A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
1080

Happy Easter everyone here. I am amazed that this thread is still running despite the threat of immanent closure - unlike some that are set to close in 10 years. You definitely were not in for the 5minute argument Argument - Monty Python - YouTube

Evolution actually eliminates selfish frameworks unless they are system compatible. As I explained elsewhere,survival fitness is the ability to love thy neighbour like thyself, e.g. those you call your own like siblings,parents or children. This way it develops complex interactive systems with high complexity, interdependency and redundancy. The problem of sin has always been the assumed selfishness of the self aware, manifested in the act of rejecting authority over the self in the fall.
The heritability of sin comes from the procreation as a selfish act. For a man to be born free if sin does not mean to be born against the will of man, but in obedience to the will of God. In Jesus this would have been fulfilled in Mary being impregnated by a roman soldier with the intention of her and the child to be killed by her own folks if she did not kill herself before hand. Modern Society still believes that in those cases at least the child is worth killing as it does not comply with human wishful existence, and that even without the problem of living under military occupation where those acts are a weapon against the oppressed population, as shown for example in the Kossovo conflict Rape victims' babies pay the price of war | World news | The Guardian
.
To marry a pregnant woman and rear a child that was clearly not conceived in marriage under such circumstances was truly an act of turning the word of God flesh,e.g. the command to love thy neighbour like thyself". It clearly would have needed the visitation of the wife and husband by the holy spirit in order to do so and if such an explanation of how the word of God turned flesh is offensive to us or feels it would “devalue” Jesus we should as ourself “why”. Is it because it does not agree with our wishful thinking? Would it devalue Mary as being a victim of rape opposed to the recepticle of an act of magic? Would we think God cruel to use such a brutal method for creating his son instead of adoring his work of magic in the fact that his word can turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope. And if that conception story would be too gruesome for us to accept, than why would we find the way God allowed Jesus to be killed acceptable - in fact even required to satisfy Gods need? No wonder that atheist community has a field day when debating us on the God of our wishful thinking.
So I wish us all a reflective Easter whilst in lockdown. May we all reflect on Christ’s way to finish with a song. In a situation that looked so gloom he still encouraged us to sing a song. Whilst a lot of people think of “always look at the bright side of life” Jesus was way ahead of them, but in their religiophobia they just could not see it. Psalm 22 was a much more sombre choice appropriate to the seriousness of the situation to spell out that even if we think God has forsaken us, it is only because we do not understand his ways, but that when we will, it will lead us to praise him for generations to come. And that is the truly bright side, to be thankful to God and live in him again.

1 Like
1081

Thanks Marvin for joining again the thread and thus contributing to that “it is still running”!

Yes, Psalm 22 looks like the script of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. It is amazing that Jesus on the Cross prays this Psalm 22 to describe his innermost feeling of being forsaken for this very Psalm also reveals where we can get strengthen to overcome suffering and dread, even in the stress of death:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

It is during gestation in our mother’s womb that our unconscious is formed to trust in God and cast on Him unshakably.

And it is really amazing that in the moment were Jesus is dying praying Psalm 22, the mother who carried him in her womb is just near the cross. And even more amazing that Jesus transforms the mother-child relationship between Mary and him, into a mother-child relationship between Mary and John, the disciple he loved (i.e.: each of us).

Psalm 22 confirms that pregnancy provides the biological basis for the attitude of reliance and trust upon our mother and, through her, upon God. In other words:

Gestation is the masterwork of evolution !

1 Like
1082

Marvin, I, for one, am so glad this thread has run for an unusually long time. For me, the debate between @AntoineSuarez and @GJDS has been especially enlightening, but your latest post here expresses a view that I have long held as being the only way to truly reconcile my Faith in both science (especially in evolution) and in a benevolent God. It seems so unorthodox, however, that I am surprised to see it expressed on this forum.

It is not obvious that evolution gives humans a useful lens through which we view the true nature of humankind. Language and Scripture allowed the wisdom of our ancestors to construct a moral code that can guide us to a better life. But an optimal interpretation of that Scripture demands that it take into account the new truth that science reveals. The variety of interpretations given by the contributors to this Form certainly bears this out.

