Since my argument is not based on either an appeal to popularity (“99% of Christians”) or an appeal to ignorance (“have a hard time thinking non-temporally”), your objection fails to hit the target. Those considerations are irrelevant to the evidential basis of my argument, which is the divine revelation of Scripture.
My claim is not grounded in consensus (a sociological point) or ignorance (an epistemic point) but in the narrative pattern found in Scripture itself (an exegetical point). Is my textual observation correct? If it is not, then the way forward is to show from the relevant texts where that reading fails.
And the issue here is not primarily theological (how God relates to time) but rather biblical (how God administers covenants in history). Let’s not muddy the discussion with category shifts. The biblical pattern is straightforward: When a covenant is instituted, it governs those placed under it thereafter (notice the prospective direction of Romans 5:14).
My argument at this point remains solid.
It is valid in itself, but in this discussion it is invalid as a rebuttal. It is an example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, which occurs when someone offers a premise or argument that may be true but doesn’t actually address the claim under dispute. As I pointed out previously, even if we grant that God transcends time ontologically, Scripture nevertheless reveals that he acts within history, with covenants in the biblical narrative being historically instituted and operating prospectively.
Rule 4.4 has been invoked.
You are correct. I will identify invalid arguments but I will not entertain them, for they distract from the argument.
My brother is correct here, too. He has not even remotely hurt my feelings (nor has he tried). This is an interesting and enlightening discussion between two men of faith with mutual love and respect, which we continue to reaffirm privately.
Your suggestion assumes that real clarity about Adam’s headship would come from historical or biological evidence—for example, Adam being the first human such that everyone plainly descends from him.
But that assumes fallen humanity will recognize the theological meaning of that structure. From a Reformed perspective, that assumption is naïve precisely because of the noetic effects of sin. Fallen humanity does not reliably infer theological truth from historical patterns. People consistently reinterpret or deny what should be obvious. Such a genealogical structure therefore would not “remove all doubts,” because sinful minds are perfectly capable of inventing alternative explanations.
Reformed theology therefore locates the certainty of doctrine not in historical inference but in special revelation. If God intends for us to know that Adam is the federal head of humanity, the clearest way to establish that is simply to reveal it authoritatively in Scripture—which is exactly what Paul does in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. There the representative structure is stated directly, explicitly, and clearly.
Yes, presently wrongdoing is sin, for we are covenantally culpable before God.
However, prior to Adam and the garden it was not sin, for then man didn’t stand in covenant relation to God (the basis by which sin is defined). That relation did not exist until six millennia ago, when God instituted it through Adam.
Granted. But notice that this presupposes a covenant relation.
Cheers.
