Greg notes that the concept of the imputation of Adam might very well be important because of its parallel to universal and objective justification. He writes:
"For many years I saw little value in the doctrine of imputed Adamic sin. Lately I have been seeing more value to the doctrine because of its parallelism to the doctrine of Objective Justification. Perhaps we have a line of historical development in our understanding of the Gospel that goes like this: Augustine imputed Adamic sin to all- Anselm- All sin imputed to Christ- Luther- Christ's righteousness imputed to the believer- Walther- This righetousness imputed to all but only recieved by the believer."
It's an interesting suggestion. I would take two exceptions (and Greg is free to disagree with me of course). First, I would not read Anselm as suggesting that sin is imputed to Christ. Rather, Anselm teaches that Christ won a superabundance of merit which was capable of covering sins by doing more than he really had to do. He himself was not imputed as a sinner. That was uniquely Luther's idea in the early Psalms commentary and it later moved into Protestant orthodoxy. Luther was the first person to claim that the penitential Psalms should be read as the prayers of Christ. He believed that Christ was simul justus et peccator as well, just the other way around than us. You can also see this very heavily reflected in the late Galatians commentary.
Secondly, I would suggest (as I did in a number of Luther quote that I have cited several times) that Luther clearly did teach universal and objective justification, even if he doesn't use the terminology. As Robert Preus also shows, so did Lutheran orthodoxy. I would recommend people read his piece on Quenstedt's atonement theology. Quenstedt states in no uncertain terms that Christ objectively justified everyone.
Great comment Greg and very interesting stuff!