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

[AntoineSuarez]

Thanks Christy for these comments, which allow me to show that my explanation does not run in the theological problems of @Swamidass Genealogical Adam and Eve (GAE).

@Christy

If there was an existing population of humans/homo sapiens and this specially created couple had descendants who mixed with this population, you still have to explain how the fall/original sin affects everyone. It seems to me you would still be getting into questions of who interbreeds with who.

According to my explanation God provided that human beings in the image of God and ordered to the gift of eternal life NEVER lived together with Homo sapiens creatures that were not in the image of God and ordered to the gift of eternal life. Accordingly, I state:

Any Homo sapiens creature, who came to live together with the descendants of the “specially created couple” (A&E), by this very fact became a human being specially created in the image of God the same way as A&E were.

The reason is that God wanted to fill the earth with humans that live loving and respecting each other and ordered to the gift of eternal life. To this aim family life and education was crucial. A family where the father (descendant of A&E) would be ordered to go to heaven and the mother (non-descendant from A&E) would NOT (as GAE assumes), would not be fitting to the task of educating the children (genealogical descendants of A&E) “to work as stewards and ambassadors in God’s kingdom, promoting his justice and peace on earth”, and ordered to eternal life. Such a family would really be a strange family!

I would like to stress that:
If in GAE one assumes that both parents are always ordered to the gift of eternal life, GAE becomes equivalent to my explanation, at the end of the day.

(Notice also that I prefer to assume that A&E was “a specially created little population” rather than “a single couple”, but this is not relevant for this discussion so far).

As I have discussed in other posts, the passage of Genesis 6:2-4 referring to the “sons of God” supports my statement above.

As regarding “how the fall/original sin affects everyone”, my explanation runs as follows:

God desired “the harmonious flourishing of humankind” and endowed A&E (whether “single couple” or “couple of couples” it doesn’t matter) with special original grace to totally master the inherited evolutionary selfish urges, so that at the very beginning A&E were completely free of sinful propensities (“concupiscence”).

After their first sinful choice A&E lost this special original grace, and as a result the inherited evolutionary urges became sinful propensities within their hearts. Nonetheless God in his mercy decided to give A&E opportunity to repent and allowed them to remain on earth (instead of throwing them to hell).

Thus, for the sake of redeeming all sinners, the earth was destined by God to be inhabited by people sharing sinful propensities and in need of redemption, according to Romans 11:32 “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

In conclusion: The fall/original sin affects everyone coming into existence after the first human sinful choice by A&E, even if he/she is NOT a genealogical descendant of A&E.

@Christy

If you accept evolutionary history, death and violent propensities already exist in the animal kingdom and in human social groups pre-Fall.

For sure, death and violent propensities did already exist before the Fall. However, by definition, they could neither be sinful nor a consequence of the Fall, as the creatures affected by such deficiencies were not ordered by God to the gift of eternal life, and therefore to live loving and respecting each other in transforming relationship with God; in particular, such creatures were not morally accountable for killing each other, the same way as lions and chimps are not accountable today.

By God’s declaration in Genesis 9:4,5-6, after the fall and at the end of the flood, all Homo sapiens became humankind in the image of God. Since this moment each Homo sapiens creature on earth is called to the gift of eternal life, and deserves the status and dignity of being in the image of God, although without the special original grace A&E had at their creation, and therefore submitted to sinful propensities (concupiscence).

I summary, I think that my explanation above:

• Fits well to revelation.
• Cannot be disproven by science.
• And does not run into the theological problems of @Swamidass’ GAE.

I would be thankful to know any further objection you may have in this respect.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Christy

And if not, why the specially created couple in the first place? What does it buy you (other than concordism) that a pair of humans chosen out of an existing population doesn’t get you?

God could very well have made the whole population of Homo sapiens (several millions by the end of the Neolithic) in the image of God at once, ordering each of them to love God and the others, and making each human being accountable for the life of another human being.