Darwinian evolution was first seen only as competition, “red in tooth and claw” (Tennyson). The scientist, Lynn Margulis, was the first to emphasize that, some 2 billion years ago, the beginning of all multi-cellular life depended upon cooperation–the synergy that we now see as mitochondria powering each cell in our bodies. Certainly we should not blame the authors of Genesis for proposing an instantaneous creation of Adam & Eve and providing them with a fixed User Manual (moral code). These authors had the wisdom to see that we humans had the potential of being Images of our Creator, and therefor, if created instantaneously, we must have Fallen. A belief in gradual evolution replaces the Fall with the view that we humans must struggle to replace the selfish component of evolution with the cooperative. We can see this in the method of sexual reproduction–establishing marriage as a conduit for expressing unselfish love instead of mere lustful pleasure. The Immaculate Conception is the Christian way of expressing Mary’s entry into this world. Most Christians think that Jesus’ entry into this world was miraculous–otherwise he would be illegitimate, a term we humans invented and use in derogatory fashion.

I hope God sees it differently. A few of my closest, most beloved relations were conceived outside of marriage. I cannot believe that my ability to love outstrips God’s.

stay well,
Al Leo

1083

I fully agree, and Richard Dawkins seems to agree as well:

“I very much hope that we don’t revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we’re here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. […] Now, you are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. That’s exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live.” [Dawkins’ quotation here].

Albert, here you get along with Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604)! In his Exposition on the book of blessed Job, Gregory states:

“Scriptura in aliquo modo cum legentibus crescit ” (the Holy Scriptures somehow grows together with its readers).

Scripture grows when we read it asking new questions in the light of science and in particular evolution.

And the other way around, I dare to complete: by looking at evolution through the lens of the moral code Scripture reveals us, we understand better why evolution worked the way it worked.

1084

I agree. I propose the following description:

In the beginning God wants to make humankind in the image of God: Humans are called to behave according to an ecology of love and respect to each other, and are allowed to use animals for food (Genesis 9:3-6).

This requires that humans can clearly distinguish humans from non-human animals. God works this out by means of evolution to create a sharp gab between humans and animals: Evolution laid the groundwork for assigning rights by “natural deletion” of the intermediate varieties between humans and the chimps-bonobos. This elimination of intermediate varieties is the result of highly complex ecological regulation.

Once the sharp difference between humans and animals was in place (later than 15,000 BP), God starts endowing humans with awareness of accountability toward Him, that is: “God starts holding people responsible for their moral failings”(@MOls).

I would be thankful to know whether or not you agree to this description.

1085

Hi Antoine,
I am honored to meet you on this forum and to be quoted by you. Thank you for reading my other thread!

I am not very settled in my thinking in this area, so am not quite sure how to reply. Accept that I have a hard time imagining that morality is merely a product of evolution. It seems more intuitive to me that God would endow us with an ability for moral reasoning, which could be linked to the image of God. I would agree with how some have put it that humanity needed to evolve to a point where we could have a relationship with God and receive the capability of moral reasoning from Him. I liked Christy’s eloquent synthesis, which she posted on the other thread

1086

You are not alone! Richard Dawkins himself seems to share your “hard time” as he openly claims (as already quoted in a previous post):

“to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. […] you are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. That’s exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live.” [Dawkins’ quotation here].

This is exactly what we are taught by Genesis 9:3-6, where:

  • the foundation of morality and law is proclaimed:
    humans are accountable to God and humanity for the life of other humans but are allowed to use animals for food,

  • and the reason is given, why humans have a dignity that animals don’t have:
    For God made humankind in the image of God.

I agree too: “the capability of moral reasoning” Genesis 9:3-6 refers to, requires that humans can clearly distinguish between humans and animals. This is possible because evolution brought about a sharp gap between us and our nearest relatives the chimps-bonobos, by eliminating a huge number of intermediate varieties. This sharp difference between humans and animals became established as it is today at about 15,000 BP. This way evolution laid the groundwork for assigning rights.

On the other hand, we can safely assume capability of moral reasoning and accountability relationship at the appearance of writing (about 5,300 BP).

So Genesis 9:3-6 and evolutionary history together allow us to answer your question about:

When does God start holding people responsible for their moral failings?

The answer would be:
Later than 15,000 BP but not later than 5,300 BP.

I would be thankful to know your opinion about this reasoning.

I like @Christy’s synthesis as well. It challenges us to answer the other quite interesting question you ask:

“Did God hold the entire population responsible all at once?”

This question obviously relates to other questions and comments you and @Paul_Allen1 raise with relation to original sin and GAE. Some of them have also been discussed in this thread.

