Federal and Natural Headship
Most people balk when they are first confronted with the biblical teaching that all humans sinned in Adam. Their initial reflex seems to be, “How can God hold me accountable for something that Adam did?” This intuitive reaction to the doctrine of original sin is so consistent that it might just lead to the suspicion that most people are born Pelagians.
The two principal theories that attempt to answer this question are called federal headship and natural headship. To most people, the theories are hardly more comprehensible than the doctrine itself. Federal headship states that God sovereignly appointed Adam as the representative head of the human race, so that whatever obedience or disobedience Adam chose would be imputed to his posterity. Natural headship states that all of the human race was somehow in Adam, participating in his sin.
Most people can’t help thinking that federal headship is unfair. This supposed unfairness, however, evaporates pretty quickly once the theory is understood. Everybody understands that some people have to make choices for other people, and that sometimes these choices are matters of life and death. For example, small children are not allowed to decide for themselves whether they will receive an inoculation or other painful procedure. They do not have the maturity to make a wise choice. Parents are tasked to make the decision for the child, and a good parent will make the choice that mature persons would make for themselves if given the choice. Certainly Adam was in a better position to choose to obey God than any of his posterity. It makes sense that God would permit Adam to choose for all of his children. No evidence exists that any of Adam’s children would have made a better choice. In fact, none of them ever does.
For most people, natural headship is even less comprehensible. The theory teaches that the entire human race was somehow in Adam and sinned with him. Unfortunately, this articulation conjures up all the wrong images. People see themselves as microscopic homunculi situated within Adam’s body during the temptation, perhaps jumping up and down in anticipation of the sin and cheering him on in high, thin voices. Envisioned this way, the theory is easy to reject—but it is not really so ludicrous.
Natural headship grows out of the conviction that the human race is more than simply a collection of individuals. One must not define humanity by identifying recognizable human beings and then posit the race as an abstraction of these particular individuals. This approach would almost certainly overlook human persons who do not share the most recognizable properties. Those with genetic abnormalities could easily be classified as non-human, as could embryos. In fact, the so-called “pro-choice” movement took exactly this approach when attempting to justify abortion on demand. Who could believe that a tiny blob of tissue constituted a human person? The results have been disastrous.
The correct approach is to begin with the idea that the human race is a real thing. All those who proceed from the race are human beings, whether they share the more obvious characteristics of people or not. An embryo in the womb is a human being whether or not it looks like a miniature adult. Human nature pertains first to the race and only subsequently to individuals.
Perhaps an analogy can be found in the body, which comprises trillions of cells. Babies have very small bodies. Over time, those bodies grow to many times their original size: a seven pound baby may end up as a three hundred pound man. Not only do the cells multiply, but cells are regularly sloughed off and replaced by other cells. Most of the cells in the body are probably replaced (on average) every seven to ten years. Yet the body at eighty is numerically identical with the body at eight days—it is the same body. The identity of the body does not depend upon the continuity of the individual particles of which it is made.
At the present moment, the human race includes around seven billion living individuals. In 1999 it numbered about six billion. During the intervening years, upwards of 50 million people died each year, while about 135 million were born. The race now includes around one and one half billion people who were not part of it in 1999. It has lost half a billion people who were part of it at that time. But here is the important thing: it is still the same race.
Baby Boomers who grew up during the 1960s can remember when the human race included only three billion people. Nearly half of those are now dead—most of the generation that lived through the Depression and fought World War II is gone. Something like five billion people have been born into the race since the beginning of the 1960s. But it is still the same race. The integrity of the race does not depend upon the identity of the people whom it comprises.
In 1350 the total human population around the globe numbered about 370 million. Reeling from famines and plagues, the human race was much smaller than it is now. It included only a fraction of the number of individuals who now compose it. But it was the same race.
During the Middle Ages, humans numbered in the millions. At some point before that, the human race numbered in the hundreds of thousands. At one time, the race must have numbered in the hundreds. After the flood, the human race included only eight individuals. But at each stage, it was the same race.
If we trace human history back far enough, we shall make an important discovery. At one time, the human race consisted of a single individual, Adam. He stood in a unique position. Adam was not merely a solitary person. He was the entire human race. In some sense, all of the human race was in him, summed up in his being, because the race was the same race. All of his natural descendants emerged not only from him as an individual, but also (and more importantly) from him as a race.