However, God in his omniscience, took account of the possibility that humans sin and the sinners disregard that God let them on earth to give them opportunity to repent and reach salvation, to the extreme of living as if God were obliged to accept their sinful ways. God foresaw that humankind could become corrupt and full of violence, and a big remedial would be needed to correct this wicked mentality and avoid “hell on earth”. The flood stands for this remedial. Although sin is a liability, the focus of God’s attention and divine plan is not sin but love: God wants to preserve that people can be redeemed.

This is the message Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter convey in the context of their teaching about the End Times, and this also what you suggest about the meaning of the flood:

@Christy

the message is that judgment is imminent, repentance is required, and God in his grace supplies a means of salvation. Repent and God will be merciful and extend grace.

Nonetheless, to avoid killing millions of people, God preferred to make a “first-version of accountable humans” reduced to a little population (i.e.: He transformed only a segment of Homo sapiens into “accountable image bearers”). This primeval population increased in number, possibly to several hundreds of thousands, who chose in fact the path of corruption and violence (Genesis 6: 5-12), and was deleted by the flood (Noah and his family excepted).

At the end of the flood God definitely re-create the humankind by making all Homo sapiens (up to possibly 14 millions) into a population of human beings accountable to God: “From each human being I [God] will demand an accounting for the life of another human being […] for in the image of God has God made mankind.” (Genesis 9:5-6).

By proclaiming this universal prohibition of homicide in Genesis 9:5-6 God highlights again that “God loves humans” and wants that humans love and respect each other. From this moment till today ALL peoples on earth share in the dignity of being in the image of God.

@Christy

I also don’t believe the Flood narrative describes a literal global catastrophe, or that it historically destroyed all humanity (all humanity being image bearers). I think the point of the narrative is to teach theology, not history, and definitely not some kind of genealogy of image bearing humans.

I hope the preceding clarifications show that, like you, I think that “the point of the narrative is to teach theology”.

Nonetheless I also think that the narrative of the flood is historical and describes a global catastrophe that destroyed all human beings living at this moment (Noah and his family excepted), where by human beings I mean humans who God had made in the image of God and morally accountable for their deeds.

Notice that catastrophic floods capable of killing hundreds of thousands are common, as @mitchellmckain has fittingly stated in a previous post:

@mitchellmckain

Just in the last century there is the 2004 tsunami with a death toll of 230,000 people, 1931 and 1938 China over 500,000 people each, 1975 typhoon Nina in China 229,000 people, just to name a few with the highest death tolls.

In summary:

I respect your belief that the flood narrative “does not teach history” and “does not describe a literal global catastrophe”, but I dare also to ask in this respect:

Do you agree that my explanation above fits well with revelation and is not discarded by science?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@AntoineSuarez

Do you agree that my explanation above fits well with revelation and is not discarded by science?

Yes, it sounds like a workable model for people who want specific correlations between doctrines and history.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Christy

Yes, it sounds like a workable model for people who want specific correlations between doctrines and history.

Thanks Christy for this evaluation!

In my view, having “a workable model” that accounts for correlation between revelation and history, is an important achievement of this thread.

I would like now to come to the question of how the fall/original sin affects everyone.

As stated, my explanation is as follows:

@AntoineSuarez

God desired “the harmonious flourishing of humankind” and endowed A&E (whether “single couple” or “couple of couples” it doesn’t matter) with special original grace to totally master the inherited evolutionary selfish urges, so that at the very beginning A&E were completely free of sinful propensities (“concupiscence”).

After their first sinful choice A&E lost this special original grace , and as a result the inherited evolutionary urges became sinful propensities within their hearts. Nonetheless God in his mercy decided to give A&E opportunity to repent and allowed them to remain on earth (instead of throwing them to hell).

Thus, for the sake of redeeming all sinners, the earth was destined by God to be inhabited by people sharing sinful propensities and in need of redemption, according to Romans 11:32 “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

In conclusion: The fall/original sin affects everyone coming into existence after the first human sinful choice by A&E, even if he/she is NOT a genealogical descendant of A&E.

As said, in this explanation A&E could refer to a little population (option I prefer) rather than a single couple. In either case, my explanation does not run into the theological problems of assuming genealogical descent from a single couple (GAE).

