Nick,

Thanks for you thoughts!

Nick said:
A large part of our problem with the idea of being held accountable for another’s actions is our societal setting. We live in an individualistic society and this colors our reading of Scripture.

Too true, too true. This is definitely in mind, but I’ll stay introspective about that.

Your farmer example is good for explaining how a person’s actions affect another in this world we live in. Heck, the “life ain’t fair” phrase is just plain true, right? But I see this as different from asking if it is just for God to condemn one for the sin of another. Crops are mindless, God isn’t. God is not a fallen world, He is God, and God is just. Of course, that doesn’t mean I understand His justice, but that’s what I’m pondering. Just to be clear, I’m not pondering whether God is just, but, rather, what God’s justice is.

Nick said:
The Achan thing absolutely applies. The action of one man affected the entire community. You’ll note that the text says:

But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the LORD burned against the people of Israel.

This is a good point. I’ll think on and study this more.

Nick said:
So while it might not seem fair to us being held accountable for something that Adam did, it would have made perfect sense to those living in a collectivist society.

I don’t like the word, “fair” anymore… It seems to carry that whiney connotation. I like “just” now.

Well, making sense to a collectivist society doesn’t make it true or right; I wouldn’t think being in a collectivist society is the prerequisite for understanding God’s justice. Or is it? Hmm… Anyway, it sure is a perspective we aren’t born into in this country!

Nick said:
Hope this makes some sense…

I’m chewing on it, but yeah, I get what you’re saying Thanks!

-T

Which brings us back to Romans 5. It will be interesting to see the post
tomorrow.

You said: “we are a collectivist society, in a sense”

That certainly seems to be Paul’s thought in 1Corinthians 12 when he said:

As it is, there are many parts, yet one body [...] If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1Cor. 12:20, 26)

Likewise, we can see how the actions of the head of the body (Christ) affected the body — his atoning sacrifice affected us positively by imputing his righteousness unto us — the opposite of what Adam’s action did in crediting us with his sin.

Not to get off topic, but as the body of Christ, we are a collectivist society,
in a sense. Not that we would be held accountable for a brother or sister’s
sins (unless of course we presented a stumbling block) but we sure would be
impacted by them.

Tobias,

A large part of our problem with the idea of being held accountable for another’s actions is our societal setting. We live in an individualistic society and this colors our reading of Scripture. But the Ancient Near East was a collectivist society and the actions of one had an affect on the whole due to the communities inter-dependence upon each other.

Let’s take as a hypothetical a wheat or barley farmer in a certain community — let’s say this farmer decided to try something new in the way they farmed and due to their decision they had a bad season and didn’t produce a large crop — if this happened then the actions of one man would have caused the entire community to suffer along with him because of their dependence on him to provide them with grain.

Now, you said: “I’m not sure I see how the federal view makes sense. I suppose the biggest reason (being honest here) is that I struggle with the idea that God holds individuals responsible for the completely unrelated sins of others. But still, the Achan thing doesn’t seem to apply.”

The Achan thing absolutely applies. The action of one man affected the entire community. You’ll note that the text says:

But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the LORD burned against the people of Israel.

So while it might not seem fair to us being held accountable for something that Adam did, it would have made perfect sense to those living in a collectivist society.

Hope this makes some sense…

Excuse my greenness as I’m working through a lot of these issues, but…

Can someone explain the “imputed sin” view in more detail, or point me somewhere? I understand the what (it means), but not as much the how or why. It seems (and Sean, correct me if I’m wrong) the Arminian view would reject imputed sin (guilt by human association to Adam) while accepting Original Sin (our corrupted sin nature). This seems to make more sense to me. We’re kind of up sin creek, so to speak, so we can’t help but get wet.

I’m not sure I see how the federal view makes sense. I suppose the biggest reason (being honest here) is that I struggle with the idea that God holds individuals responsible for the completely unrelated sins of others. But still, the Achan thing doesn’t seem to apply. Even in that passage I admit it’s tough to read without thinking, “Why the family?”, but isn’t it significant that Achan and his family were actually associated? They lived at the same time, together, and at least had direct influence on each other. Whereas with Adam, heck, I don’t know him from Adam! We are only related through humanity. If I had a great, great, great grandfather who slapped a waitress, would I be guilty? And to further expose my lack of O.T. training, is it even sure that God directed Joshua to fry the whole family and not just the offending person? The only thing I see to suggest that (in ch 7, anyway) is v15, which says, “And he who is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because he has done an outrageous thing in Israel.’”

Admittedly, I think, at the core, what I said above may suggest that Achan’s family actually held some responsibility for Achan’s crime, so they actually did sin themselves, and weren’t exactly held responsible for another’s sin (note the word, may ). For example, if my teenager goes and slaps a waitress, I think I would be responsible, since I am his parent. I’m not sure how sound an example that is, however.

Thoughts?
-T

LOL…did not think of that, but this reference was from a paper I did on this subject many years ago.

(I am at my mothers with no books!!).
Ah, so you checked it out via Logos Bible Software, no? Same way I did.

Someone at Logos really likes Dallas!

Like I said, the idea behind the book is great; I wish someone would do something of the same sort but with greater accuracy and objectivity. A lot of his sections are based on the EDT; sometimes it’s the only source. Great, then why not just read the EDT?

Also, if one only relies on Enns or similar works in order to understand those librul theologians, one will not at all get an accurate picture of what they teach or believe. Go ahead and open Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, and Moltmann; the books won’t bite. (Well, Bultmann might, but you can always hit it back pretty easily.)

I am very undecided on this issue, even though I lean in general terms toward Arminianism in most areas. But here is a real question you guys could help me with. You may have to “go with me” on some of this, consider it a hypothetical if you like. These are, indeed, where I am coming from, but you need not agree to “play along”.

Let’s assume that a person takes the view that Genesis was written not as strictly literal historical narrative, but, while describing actual historical events, uses figurative, typological and symbolic language. Further assume that Adam in this writing was not a single historical person, but representative of Mankind at a point in history. I know this stretches credulity for some, but consider it a mental exercise if you will.

Now, with those assumptions in place, and assuming that there WAS a fall, which is described in figurative language in the text, and there was a point at which sin entered into the world, how could these issues we are discussing play themselves out? How might the Fall have taken place within that framework? How might our sinful nature and need for redemption come to us?

My first thoughts are that, just as God uses two people to represent the whole, He could use a single event or “transaction” to represent a process or development.

I really am perfectly happy saying simply that there WAS a Fall somehow and we ARE in a sinful state right now as a result, in need of redemption, and that the details of how it all happened in “real time” are not important. God has given us sufficient explanation of historical truth (even if through figurative and symbolic and typological language) for us to be going on with.

But I am curious how a theoretical model of how it could have worked would play out. Anyone want to give me there theoretical thoughts, even without their concurrence?