Thanks George for your enthusiastic and at times even lyrical review of my article.
I would like to give some supplementary information about the genesis of the article:
The article you have read is the attempt to present my theory to a Forum of Catholic Theology, and show that what I say fits well with the Teaching of the Catholic Church and the Magisterium of the Popes.
However, my explanation about the “transmission” of original sin was first published in “Science & Christian Belief”, a Journal committed to Evangelical Christian Faith, after a long and critical review, where I have learned a lot:
Can we give up the origin of humanity from a primal couple without giving up the teaching of original sin and atonement?
ANTOINE SUAREZ
S & CB 27 (1)
April 2015
I am indebted to the Editor Keith R Fox (Professor of Biochemistry, University of Southampton, UK) and the Reviewers for their serious work.
And the fact that I am writing here today comes to pass because Michel Murray (Templeton Foundation) has read my articles and brought me in contact with Jim Stump and Brad Kramer.
So I am confident that the audience of BioLogos will enjoy the articles as you apparently do.
My explanation is certainly inspired in the “Relational damage” model by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, but also in the “Homo divinus” model with “federal headship” as supported by Denis Alexander, Sam Berry and Graeme Finlay [see my article in S&CB].
However in my view, these two models have the following awkward consequence of “spiritual contamination”:
At any time in history, the sin of anybody propagates to everybody living at this time and thereafter.
My theory aims to overcome this consequence.
As you very well state the key for my explanation is the principle St. Paul formulates in Romans 11:32, which applied to the “original sin” means:
After the first human sin (which is not necessarily the sin of the first human person), for the sake of redeeming all sinners, God generates any new human person in the stage of “need of Redemption” (the so called “stage of original sin”).
I am convinced that Romans 11:32 allow us to find an account which fits with both, the Teaching of the Catholic Church (St. Paul, Council of Trent, and Papal Magisterium) and the Evangelical Faith (as for instance presented in Biologos, What we Belief), and this would be a Great Leap Forward in the effort of giving a consistent account integrating Science, Scripture and Theology.
Therefore I think it is worth discussing the meaning of Romans 11:32 in this Forum.
You report “the most mysterious experience” you had while reading my paper. I guess that my words somewhat conveyed to you my experience of feeling God’s presence not in “a monastic cell” (where I have never dwelt), but in a quantum lab or in Darwin’s Down House:
My theory is very much based in my experience as quantum physicist and philosopher. I have the “amazing grace” of having shared friendship with two scientific geniuses: John Bell (quantum nonlocality) and Ernst Specker (quantum contextuality). My work is very much inspired by their theorems, which have led me among other results, to the astonishing insight that the “Many-Worlds” theory can be formulated to account for Divine Omniscience (see this recent comment in Nature). In the quantum lab run by Nicolas Gisin and Hugo Zbinden at the University of Geneva I have often felt how the tapestry of God’s mind underpins the whole world from outside space-time, and can be considered weaved by spiritual entities (Quantum angels!).
Furthermore my explanation of Original sin is based on the emerging view on Evolution I describe in my Essay. And this view is very much inspired by the work of outstanding scientists like Richard Durbin, Mark Thomas, Chris Stringer, and not least Richard Dawkins.
I like your comparison of my account on Original sin with “the sheer drama of falling from the pinnacle of Solomon’s Temple” and being saved from destruction by a tapestry of God’s mind. It is the dramas we all experience here in this unique BioLogos blog in our common endeavor for understanding how God’s Word in Scripture and God’s Word in Nature match one another.
But you can be trusted: the devil was right when he argued to Jesus: “He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone” (Matthew 4:6). The devil was well aware of the quantum nature of the world (in Scripture even what the devil says are inspired words!). And Jesus didn’t contradict him but only retorted that we should not put God to the test for the sake of pride. Here we all are committed to humility and love. So God will command His (quantum) angels for guiding us to a “cushioned landing”.