Now, according to you:

@Christy

I tend to think of original sin and its effects on humanity in corporate, not individual terms.

I have the strong feeling that yours and mine explanation may be equivalent at the end of the day. So I would be very thankful if you could explain more in detail what you mean by “humanity in corporate terms”.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I am on vacation with my extended family this week and have a work retreat next week, but I will try to remember to come back and respond when I have more time.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Christy

I am on vacation with my extended family this week and have a work retreat next week, but I will try to remember to come back and respond when I have more time.

I warmly wish you and your family very happy vacation days!

I feel your idea of “humanity in corporate” can help to elucidate the notion of “relational damage” that is at the origin of this thread, and @mitchellmckain seems to endorse to some extent as well:

@mitchellmckain

For most the fall is an alteration in the relationship with God and the original sin is an event with negative consequences for all of mankind. It is certainly not a teaching that humans were created with a tendency to commit sin but quite the opposite, that human beings were created to do good and sin is a contamination and corruption of that.

So I hope you may find time to respond before the “5 days after the last replay” holding for this thread!

[AntoineSuarez]

@Dale

Little children don’t do any such thing, and if we are childlike before God, we don’t.

After the first human sin children are born lacking the original grace God bestowed to the first image bearers (“Adam and Eve”). Therefore, the selfish mechanisms inherited through evolution become in the children’s hearts sinful propensities and, in this sense, @Klax is right when he claims:

@Klax

What, two year olds aren’t the most violent humans? Because they’re not solipsists at 6 months?

In baptism we receive the grace of Jesus Christ, which is like a seed of righteousness.

If we don’t fight against the sinful propensities, then these “will grow up like thorns and chock the plant”; we will sin and develop “self-destructive habits”:

@mitchellmckain

sin consists of self-destructive habits

If we work to nurture this seed, at the end of our earthly life we will completely master the sinful propensities, and reach a “state of righteousness” even higher than that “Adam and Eve” had when they were created. Then we will really be “childlike before God” and “beloved children of God”, as you very well point out.

I would be thankful to know whether I am interpreting you correctly.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Christy

Yes, it sounds like a workable model for people who want specific correlations between doctrines and history.

So far, the discussion in this thread has brought about a “workable model” of the flood accounting for correlation between revelation and history.

Before this thread may become closed, it would be nice if we could still work out a similar model regarding the transmission of original sin.

I think this could be done on the basis of the following noteworthy statements by @Christy, @mitchellmckain, @MOls, @Kathryn_Applegate, and @GJDS:

@Christy

“Sin” is a judgment, it’s not an objective quality people possess. It only exists in relation to God’s will and law.

@Christy

I don’t believe everyone will choose Christ even when they are standing in front of him, I think some people will choose their own destruction. I think the choices people make in this life to shape our souls and minds will affect their ability to recognize his lordship.

@Christy

I tend to think of original sin and its effects on humanity in corporate, not individual terms.

@MOls

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 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 salvation of all […].

@mitchellmckain

For most the fall is an alteration in the relationship with God and the original sin is an event with negative consequences for all of mankind. It is certainly not a teaching that humans were created with a tendency to commit sin but quite the opposite, that human beings were created to do good and sin is a contamination and corruption of that.

@Kathryn_Applegate’s Essay: Why I Think Adam was a Real Person in History:

“They sensed that God was withholding something from them, and they rejected his right to do so. This was the first sin, the first transgression of the law of God. This first or “original” sin brought death in the form of alienation and eternal separation from God. Brokenness, guilt, shame, isolation, and death—all of these we inherit from Adam as our representative (or as theologians would say, our “federal head”). Adam’s sin became our sin.”

@GJDS

the propensity to err and sin is present in human beings, including children.

@GJDS

all of us need to avoid sin and this is done by avoiding anger, jealousy, envy, murder, etc. Children are innocent until they display and act on these traits.

These statements could be unified to the following explanation:

God desired “the harmonious flourishing of humankind” and endowed A&E (whether “single couple” or “couple of couples” it is not crucial) with special original grace to totally master the inherited evolutionary selfish urges, so that at the very beginning A&E were completely free of sinful propensities (“concupiscence”). “Human beings were created to do good and sin is a contamination and corruption of that.”

