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

[AntoineSuarez]

@Swamidass

It is still possible that those outside the garden have free will, do wrong, but are not transgressors because they know not of God’s law. So it need not violate the sanctity of marriage on these terms.

Thanks Joshua for this stimulating comment. I am pleased you too agree to “the sanctity of marriage” as a relevant point for deciding about the beginnings of humanity, in accord with Matthew 19: 4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.

This teaching of Jesus Christ seems to imply that marriage was thought for those knowing God’s law.

Accordingly, if one keeps to “the genealogical Adam and Eve”, it seems fitting to assume they were entrusted and empowered by God to announce His law to “those outside the garden” and transform them into bearers of the image, sharing free will and capacity to sin. In this sense “Adam and Eve” were called to act as primeval priests ad become so to speak “the spiritual father and mother” of all humanity.

In any case there may have been a primeval community of people knowing God’s law and capable to sin before the first sin arrived.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

You are worried about the sanctity of marriage in a population that had no concept of marriage as you understand it? The basic concept of marriage, monogamy, is a result of evolution.

According to the teaching of Jesus Christ (Matthew 19: 4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) “the sanctity of marriage” is an explicit commandment of God to the first free and accountable humans (in my view the commandment referred to in Genesis 2:17).

To discuss the beginning of humanity the authorities are primarily Jesus Christ (divine revelation) and observable data (evolution), and not necessarily “Adam and Eve”.

[Bill_II]

@AntoineSuarez

in my view the commandment referred to in Genesis 2:17

A command Adam and Eve could not follow as they had no mother or father supposedly.

[AntoineSuarez]

@gbrooks9

But … if we sin because of the neuro-psychological weakness of the human body, then the vulnerability to sin (even with Free Will) can be passed on, by definition, genetically!

George, once more you surprise me with a very smart remark!

The capacity to sin in each human person emerges at the very moment of her generation by God, that is, the instant when God creates a spiritual principle (“soul”) to animate a piece of “flesh” (biological stuff originating through evolution) and a human personal body appears.

At the instant the “soul” starts animating the biological stuff, the evolutionary “frailty of the flesh” and “selfish tendencies” become spiritual vulnerability to sin (“concupiscence”, in the sense of 1 John 2:16). The “neuro-psychological weakness of the human body” results from the weakness of the “soul” (intellect and will) to master the “evolutionary background” and handle according to the principle of love. But we do NOT sin because of this weakness (otherwise God would be the author of sin, what is absurd), but because we freely decide to sin, tempted by “selfish evolutionary tendencies” (1 John 2:16).

Accordingly, what is passed on genetically is the “selfish evolutionary background”, by contrast the “spiritual vulnerability to sin” emerges at the very moment of the generation of the person.

In this sense what you call “vulnerability to sin” is nothing other than “the stage of need of Redemption” (the so called “stage of original sin”). Hence, the “original sin’s transmission” does NOT happen genetically, it happens at generation.

Actually I am getting the impression that we all basically agree to the preceding points in this post, and the real point of disagreement may be that additionally I support the following position:

Before the first sin was committed, God empowered the human “souls” (i.e.: personal bodies) with so called “original Grace” (“original Blessing” in Albert’s wording) so that temptation could only be of spiritual origin, and sin could only be sin of pride.

Thanks in advance for commenting.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

A command Adam and Eve could not follow as they had no mother or father supposedly.

Unless the command was addressed to a primeval community as prohibition to break the marriage, and stressing for all coming generations that a man should love his wife more than his parents.

[AntoineSuarez]

Joshua, thanks for your ‘like’ to my reply to your post. It is a sign for me that we both may agree in the following Points:

1. It is crucial to distinguish between humanity (as the community of all free and accountable human beings with capacity to sin) and the biological species Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern humans”.

2. Today the difference between Homo sapiens (“modern humans”) and genetically near species (Chimps, Bonobos) is sharp because of the disappearance of intermediate varieties. Thus today being human can be definitely established through the belonging to Homo sapiens.

3. Nonetheless biologically it does not make sense to speak about the first Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern human”. Hence the biological category Homo sapiens or “modern humans” is only well-defined with relation to a population.