Since I feel my motivation is quite near to yours, I would like very much to have your comments on the points numbered in the argument presented in the post 901:

1 Like
1087

Thank you for sharing that post with me, Antoine. I like your synthesis. Like you and others you cite, at the present time in my thinking, I also prefer a young Adam model. However, as I still have a lot of reading and thinking to do on the topic, my thoughts could change over time. For example, I have great respect for William Lane Craig, who appears to be taking an Old Adam view. In general, I think that these are complicated and challenging questions that none of us will have complete answers to until we get to heaven. I am OK with the tension of not really knowing, but it comforts me to know that there are many different options for resolving the difficulties.

I do very much resonate with the idea that you bring up in point #11-12: that God could have transformed the modern, evolved humans into accountable image bearers. Thus, image bearing is spiritual and endowed by God. I think GAE helps in that it tells us the additional powerful truth that Adam would be the universal ancestor of everyone by the time of Christ, which helps make sense of some of Paul’s writings, like in Romans 5.

2 Likes
1088

This is a good reason for struggling to go to heaven! Isn’t it? (in the end of the day atheism is denial to know).

But meanwhile we can “bring a little piece of heaven to earth” by reading (God-given) Scripture in the light of (God-given) Science and discovering in Scripture answers that are waiting for good questions.

This is a key point! If we put together evolutionary history and Genesis 9:3-6 we can conclude (on the basis of the available data to date) that at a certain time between 15,000 and 5,300 BP God transformed modern evolved humans into accountable image bearers.

Regarding GAE one has to be careful about “those outside the Garden”: Are they or are they not accountable (in the sense of Genesis 9:3-6)? This is the question!

  • If they are: then they are human persons and share necessarily the consequences of the first sin in human history i.e. the state of need of redemption (badly called “original sin”), or in your wording, “the spiritual condition of being human in the present time (since the Fall)”.
    [Note: “the first sin in human history” may (but must not) be the sin of the first accountable image bearer].

  • If they are not: then God has to made them accountable image bearers before they come in contact (and eventually get married) with genetic descendants of the first couple of sinners (those in the garden), and in this very moment of becoming accountable they become to share the consequences of the first sin as well.
    [Note: God does not allow living together accountable human persons with human-looking creatures which are not human persons. If you reject this principle (against Genesis 9:3-6), then you would open the door to any sort of racism and discrimination!]

So in each of these alternative cases we have accountable image bearers who share the consequences of the first sin and are NOT genealogical descendants from the first couple of sinners.

Thus, the fact that “being human in the present time (since the Fall)” entails “the spiritual condition of need of redemption”, does not depend at all of genealogical descent from the first couple of sinners. And then the model “genealogical Adam” does not help to answer the question of “why we have the same sinful nature.” And in my view trying to sell it claiming that it helps would be counterproductive after all. On the other hand, I welcome GAE to the extent that it stimulates the discussion about the exciting question of the origins of humanity.

In summary, the crucial question is “why being human entails being in need of redemption after the first sin in human history”. If we accept that God made the first accountable human bearers between 15,000 and 5,300 BP we have to search for an answer which does NOT depend on the existence of a universal genealogical ancestor of all accountable image bearers.

My proposal is that we rather search in the direction of your magnificent post:

Your view is very much in line with the view I have published in my articles and repeatedly proposed in this thread. See for instance here:

As you see, I consider that Romans 11:32 contains the key to answer our crucial question above. In particular, I think that in the light of Romans 11:32 one can perfectly “make sense of some of Paul’s writings, like in Romans 5”, without assuming neither genetic nor genealogical descent from a single couple.

Since I think we share views which are near and promising, I would like very much if we could continue this discussion in coming posts. So please propose the next point you consider we should clarify.

1089

Hi Antoine,
I do have some questions for you, thanks for asking. However, I think I should go back and read your paper attached to the original post, before I ask my more detailed questions, because your paper would probably answer them.

More generally, would you say that your position is similar to a Federal Headship model, where there is a literal Adam and Eve within the evolving human population? They were the first to have a relationship with God and were given a type of spiritual or priestly role within humanity?

1 Like
1090

Hi Michelle,

I will certainly be happy if you read my papers:

Nonetheless this should not be a prerequisite for you to ask the questions you have: If necessary, I will quote from these articles. I think that in a blog debate like this, a poster should not use the “tactic” of referring to a full article or book to avoid giving a precise answer to a question: this would rather be a sign that one has no good argument and tries to cover this.