After their first sinful choice A&E lost this special original grace, and as a result the inherited evolutionary urges became sinful propensities within their hearts. Nonetheless God in his mercy decided to give A&E opportunity to repent and allowed them to remain on earth (instead of throwing them to hell).

Thus, for the sake of redeeming all sinners, the earth was destined by God to be inhabited by people sharing sinful propensities and in need of redemption, according to Romans 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. The original sin is an event with negative consequences for all of mankind.

In this sense, the fall/original sin affects everyone coming into existence after the first human sinful choice by A&E, even if he/she is NOT a genealogical descendant of A&E: After the first sin in history, the propensity to err and sin is present in human beings, including children. Nonetheless, children are not guilty of sin as far as they do not consciously choose to act following the sinful propensities (anger, jealousy, envy, hate…). In particular, children dying without baptism are NOT condemned to hell. The original sin has effects on humanity in corporate: The individual is affected by it because he/she is a human being coming into existence after the first human sin, and not because he/she has freely and consciously transgressed God’s law.

All humans are bound by God’s love and mercy into “humankind in the image of God”. One cannot define humanity without reference to God’s mercy; it is God’s mercy which constitutes “humanity in corporate” and makes that all human persons are related to each other. To the end that, for the sake of redemption, God is led in his mercy to deprive of original holiness and justice all human persons coming into existence after the first sin. In this sense any sin would have provoked the “state of original sin”, if it had been the first human sin.

I would like to ask the readers of this thread to appraise this “unified explanation” and specify the points where you may deviate from it. In my opinion this would be quite useful and stimulating for all of us.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@AntoineSuarez

Before this thread may become closed, it would be nice if we could still work out a similar model regarding the transmission of original sin.

No worries. If you somehow miss the five day window, all you would have to do is message me and I could open it again with my magic moderator buttons.

[MOls (Michelle Ols)]

There is another side to Original Sin that you likely need to add to your synthesis: namely that sin would not exist if God had not set a standard by which people should live. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, God also gave the Law, and God Himself sets the standard for what is good

Also, there is an aspect to humanity in that we are capable of knowing what is good and what is evil. At some point God enabled people to have a sense of morality. God would have only held humans accountable for sin after people had received the ability to differentiate right from wrong

[MOls (Michelle Ols)]

@AntoineSuarez

the fall/original sin affects everyone coming into existence after the first human sinful choice by A&E, even if he/she is NOT a genealogical descendant of A&E :

This event of Original Sin, or the time of first sinful choice, would also correspond to the point in human history when humanity was first capable of knowing what a sinful choice was

[AntoineSuarez]

Great Christy!

As said, I feel that your notion of “humanity in corporate” is really important to improve the understanding of original sin and its effects.

It would be disappointing if we could not discuss it more in depth. I am keen on reading your post.

[AntoineSuarez]

@glipsnort

I believe your conclusion is correct, but I have not personally looked into the time range over which population genetics can rule out an 8 person bottleneck. You might want to inquire about it on Josh Swamidass’s site (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/ ), since I know he has looked into this specific question.

Thanks for this Steve!

I answer in this thread, because your comment is tightly related to the model of the flood we have discussed here the last weeks. For details see:

@Christy

Yes, it sounds like a workable model for people who want specific correlations between doctrines and history.

I have read the thread What about Noah and population genetics in Josh Swamidass’ site.

Josh calculates that the time range over which population genetics can rule out an 8-person (10-allele) bottleneck (TMR10A) is about 180,000 BP and concludes that these calculations: “strongly falsify the notion that there was a Noah bottleneck of 5 individuals within the last 10 kya.”

Where “5 individuals” seems to refer to Noah, his wife and the three wives of Noah’s sons, which implies 10 different alleles for the people within the Ark and the corresponding TMR10A calculation.