When Adam acted, the entire race acted. When Adam chose, the entire race chose. When Adam sinned, the entire race sinned. This does not mean that all of his billions and billions of offspring were somehow individually present. It does mean that all of Adam’s descendants are included in the human race, and when Adam sinned, he was the same race.
God did not merely assign Adam’s choice arbitrarily to other people. No, in a meaningful sense we were in him, acting with him, sinning with him. We were not there as individuals, but as part of the undifferentiated essence of the human race. His guilt was not only personal, it was the guilt of the race. Whoever is Adam’s natural descendant—whoever is purely and simply a human being—must necessarily have been in him, participating with him.
“Because of this, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread unto all humans, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The text does not say that all were charged with one man’s sin. It says that all sinned. It could not be otherwise, for all were in him and all participated in his choice. McGuffey’s reader got it right: “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”
Divinitie
George Herbert (1593-1633)
As men, for fear the starres should sleep and nod,
And trip at night, have spheres suppli’d;
As if a starre were duller then a clod,
Which knows his way without a guide:
Just so the other heav’n they also serve,
Divinities transcendent skie:
Which with the edge of wit they cut and carve.
Reason triumphs, and faith lies by.
Could not that Wisdome, which first broacht the wine,
Have thicken’d it with definitions?
And jagg’d his seamlesse coat, had that been fine,
With curious questions and divisions?
But all the doctrine, which he taught and gave,
Was cleare as heav’n, from whence it came.
At least those beams of truth, which onely save,
Surpasse in brightnesse any flame.
Love God, and love your neighbour. Watch and pray.
Do as ye would be done unto.
O dark instructions; ev’n as dark as day!
Who can these Gordian knots undo?
But he doth bid us take his bloud for wine.
Bid what he please; yet I am sure,
To take and taste what he doth there designe,
Is all that saves, and not obscure.
Then burn thy Epicycles, foolish man;
Break all thy spheres, and save thy head.
Faith needs no staffe of flesh, but stoutly can
To heav’n alone both go, and leade.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 1412 views
Bro. Paynen:
I am intrigued by this:
Sin’s corruption of the genetic code gave us total depravity and each person a sin nature
I believe sin is tied to the soul, which is not a tangible thing to grasp hold of. Can you Scripturally tie sin to genetics, somehow?
I am also disheartened by this:
So in short one become guilty of sin sometime between conception and the age of accountability and probably very early in that time period. Does that leave the possibility open that someone could die without sinning. It does in my view leave a very small window for death to occur before one sins within the womb, but it is impossible for one to die without a corrupt sin nature. I would also say that an individual begins sinning so early in the conception process that the time between conception and sin is almost immeasurable.
You are tying sin to action. You are assuming sin is consummated when one acts, whenever that is. Sin is not an act, it is a state of being - a nature. All people are by nature the children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Saving faith in Christ, however, transfers us from the headship of Adam to the Headship of God (Rom 6:1-14). This is quite important. Sin is a state of being - not an act. Faith transfers us from one dominion to another.
I believe you are operating on a false assumption of what sin is.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Although my view still has some questions to answer, because as far as I know I’m the only one I can find who has really thought through it, I have garnered acceptance that my view is at least legitimate. All have a sin nature regardless of God’s imputation of Adam’s sin.
You are right Tyler that sin is tied to the soul, but according to the traducianist view the soul is passed through genetics, so sin is still genetic.
Basically in my view what is passing on to other man is a sin nature or state of being. Yet as far as one’s own personal sin actions, they are not responsible for Adam’s sin. Yet one thing you did say could actually be quite helpful with my view. I do not believe infants are a blank slate as AJ said. My struggle with infants is when are they guilty of their own sin? Is the fact that we are born spiritually dead with a sin nature enough for us to merit condemnation? So for when a infant or unborn child is in existence, but has not committed his own sin, but is still spiritually dead because of the effect of total depravity on his soul? Could that be enough to condmen us? Yet by God’s grace he allows all of man kind who die before they reach the age of accountability to be washed in the blood of the Lamb? Therefore those so young to be even unborn can be washed of their sin nature that condemns them even when there is no acts of sin on their account?
I rather like that thought and I will continue to meditate on it and bounce the idea off of others.