4. By contrast it makes sense to speak about the first human endowed by God with free will and therefore sharing accountability and capacity to sin.

5. To describe the origins of humanity principles like the sanctity of marriage are relevant.

These points may shed some light on the vivid and interesting debate you and others have carried in this other thread (Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1) - #786). Dennis Venema in his claims:

@DennisVenema

Most lay people think “human” means us. As I’ve mentioned before, I used it in AatG as shorthand for “anatomically modern human.”

seems inattentive to the distinction in Point 1 above, likely because he is reluctant to introduce “theology” into a supposedly “pure scientific” analysis. The problem is that ignoring this distinction, Dennis’s arguments against a common ancestor of “anatomically modern humans” become arguments against the origin of humanity through God’s intervention. This obviously provokes understandable reactions, not only on the part of OECs and YECs.

You, Richard Buggs (@RichardBuggs), and Steve Schaffner (@glipsnort ) deserve the merit of having showed that Dennis’s arguments are flawed to a certain extent. Nevertheless it may be appropriate that you (and possibly your companions) clarify that you are supportive of Point 3 above (If I remember well, you have declare this in other places). Note that it is precisely this Point 3 that makes it necessary to assume God’s intervention (Point 4) in order to define humanity as community of image bearers, called to be ruled by moral and law and not solely by Darwinian principles.

In summary, to discuss seriously and coherently the question of the origins of humanity one cannot ignore theology: In this respect Darwin’s Evolution is important but at least as important is Jesus Christ’s Revelation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@AntoineSuarez

By contrast it makes sense to speak about the first human endowed by God with free will and therefore sharing accountability and capacity to sin.

@AntoineSuarez (and @Swamidass):

I think you are making things a little cumbersome here. All humanity, in and out of Eden, has free will. What Adam did was signify the arrival of “the knowledge of good and evil” and the Moral Agency which establishes moral accountability.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@AntoineSuarez

Joshua, thanks for your ‘like’ to my reply to your post. It is a sign for me that we both may agree in the following Points:

Not quitel.

@AntoineSuarez

It is crucial to distinguish between humanity (as the community of all free and accountable human beings with capacity to sin) and the biological species Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern humans”.

Absolutely.

@AntoineSuarez

Today the difference between Homo sapiens (“modern humans”) and genetically near species (Chimps, Bonobos) is sharp because of the disappearance of intermediate varieties. Thus today being human can be definitely established through the belonging to Homo sapiens.

Absolutely.

@AntoineSuarez

Nonetheless biologically it does not make sense to speak about the first Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern human”. Hence the biological category Homo sapiens or “modern humans” is only well-defined with relation to a population.

That I’m not so sure about. THough I would said that “human” in theology is entirely disconnected from any scientific definition of “human” (which does not exist any ways).

@AntoineSuarez

By contrast it makes sense to speak about the first human endowed by God with free will and therefore sharing accountability and capacity to sin.

No, I do not agree with this. Genesis 1 - 4 and Romans does not speak of free will. Nor does it say that that free will is what gives Adam the capacity to sin. We are starting from different theological places in our reading of these passages. Scripturally, it seems there is a strong distinction between “wrongdoing” and “transgression,” which comes also from knowledge of God’s law in addition to wrongdoing. Both are “missing the mark” hamartia, but clearly Romans is using hamartia in different ways.

There are many ways to see Adam, but I would tentatively propose saying he was the first of our kind that knowledgeably transgressed God’s edicts. Another way to think of this is that he was first person who is both God Imaged and Fallen (with others being God Imaged, but not Fallen).

In a more neutral way, we can talk about the “first human” who is understood in the theology as we currently understand the human condition.

Such a position seems to be consistent with catholic dogma.

@AntoineSuarez

To describe the origins of humanity principles like the sanctity of marriage are relevant.

Maybe but this seem orthogonal. People might have paired off and acknowledged marriage before Adam (we do not know). Certainly we see similar behavior in some animals. However, it is only after Adam that we find out that it is God’s original plan of creation to have marriage. So does marriage exist before Adam? Maybe, but not as a (in the catholic sense) a God instituted sacrament.