This is a very good point to start the dialogue:

My position has certainly similarities with a “Federal Headship” model, but there are tenets where we differ from each other. I quote from my article in Science and Christian Belief (2015):

  • “The explanation that ‘Adam’ (the first Homo divinus or human person) was the ‘representative or federal head of the whole of humanity’ and for this reason his sin bore the state of original sin, does not fit the case that ‘Adam’ had not sinned and generations had passed before the first sinner arrived. For then ‘the first sinner’ would no longer have shared the investiture ‘representative’ of humanity.”

I endorse the position that the “state of original sin” follows from “the first sin in human history”: this “first sin” may –but must not– be “the sin of the first image bearer”. In other words, even if ‘Adam’ (in the sense of ‘the first image bearer’) had not transgressed and generations had passed before the first sin arrived, this first sin would have caused humanity to fall into the “state of original sin”. Accordingly, my explanation can be summarized in the following points:

  1. Within a large population of modern humans several thousand years ago God chose a couple, who are the first humans to have a love relationship with God and are accountable toward Him. They were made by God “in the image of God” and thereby called to “fill the heaven”, that is, each of them was destined to being deified forever at the end of his/her sojourn on earth, if during this time he/she did always the will of God.
    Instead of a couple one could also assume a little community, even with a “representative head”, but as said this is not crucial for the argument. In any case we refer to them (couple or community) as the first accountable image bearers, the first human persons, or the first “fully human beings”.

  2. These first accountable image bearers “were given a priestly role within humanity” (very much as you claim): Indeed, they were called to increase the people of God on earth (the community of image bearers) by marriage (“the primeval sacrament”), but also by contacting other modern human creatures to endow them with the indelible spiritual mark of “the image of God”. In this sense each of these primeval image bearers can be said to be a priest “without father or mother, without genealogy, without birth or end of life”.

  3. At a certain moment in history some accountable image bearers sinned, that is, transgressed an explicit commandment of God. The first transgression is obviously always the deed of a single individual (the first sinner), although several individuals may be involved in it.
    As said, contrarily to Federal Headship, in my explanation these first sinners may‒but must not‒ be the first accountable image bearers.

  4. Immediately after this first transgression humanity was divided in two groups of persons: the group of transgressors (people fallen into a sinful nature or condition) and the group of non-transgressors (people without sinful nature, even if they can make mistakes).

  5. After the first transgression and each sin thereafter, God could very well have damned the transgressors again and again to join “the devil and his angels”, to the end that on earth would dwell only non-transgressors who always do God’s will and become deified at the end of their earthly sojourn.

  6. However, we are taught by Jesus-Christ that his Father God excluded this “way to fill heaven” (point 5) because he was keen to redeem the sinners. And so God decided to leave each sinner on earth for a certain time, giving him opportunity to atone and patiently seeking to move his heart to long for God’s forgiveness. For this reason, after each transgression the sinner is allowed to remain on earth in a “state of need of Redemption”.

  7. Having decided this way (point 6), God apparently also foresaw that for the sake of Redemption it would be better that only people “in need of Redemption” live on earth. And so God decided likewise “to bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”, as we are taught by St. Paul in Romans 11:32 and Romans 5:18-19. This means nothing other than after the first sin each human person comes into existence in the “state of need of Redemption”, and shares the sinful condition of the first transgressors after their fall: this is the proper meaning of the (unfortunately) called “original sin”.
    In your posts I spot ideas that seem promising to better understanding the reasons behind this God’s decision (“to bound everyone over to disobedience”), and this is why I am interested in continuing this dialogue with you. But in any case it is a basic tenet of Christian faith that God decided this way so that: since the first transgression all human persons on earth share the fallen condition of the first transgressors and are in the state of need of Redemption by Jesus-Christ.

  8. If one wants to have both, this main tenet of Christianity and a “young Adam” (an origin of humanity along the description in the points 1-4 above), the crucial question arises: What was the fate of possible primeval image bearers (“fully human beings”) who were contemporaries of the first transgressors but they themselves didn’t personally transgress?

To this question there are two possible coherent answers:

  • Federal Headship answers stating that also these non-transgressors were infected by the consequences of the first sin. In other words, “original sin” propagated “laterally” like sort of “Corona pandemic”, and all “fully human beings” fell into “a sinful condition”.