And one last issue I don’t believe Christ’s headship, the imputation of His righteousness, or our unity with him, has any dependency on a headship of Adam that imputes his sin on to us. In my mind Adam is our head because he is the first man. I believe that due to Adam’s actions all mankind was corrupt with a sin nature that condemns all men to hell, this describes our unity in Adam as we are all men who share genetic information. All our souls were created in Adam. The fact that we are so corrupt requires the imputation of Christ in order for us to be rescued, this gives us a unity in Christ as we share in His inheritance.
Paynen:
You are a bright guy and I appreciate your willingness to think deeply about issues most Christians would find boring! However, I must caution you to avoid these statements:
as far as I know I’m the only one I can find who has really thought through it
You know that is not true …
For infant salvation, I would encourage you to read Augustus Strong’s Systematic on this matter. It is old enough that you can probably find it online for free if you Google it. I have this to offer on the subject, briefly:
- Children are innocent of responsibility for their sin; in a state of untested or unconfirmed holiness in a manner similar to Adam and Eve pre-fall.
- God can work salvation even in infants (Lk 1:15)
- Some Israelites were too young to transgress before the penalty of the wanderings in the wilderness (Deut 1:39)
- God had mercy on Nineveh infants and possibly the mentally handicapped (Jonah 4:11)
- Infants are guilty in Adam, yet innocent of responsibility. They display naiveté in moral matters
- How can infants be judged according to deeds they haven’t committed? (Mt 16:27; Rev 20:12). They are certainly guilty, but in a state of innocence.
- David’s belief he would see his infant son again (2 Sam 12:22-23) compared with his inconsolable grief over Absolom’s treachery and death (2 Sam 18:33).
Finally, I offer a remark or two on this:
And one last issue I don’t believe Christ’s headship, the imputation of His righteousness, or our unity with him, has any dependency on a headship of Adam that imputes his sin on to us
I believe you mis-understand me. Rom 6 is not talking about a mere change of intellectual disposition - it is speaking of a complete change of nature. It is discussing positional sanctification, a forensic standing with God, in a manner almost identical to justification. Union with Christ, via the indwelling Holy Spirit, is the grounds for positional sanctification. It is the mark or guarantee of this new standing before God. That is why I emphasized that in Christ we are transferred to different owners - Satan to God. Anybody who iis not part of the body of Christ remains under the dominion of Satan. That is why infants are sinful - it is not an act, it is a natural state. An overt act is merely the practical outworking of a rebellious disposition which already existed.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Infants are guilty in Adam, yet innocent of responsibility.
For as in Adam, all die …
… Death passed upon all men …
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
… except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I don’t see how those passages allow for temporary “saved’ status for infants.
I do see how Luke 1:15 allows for a sovereign God to impart faith to one we might never suspect could possess it.
DavidO:
I don’t see how those passages allow for temporary “saved’ status for infants
My apologies - I was speaking of salvation of infants who die. My fault.
––––––––––––—
Regarding the salvation of infants who die:
I admit this is a logical deduction from the facts, some of which I presented briefly above. I find it compelling that we are all judged for our works in the end, yet infants do not commit any “bad deeds” to be held accountable for. In this manner, they are guilty yet innocent of personal responsibility. I compared it to pre-fall Adam. I also cited a few instances where God shows divine forbearance on account of infants too little to be held personally responsible for their sinful nature.
I believe it is a logical deduction that God is gracious to save those little ones before the age of accountability, whenever that is. I believe it is different for each individual person, and only God knows when this is.
I confess it is a deduction, not a clear cut case.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
as far as the second part, I don’t think I misunderstood you. I agree with everything you said, my point was that everything you just said is not dependent on the imputation of Adam’s sin. Some have attempted to claim that I am denying our unity in Christ and our state of being before God after salvation as well as many of the other things you discussed, because I am denying the imputation of Adam’s sin. My point was the connection of imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not dependent on imputation of Adam’s sin.
I apologize for being confusing with the discussion of infant salvation. I am primarily discussing my views on headship, and the inclusion of infant salvation issues is only a important tangent due to how my views on headship effect that issue. I will try to be a bit more clear from this point to distinct tangential issues from the discussion at hand.
You wrote:
I was uncomfortable with the Imputation views of headship and begin studying the passages and theology behind it. I began comparing it with pelegian, arminian, and other similar views. I came to a realization that what all the views had in common they all combined imputed guilt with total depravity and sin nature. With the imputed guilt views accepting the whole package and the other views denying the whole package.