@AntoineSuarez

Most lay people think “human” means us. As I’ve mentioned before, I used it in AatG as shorthand for “anatomically modern human.”

seems inattentive to the distinction in Point 1 above, likely because he is reluctant to introduce “theology” into a supposedly “pure scientific” analysis. The problem is that ignoring this distinction

Totally agree. That is a common error made, not just by @DennisVenema, but also by a very large number of people in this faith science conversation. It is genuinely surprising.

@AntoineSuarez

You, Richard Buggs (@RichardBuggs), and Steve Schaffner (@glipsnort ) deserve the merit of having showed that Dennis’s arguments are flawed to a certain extent. Nevertheless it may be appropriate that you (and possibly your companions) clarify that you are supportive of Point 3 above (If I remember well, you have declare this in other places). Note that it is precisely this Point 3 that makes it necessary to assume God’s intervention (Point 4) in order to define humanity as community of image bearers, called to be ruled by moral and law and not solely by Darwinian principles.

I’d largely agree with that but insist you stop referring to evolutionary science as “Darwinian principles”.

@AntoineSuarez

In summary, to discuss seriously and coherently the question of the origins of humanity one cannot ignore theology: In this respect Darwin’s Evolution is important but at least as important is Jesus Christ’s Revelation

Deleting Darwin, I agree with you.

[AntoineSuarez]

Thanks for your answers, which help me to formulate things more accurately.

@Swamidass

That I’m not so sure about. THough I would said that “human” in theology is entirely disconnected from any scientific definition of “human” (which does not exist any ways).

I totally agree that it does not exist a pure scientific definition of “human”.

My view is as follows:

The “main piece of evidence” entitling me to claim for my rights, and especially not to be harmed, is my specific body, that is a body that can be distinguished cut-off as a human body.

So if I wish to be respected, I have coherently to respect all creatures exhibiting a human body.

Accordingly Humanity means primarily the “life form” whose individuals share in the sense of law and are called to live according the “Golden rule”.

The amazing thing is that this is possible, because Evolution worked in such a way that today there is a clear distinction between the human body and the body of all other “life forms”, even the genetically nearest ones (chimps, bonobos). The “life form” Humanity can be today distinguished from other living forms by observable biological means.

Accordingly, although Humanity is mainly defined as a community of creatures called to live according to the “Golden Rule”, at the moment of implementing this rule and assign rights the “Golden Principle” is the specific human body. Thus the foundation of law can be formulated as follows:

“The human person and her rights are defined by her belonging to the human species. A human individual shares the status of a person, and personhood is inseparably united to humankind. This principle means that the fundamental rights of a person cannot be established by belonging to a subgroup of humankind, be it by race, religion, nation, or political class. Neither can one reduce the rights of humankind to the rights of the present-day generation.” [M&M, 16-1 (2013) 85]

In this sense not only Humanity but also the concept of Species itself cannot be defined by “pure scientific means”: It is motivated by the will of assigning rights coherently and refers firstly to Humanity; only thereafter it is extended to other “life forms”. In the maelstrom of Evolution the concept of Humanity has become totally “biologized” and now is often confused with the evolving species Homo sapiens.

So one has to be careful and not be caught unaware by two pitfalls:

• Trying to define the beginning of Humanity through a biologically sharp beginning of Homo sapiens from a genetic common ancestor (@agauger position, as I understand it).

• Assert that there is no common ancestor of Homo sapiens without clearly distinguishing between the evolving species Homo sapiens and Humanity, and thereby suggest that Humanity cannot have a sharp beginning in time by God’s intervention either (@DennisVenema position, as I understand it).

If one distinguishes between the beginning of Humanity and the (non-existing) beginning of evolving Homo sapiens, then (whichever way one looks at it) one acknowledges that Humanity begins at a time when Homo sapiens already has a large population size. It seems to me this is what you assume in your genealogical model, and it is what I assume in my model with a primeval little community of free accountable human beings (in my view both models fit to the BioLogos principles, and may be equivalent in the end, as I will discuss in a coming post).

Before continuing I would be thankful to know whether you agree to my claims in this post or could eventually suggest how to formulate things better.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

as they [Adam and Eve] had no mother or father

Just like Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:3) !
Interesting, isn’t it?

