are some cases in which it is just to punish one person for the crime of another.
The federal view of the Fall still exudes a faint odor of tyranny. Our cry is, �No damnation without representation!� Just as people in a nation clamor for representatives to insure freedom from despotic tyranny, so we demand representation before God that is fair and just. The federal view states that we are judged guilty for Adam�s sin because he was our fair and just representative.
Wait a minute. Adam may have represented us, but we did not choose him. What if the fathers of the American republic had demanded representation from King George and the king replied, �Of course you may have representatives. You will be represented by my brother!� Such an answer would have spilled even more tea in Boston Harbor.
We want the right to select our own representatives. We want to be able to cast our own vote, not have somebody else cast that vote for us. The word vote comes from the Latin votum which meant �wish� or �choice.� When we cast our vote, we are expressing our wishes, setting forth our wills.
Suppose we would have had the total freedom to vote for our representative in Eden. Would that have satisfied us? And why do we want the right to vote for our representative? Why do we object if the king or any other sovereign wants to appoint our representatives for us? The answer is obvious. �We want to be sure that our will is being carried out. If the king appoints my representative, then I will have little confidence that my wishes will be accomplished. I would fear that the appointed representative would be more eager to carry out the wishes of the king than my wishes. I would not feel fairly represented.
But even if we have the right to choose our own representatives, we have no guarantee that our wishes will be carried out. Who among us has not been enticed by politicians who promise one thing during an election campaign and do another thing after they are elected? Again, the reason we want to select our own representative is so that we can be sure we are accurately represented.
At no time in all of human history have we been more accurately represented than in the Garden of Eden. To be sure, we did not choose our representative there. Our representative was chosen for us. The one who chose our representative, however, was not King George. It was almighty God.
When God chooses our representative, he does so perfectly. His choice is an infallible choice. When I choose my own representatives, I do so fallibly. Sometimes I select the wrong person and am then inaccurately represented. Adam represented me infallibly, not because he was infallible, but because God is infallible. Given God�s infallibility, I can never argue that Adam was a poor choice to represent me.
The assumption many of us make when we struggle with the Fall is that, had we been there, we would have made a different choice. We would not have made a decision that would plunge the world into ruin. Such an assumption is just not possible given the character of God. God doesn�t make mistakes. His choice of my representative is greater than my choice of my own.
Even if we grant that indeed we were perfectly represented by Adam, we still must ask if it is fair to be represented at all with such high stakes. I can only answer that it pleased the Lord to do this. We know that the world fell through Adam. We know that in some sense Adam represented us. We know that we did not choose him to be our representative. We know that God�s selection of Adam was an infallible selection. But was the whole process just?
I can only answer this question ultimately by asking another question � one the Apostle Paul asked. �Is there unrighteousness in God?� The apostolic answer to this rhetorical question is as plain as it is emphatic. �God forbid!�
If we know anything at all about the character of God, then we know that he is not a tyrant and that he is never unjust. His structure of the terms of mankind�s probation satisfied God�s own righteousness. That should be enough to satisfy us.
Yet we still quarrel. We still contend with the Almighty. We still assume that somehow God did us wrong and that we suffer as innocent victims of God�s judgment. Such sentiments only confirm the radical degree of our fallenness. When we think like this, we are thinking like Adam�s children. Such blasphemous thoughts only underline in red how accurately we were represented by Adam.
I am persuaded that the federal view of the Fall is substantially correct. It alone of the three we have examined does justice to the biblical teaching of the fall of man. It satisfies me that God is not an arbitrary tyrant. I know that I am a fallen creature. That is, I know that I am a creature and I know that I am fallen. I also know that it is not God�s �fault� that I am a sinner. What God has done for me is to redeem me from my sin. He has not redeemed me from his sin.
Though the federal representational view of the Fall is held by most Calvinists, we must remember that the question of our relationship to Adam�s fall is not a problem unique to Calvinism. All Christians must struggle with it.
It is also vital to see predestination in light of the Fall. All Christians agree that God�s decree of predestination was made before the Fall. Some argue that God first predestinated some people to salvation and others to damnation and then decreed the Fall to make sure that some folks would perish. Sometimes this dreadful view is even attributed to Calvinism. Such an idea was repugnant to Calvin and is equally repugnant to all orthodox Calvinists. The notion is sometimes called �hyper-Calvinism.� But even that is an insult. This view has nothing to do with Calvinism. Rather than hyper-Calvinism, it is anti-Calvinism.
Calvinism, along with other views of predestination, teaches that God�s decree was made both before the Fall, and in light of the Fall. Why is this important? Because the Calvinistic view of predestination always accents the gracious character of God�s redemption. When God predestines people to salvation he is predestinating people to be saved whom he knows really need to be saved. They need to be saved because they are sinners in Adam, not because he forced them to be sinners. Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.
To be sure, God knew before the Fall that there would most certainly be a Fall and he took action to redeem some. He ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that he chose to coerce it. His predestinating grace is gracious precisely because he chooses to save people whom he knows in advance will be spiritually dead.
One final illustration may be helpful here. We bristle at the idea that God calls us to be righteous when we are hampered by original sin. We say, �But God, we can�t be righteous. We are fallen creatures. How can you hold us accountable when you know very well we were born with original sin?�
The illustration is as follows. Suppose God said to a man, �I want you to trim these bushes by three o�clock this afternoon. But be careful. There is a large open pit at the edge of the garden. If you fall into that pit, you will �not be able to get yourself out. So whatever you do, stay away from that pit.�
Suppose that as soon as God leaves the garden the man runs over and jumps into the pit. At three o�clock God returns and finds the bushes untrimmed. He calls for the gardener and hears a faint cry from the edge of the garden. He walks to the edge of the pit and sees the gardener helplessly flailing around on the bottom. He says to the gardener, �Why haven�t you trimmed the bushes I told you to trim?� The gardener responds in anger, �How do you expect me to trim these bushes when I am trapped in this pit? If you hadn�t left this empty pit here, I would not be in this predicament.�
Adam jumped into the pit. In Adam we all jumped into the pit. God did not throw us into the pit. Adam was clearly warned about the pit. God told him to stay away. The consequences Adam experienced from being in the pit were a direct punishment for jumping into it.
So it is with original sin. Original sin is both the consequence of Adam�s sin and the punishment for Adam�s sin. We are born sinners because in Adam all fell. Even the word fall is a bit of a euphemism. It is a rose-colored view of the matter. The word fall suggests an accident of sorts. Adam�s sin was not an accident. He was not Humpty Dumpty. Adam didn�t simply slip into sin; he jumped into it with both feet. We jumped headlong with him. God didn�t push us. He didn�t trick us. He gave us adequate and fair warning. The fault is ours and only ours.
It is not that Adam ate sour grapes and our teeth are set on edge. The biblical teaching is that in Adam we all ate the sour grapes. That is why our teeth are set on edge.
by: R.C.Sproul
Post Reply
|
