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

[AntoineSuarez]

@MOls

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.

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.

@MOls

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.

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.

@MOls

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.

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:

@MOls

Original Sin is the great equalizer. Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. We are all guilty of sin, we cannot earn our salvation by doing any number of good works or paying any amount of penance. We are all in the same boat. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. This idea of Original Sin also explains why God’s great sacrifice of Himself, Jesus on the Cross, was necessary for the the salvation of all, and why Jesus would say “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Which was a point that @Paul_Allen1 was making.

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:

@AntoineSuarez

After the arrival of the first sin, God decides to keep sinners on earth to give them time to atone and reach Redemption. To this aim:
God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Romans 11:32).
In this sense God’s redemptive will would explain why “in the first sinner (whoever he/she was) all have sinned”.
In a history with sin humanity is Image of God because God prepared a human body for His Son, who became flesh to redeem us: Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and humans are in the image of Jesus Christ.

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.