I want to understand you. Could you explain your view, perhaps using bullet points or something similar? If your paragraphs get too long, I can’t follow! I don’t understand your position at all right now. Try for a single summary statement each on (1) imputation and (2) sin and go from there!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Imputation of sin is germane to this thread. Just keep it here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Paynen,
I apologize for misrepresenting what I termed your “blank slate” view. I reread your passage at the top and now understand you to mean that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam, and thus experience total depravity, but that this does not necessarily mean we are guilty of Adam’s sin. This is far from the “morally neutral” state of existence I suggested. I echo Tyler’s thoughts and think you should give a summary statement of your position. I too am finding it challenging to follow.
I would also like to encourage you to use more Scripture to support your view. It becomes difficult if not impossible to evaluate these statements, or any statements, if they are not connected to verses.
I just have one question: How would you explain Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—”? Can the “all sinned” genuinely be understood only in terms of total depravity which we inherit through Adam, or must it encompass something beyond that? When did “all sin?” If we accept your position that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, this verse can only mean that at some point in our depravity all of us will have eventually sinned, and thus be held accountable. Can this meaning be understood in the text? I am not trying to lead you, but I am sincerely interested in how you would develop this thought.
I’m not following your remarks on total depravity. Perhaps we’re talking past one another. Total depravity refers to the extent we are effected by sin. Here is my definition:
Total Depravity: Man, in his fallen state, is totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1-9), in willful rebellion against God (Rom 1:18-32) and unrighteous before God (Rom 3:9-20; Eph 4:17-19). Total depravity does not suggest man is incapable of noble, charitable or valiant acts, but merely that there is absolutely nothing meritorious in man’s fallen state that God can find pleasure in or accept.
This is the linchpin for really understanding the grace of God in salvation.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Yes, that’s how I understand total depravity. Personally, I would add the idea that every part of man’s nature has been corrupted by sin: his thoughts (Romans 1:28), his heart (Jeremiah 17:9), his will (Proverbs 14:12), etc., so that man is utterly incapable of coming to God through any part of his being, but anything beyond what you have adequately mentioned is unnecessary to develop for the discussion.
Basically, I am trying to understand how Paynen interprets Romans 5:12 apart from the “all sinned” meaning we were physically in Adam when he sinned, and thus sinned with him and must face the same consequence for sin that he did: death.
In trying to see this from Paynen’s perspective, it would seem that the “all sinned” can only mean that our inevitable choice to sin, manifested by way of our total depravity, will lead us to do exactly that: sin. This hopeless condition of ours is what brings about the consequence of death, not our guilt tied into Adam. (If I am misrepresenting Paynen, I hope he will correct me)
However, according to this verse, I am arguing that death is a result of our guilt of original sin (we participated with Adam), while Paynen must argue that death is simply a result of our inherited sin nature from Adam, a nature which is most clearly pictured in our total depravity. I am not against this view per se (I am not exactly sure how it can be defended biblically), but I would like to see how Paynen might develop it. He must, however, begin with an explanation of the “all sinned.”
Hey, guys I was not next to my PC all day, but here it goes.
First off the simplest way for me to describe my view is to say I believe in Natural Headship without imputed guilt. Now I will look at some Scriptural Issue, Logical/Theological Issues, and Implications.
Scriptural
• First off there are only two passages that really support Imputed Guilt are the very last sliver of Romans 5:12 and the passage in Hebrews 7. As many of those who believe in Natural Headship already throw this verse out as it tends to just muttle up the issue due to the needed exclusivity of Adam’s imputation.
• “For all have sinned” The Greek words: Epi = for, Pas = All, Hamartano = Have sinned, the words literally translated say For All Sin (Aorist). Hamartano could potentially be translated Have become sinners. Not over a period of time, but at a certain point. It is usually not translated that way, but it is within the possibility of the word’s translation. This also fits along with verse 19 which says have become sinners, or were made sinners. Although it does use different Greek words to do so.
• But in all reality that is not proof for anything, it just helps to muttle up the whole interpretation of Romans 5. Which in my mind makes sense. Paul was trying to explain the effects of Adam’s sin (which those of us who believe in Traducianism that would make sense. The effect of sin was upon every aspect of the human race and those effects where passed on through genetics. This would be difficult for even an inspired Paul from the New Testament age to completely understand let alone explain it to others. (Scripture still infallible just not readily clear to our limited sinful minds) So because of the level of confusion let us pull out one of the most important rules of exegesis and that is to interpret difficult passages of scripture with more clear ones.