  • My answer is that these primeval righteous people (if any) were taken to heaven by God. This seems to me to be more in accord with the divine Justice.

  1. In this light one can also better understand what the GAE model is all about:
    It answers the crucial question in point 8 by stating that the “fully human non-transgressors” remained on earth in the same condition as the first transgressors (“Adam and Eve”) before their fall. But this amounts to give up the main tenet of Christian Faith in point 7.

This is the summary of my position. I will be pleased to answer any question you may have after reading it.

1091

@AntoineSuarez

Just a reminder!:

The G.A.E. scenarios discussed by @Swamidass does not interfere with the topic of Original Sin.

1092

As you surely know, @Swamidass, in the Blog “Peaceful Science”, on May 1st, has opened a thread under the title: “Kenneth Kemp: Adam and Eve and Evolution”. In the opening post Joshua refers to the Review of GAE by Keneth Kemp in the monthly article of the Society of Catholic Scientists, and claims:

“This review of the GAE is one of the most interesting, an important academic contribution of its own.”

As a matter of fact, Kemp’s review focus on the question of whether or not GAE is a possible way to harmonize the assumption that “Adam and Eve” lived just several thousand years ago (assumption entailing that humankind cannot be genetically descended from the single couple “Adam and Eve”) with the Catholic teaching on “Original sin”.

So it is clear: As well Kemp as Joshua consider that G.A.E. scenarios highly interfere with the topic of “Original Sin”.
And in whichever way you look at it, it is this interference what makes the book relevant.

In any case, what I want to stress once again is that the solution proposed by GAE conflicts with the following principle:

Since the first transgression at the beginning of humanity all human persons come into existence sharing the fallen condition of the first transgressors and, for this reason, they need the Redemption of Jesus-Christ to reach eternal life.

This principle is a basic tenet of Christianity founded especially (but not only) on the teaching of the Apostle Paul, which on his turn relies on the teaching of Jesus Christ himself and the Genesis narrative. This teaching has been forwarded and further developed by the first Fathers of the Church, in particular the Eastern ones.

1093

@AntoineSuarez

Can you quote the specific sentence that demonstrates this “high interference”?

It would seem that this conclusion is based entirely on not having read one or two specific chapters of @Swamidass’ work!

If Adam and Eve are created in the midst of an evolved population of humans living outside of the precincts of Eden, the question becomes how quickly can the offspring of Adam/Eve co-opt all the living lines of humanity!

Joshua’s book (aka GAE) discusses computerized simulations in which even using the most conservative assumptions for immigration into distant parts of the planet, it would only take about 2000 years for Adam to become an ancestor of all the humans alive!

As long as the 2000 years has been completed by the time of the birth of Jesus, there is every reason for a Christian to believe (Catholics too!) that God has ensured all of humanity is of the right stock by the time of Jesus’ call to The Work, and his ultimate sacrifice!

1094

Thanks George for challenging me costructively!

Overwhelming seems to me the fact that for the term “original sin” one finds 82 matches in @Swamidass book, with a full Chapter sixteen!

Also the fact that @Swamidass considers Kemp’s review “one of the most interesting, an important academic contribution of its own”, demonstrates of its own that “original sin interferes” with GAE.

A further demonstration is the four times @Swamidass quotes me referring to my article in the catholic journal Scientia et Fides, Vol 4, No 1 (2016). I am thankful for this, but his interpretation of my view is misleading, apparently also because he did not read my article in the evangelical journal Science & Christian Belief, 27 (1) April 2015 (otherwise he had quoted it).

George, I fully agree to what you say: A sign that I am interpreting GAE as if I had read the book entirely through the eyes of George Brooks. :slightly_smiling_face:

Here is the bug!

According to your and GAE’s explanation, before the time by which “it was ensured that all of humanity is of the right stock” there have been “fully human beings” (accountable image bearers) who were not genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve, and got married to genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve. And so the crucial question arises:

These “fully human beings and non-genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve”, did they share the fallen human condition of Adam after his transgression and therefore need Jesus’s grace to reach justification and eternal life?

My conclusion is that according to you and GAE the answer is NO (see Table 9.2, Figures 11.1, 17.1, 18.1 in @Swamidass ’ book). By contrast according to my explanation (with which you started this thread!) the answer is YES.

In my view the answer NO contradicts the universality of Redemption, a main tenet of Christian Belief (e.g.: Romans 5: 18-19, Revelation 5:9).