I would be most thankful to know whether or not you Steve agree to Josh’ calculation and conclusion.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@AntoineSuarez

Josh calculates that the time range over which population genetics can rule out an 8-person (10-allele) bottleneck (TMR10A) is about 180,000 BP and concludes that these calculations: “strongly falsify the notion that there was a Noah bottleneck of 5 individuals within the last 10 kya.”

Where “5 individuals” seems to refer to Noah, his wife and the three wives of Noah’s sons, which implies 10 different alleles for the people within the Ark and the corresponding TMR10A calculation.

I would be most thankful to know whether or not you Steve agree to Josh’ calculation and conclusion.

I haven’t checked in detail, but both the method and the conclusion seem quite reasonable.

[AntoineSuarez]

@glipsnort

but both the method and the conclusion seem quite reasonable.

Thanks Steve for this appraisal.

So the crucial question arises about the status of the millions of Homo sapiens creatures, contemporaries of Noah and spread all over the world.

Before the flood these creatures could not be said to be humankind in the image of God and ordered to eternal life, otherwise we would fall into a contradiction:

• According to teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter all humans ordered to eternal life (and thus accountable toward God and capable of sinning), excepted Noah and his family, became a corrupt population and perished in the flood.

• This would result into a bottleneck back to 8-persons at the dawn of civilization, a hypothesis we discard in agreement with population genetics.

The only way to escape the contradiction is to admit that the millions of Homo sapiens contemporaries of Noah that remained unaffected by the flood, were not morally accountable toward God and did not sin.

On the other hand, by discarding the bottleneck back to 8-persons at the time of the flood, we are led to the following important interpretation: By the statement in Genesis 9:7 (“As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth”) God blesses the marriages between descendants and non-descendants of Noah as the means to increase humanity and the kingdom of God.

This implies that the families resulting from such marriages are supposed to be capable in principle to educate their children in order they can reach eternal life, and therefore both father and mother are in the image of God and ordered to eternal life as well.

Accordingly, it is fitting to assume that God’s declaration in Genesis 9:3,5-7 marks the moment when God makes the whole Homo sapiens into humankind in the image of God. In this sense on can say that at the end of the flood God “re-creates” (completes the creation of) humankind.

Do you find these conclusions reasonable?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

[AntoineSuarez]

@MOls

This event of Original Sin, or the time of first sinful choice, would also correspond to the point in human history when humanity was first capable of knowing what a sinful choice was

I fully agree with you!

I would like to add that “the point in human history when humanity was first capable of knowing what a sinful choice was” corresponds to the point when God revealed to humanity that God called and ordered humankind to eternal life in God, made humankind in the image of God.

Could you agree to this?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

A second question:

Christy states:

[quote=“Christy, post:1748, topic:35442, full:true”]

I tend to think of original sin and its effects on humanity in corporate, not individual terms.

[/quote

How does your view of Original Sin relate to Christy’s view?

[MOls (Michelle Ols)]

I think I would agree with Christy’s view, especially in the sense that sin is not some kind of factor that gets passed on genetically. Sin can only occur when the person is capable of differentiating good from evil. Sin also has a corporate impact, affecting a community and can have generational impacts/consequences. I think these ideas are similar, or could be consistent with a federal headship model for Original Sin

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@AntoineSuarez

Do you find these conclusions reasonable?

Me? No. I don’t think treating anything in the early chapters of Genesis as historical in any way is reasonable. But that’s not a scientific opinion nor does this strike me as a scientific question, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@AntoineSuarez

I would be most thankful to know whether or not you Steve agree to Josh’ calculation and conclusion.

I have zero personal interest in Josh’s Adam and Eve model and zero expertise relevant to assessing the science behind it.

[AntoineSuarez]

@glipsnort

I don’t think treating anything in the early chapters of Genesis as historical in any way is reasonable. But that’s not a scientific opinion nor does this strike me as a scientific question, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Steve, I am assuming that you (like me) are committed to the teaching of Jesus Christ and to the data of evolutionary science.

If I am right in this assumption (please correct me otherwise), then you (like me) should treat as historical those passages of Genesis that Jesus Christ treats as historical in his teaching.

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