• Scripture is very clear that we are not responsible or guilty of our ancestors. Ezekiel 18:20 specifically says that we will not be guilty of our ancestors’ sins.
• Now many say that we were all in Adam when he sinned and therefore in someway had personal responsibility in Adam’s sin. I think this is a difficult conclusion to come to for two reasons. 1 Romans 5 really isn’t clear enough to get that idea. 2. Almost all theologians who hold the view of imputed guilt find that this is the only case it happens. (why many throw out Hebrews 7) For example My children are not responsible for all my sin even though all my ancestors are in me. This is in my mind an inconsistency that is illogical to who God is.
• Clearly a majority of this view is based in logical conclusions based on the need for us to have guilt for the punishment of death, but in the next section I will discuss several logical reasons why that is not needed
Logical/Theological
• Many have a presupposition that imputed guilt is inseparably connected to total depravity and a sin nature. This is not so. I will not discuss it here but one can read Ryrie’s “Basic Theology” if they wish to see anything on that. So this does not require us to be Pelegians if we deny imputed guilt.
• Let us return to Romans 5 for a second and contemplate what it means to be a sinner. Tyler discussed earlier that sin is not only an action, but also a state of being. When Adam sinned it is clear that the rest of the human race would be effected by this, total depravity and a sin nature comes on the scene (I believe your discussion of total depravity and sin nature as far as defining them are sufficient so I will not discuss them here.) Lets for a second hold the presupposition that I am correct and that Adam’s sin is not imputed. Well we were still all genetically changed at the point of Adam’s sin. Adam was now spiritually dead and this trait would be passed onto all his children. We were now at that point all sinners. Not because of any action, but because that was our state of being. (If you were born in Argentina, you would be at the point of birth an Argentinean even though you have yet to make any action proving your Argentineanness, so since we were conceived in the state of sin, we are conceived as sinners without having made any action proving our sinfulness) We all had a sin nature and were all totally depraved even though we did not yet exist as a human being. All men have become or were made sinners.
• So can those who die without their own person sin on their account go to heaven? I would say no. As they still have a corrupt sin nature/soul. Everyone regardless of the sin on their account has fallen short of the glory of God. They have a sin nature and are incapable of entering into the presence of a Holy God without the washing of the blood of Jesus Christ. (This is where the tangential discussion of where infants go when they die comes in.)
• One of the primary arguments I have heard for the NEED of imputed guilt is because we have to have some reason for a just God to deliver us the punishment of death. Yet, we are not being punished for anything. We are born into a spiritually dead state. The punishment of spiritual death of the human race is on Adam and Adam alone. Yet sin doesn’t happen in a bubble. It is clear throughout scripture that those around people who sin often face hardships and difficulties relating to other’s sin. Genesis 49 we see that as punishment for their actions against those who raped Dinah, Simeon and Levi would not get inheritance in the land. This causes the scattering of their decedents throughout the land. It works in reverse as well. As due to the Levites standing with Moses after the golden calf episode in exodus they were awarded with the priesthood which was then extended to their decedents.
• Death is also not only a negative thing that we all face. Separation from God is surely better then fellowship with him in a sinful state. His holiness would be like a burning fire. Physical death is necessary because eternity in decrepit and corrupt bodies would not be merciful.
Implications
• Basically when all is said and done you really just end up with the traditional natural headship view minus imputed guilt. Most practical out workings are pretty much the same. I feel the view is much more consistent with Scripture, God’s character, and just logic all around.
• We must also remember that as much arguing done about Natural Headship we still don’t have any additional information or support about it since Augustine. Everything we have today so far is basically the same stuff that Augustine had. Most other areas of theology have at least grown in the understanding of the doctrine and usually have changed over the years as we come to better understandings of God and the world around us.
• The only other thing this majorly effects is the doctrine of Infant salvation, which we’ve discussed.
• Another thing this helps with is with this view you don’t have to answer the doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin effect Christ. If no one was had Adam’s sin imputed Christ didn’t either. But it is clear that Christ’s body was effected by total depravity, even though His deity destroyed the sin nature He would of inherited, the other areas of His humanness were still affected to some extent.
I think that is the extent of everything for now. I would eventually like to write an article about it. I look forward to your thoughts on the theory.
Sorry, it is not much of a Summary Statement except in perhaps the first and last line, but I tried to make it organized and complete as I could at this time.
Featured Resource
Discussion