For Christianity “descent of all humanity from a universal ancestor” is only relevant to the purpose of defining “fully human beings” (human persons). If “fully human beings” are defined otherwise, then common descent from a single couple is not crucial at all. The “state of original sin” (from which we are redeemed by “the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus”) is bound to the condition of being “a human person (a ‘fully human being’ or ‘accountable image bearer’) created after the first transgression”, and not to the condition of being a descendant of Adam and Eve. This is in my view the very thrust of Pius XII’s Humani generis , an Encyclical @Swamidass quotes 9 times (a further demonstration that GAE “interferes with original sin”).

Actually, the finding that “the ancestral population from which we arise never seems to dip down to a single couple” should not be considered “to threaten the theology of Adam and Eve” (Chapter seventeen in the book, p. 201). What threatens this theology is the assumption that there have been on earth “fully human beings” after the first transgression who did not share the fallen condition of Adam and, therefore, did not need the Redemption of Jesus Christ to reach eternal life.

I thank you in advance for commenting. This will surely help to overcome possible misunderstandings.

1095

This is an interesting point; a brief response would be that, humans with the divine image were created (true humans), while Adam and Eve were created from the same material, but were sinless and in a sacred place to commune with God, and they had direct knowledge of God and His commandment. This is an important distinction. The rest of humanity did not have this. Once A&E were sent to the world, they would convey this knowledge, and humans would have the capacity to comprehend this spiritual truth. Paul elaborates on this (before the Law I did not know sin, but after the Law came, sin entered and all that follows…).

I think we get distracted with time lines. Knowledge spreads quickly, and the main point is that humans have/had the capacity to understand spiritual truth (albeit imperfectly) and were sinners. The genealogy is more to do with “from Adam to Christ”. Understanding sin (good and evil) would permeate throughout humanity with greater speed.

1 Like
1096

@AntoineSuarez

This reminds of the Renaissance brawls over whether only ONE angel could fit on the head of a pin, or if a multitude of angels could fit there.

@AntoineSuarez, if one belongs to the Eastern Orthodox communion, the answer is a completely different kind of answer: since there is no original sin, the non-genealogical descendants of Adam share in the same “flawed nature” as those who descend from Adam.

But I understand that this doesn’t resolve things for good Catholics like you. I am not sure what @Swamidass’ answer would be … but I would suggest that both Adamite lineages and non-Adam lineages (the latter of which disappears before the year 1 AD) require the same treatment by the Father.

1097

If you don’t mind I edit slightly your answer this way:

This seems to me equivalent to the following account:

Adam and Eve were in a relationship of love and accountability with God, and transgressed God’s commandment. Thereafter their awareness of God’s commandment and fallen condition “did permeate throughout humanity with greater speed”, to the end that:

all humans ( including the contemporaries of Adam and Eve ) became “ humans with the divine image” who share the sinful condition of Adam and Eve and, therefore, are in need of Christ’s Redemption to reach eternal life.

Please tell me whether or not I am interpreting you correctly.

1098

This is incorrect - all humans were created in God’s image. A&E were unique in that they communed with God. Sin is stated as transgression of God’s command and requires such knowledge. Other humans may have committed acts that are unacceptable, but when they were made aware that God commands prohibit such acts, they knew they had sinned and under the penalty of the Law. This knowledge was spread through various communities (history shows spiritual beliefs are universal) and as Romans shows, humanity is without an excuse.

Your blog deals with sin, how it originated and how all humanity has sinned. This is the point I am making.

1 Like
1099

I completely endorse this statement!

It follows straightforwardly from my articles (one of them you extensively quoted to initiate this thread, more than three years ago!).

So, it seems that in this point your “Eastern Orthodox communion”, my “Catholic faith”, and BioLogos’ Christian belief [see here points 3 and 4] lead us to the same conclusion: Cheers to all of us!

Once again, this is exactly what follows from my explanation!

In any case the answer that plainly follows from @Swamidass ’ book is this:

Non-genealogical descendants of Adam do NOT share the same “flawed nature” as those who descend genealogically from Adam and, therefore, Adamite lineages and non-Adam lineages (the latter of which disappears before the year 1 AD) do NOT require the same treatment by the Father, that is, the same grace of the Father’s Son, Jesus Christ, to reach salvation.

Otherwise tell me please: what is a genealogical link between Adam and Jesus good for?