[AntoineSuarez]

@Swamidass

Scripturally, it seems there is a strong distinction between “wrongdoing” and “transgression,” which comes also from knowledge of God’s law in addition to wrongdoing.

I would be thankful for precise References to Scripture in order to understand well what you mean and answer fittingly.

@Swamidass

but insist you stop referring to evolutionary science as “Darwinian principles”.

@Swamidass

Deleting Darwin, I agree with you.

Thanks for this Joshua.

As I know you, you have surely strong arguments for these claims.

I would be thankful if you could summarize them: This may help me to correct my picture.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

I believe God used evolution for both with the consequence that there is no sharp boundary between non-image and image.

This would imply that “there is no sharp boundary between non-image and image” even now.

This looks like an odd claim!

[Bill_II]

@AntoineSuarez

This would imply that “there is no sharp boundary between non-image and image” even now.

No. Once you get past that boundary there are no non-image humans left. The boundary is not a sharp line of division.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

Once you get past that boundary there are no non-image humans left. The boundary is not a sharp line of division.

If I understand well you claim:

1. There is a moment where God made the last image human. After this moment there are no non-image humans left.

2. There is a moment where God made the first image human.

3. Between these two moments (1 and 2) God made progressively other image humans.

Am I right with this interpretation?

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

[Bill_II]

@AntoineSuarez

Am I right with this interpretation?

No. Image/Non-Image applies to a population not individuals in the population. The percentage of the population that could be called Image Bearers went from 0% to 100% over some period of time. By the time the Bible was written the percentage was at 100% and so it can say we were all born in the image of God. The Bible really doesn’t say anything about HOW we became image bearers so this is really all just speculation.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Bill_II

No. Image/Non-Image applies to a population not individuals in the population. The percentage of the population that could be called Image Bearers went from 0% to 100% over some period of time. By the time the Bible was written the percentage was at 100% and so it can say we were all born in the image of God. The Bible really doesn’t say anything about HOW we became image bearers so this is really all just speculation.

@Bill_II & @AntoineSuarez

We are in general agreement that there are two different creation narratives, If Genesis 1 represents the narrative (with “image of God”) for the pre-Adamites, we can make that “image” a psychological image - - where humanity separates itself from the non-human animals based on humanity having Free Will.

The 2nd narrative, dealing with Adam & Eve, can be even more specific, where the Adamites share Free Will, and the even greater simulacrum from God: Free Will with Moral Agency.

This is certainly something God complains about - - leading up to the Expulsion - - Adam & Eve are now like God in that they know Good from Evil. The one thing he didn’t want them to also attain was immortality!

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@AntoineSuarez

The “main piece of evidence” entitling me to claim for my rights, and especially not to be harmed, is my specific body, that is a body that can be distinguished cut-off as a human body.

This seems like a type of “embodied” claim to universal rights, somewhat analogous to embodied cognition. Though, are we not supposed to respect all creatures? I’d put it differently. We have universal rights and dignity because God values each each individually. Our worth derives from the worth He places on us, not something intrinsic to us, even our bodies.

@AntoineSuarez

In this sense not only Humanity but also the concept of Species itself cannot be defined by “pure scientific means”: It is motivated by the will of assigning rights coherently and refers firstly to Humanity; only thereafter it is extended to other “life forms”. In the maelstrom of Evolution the concept of Humanity has become totally “biologized” and now is often confused with the evolving species Homo sapiens.

I would agree with that.

@AntoineSuarez

Trying to define the beginning of Humanity through a biologically sharp beginning of Homo sapiens from a genetic common ancestor (@agauger position, as I understand it).

That is not what @agauger is doing. She suggests Humanity begins biologically sharply with the Homo genus.

@AntoineSuarez

Assert that there is no common ancestor of Homo sapiens without clearly distinguishing between the evolving species Homo sapiens and Humanity, and thereby suggest that Humanity cannot have a sharp beginning in time by God’s intervention either (@DennisVenema position, as I understand it).

That is the error Dennis made.

@AntoineSuarez

If one distinguishes between the beginning of Humanity and the (non-existing) beginning of evolving Homo sapiens, then (whichever way one looks at it) one acknowledges that Humanity begins at a time when Homo sapiens already has a large population size.

That is just one option. It could also happen before there are any Homo sapiens. But if we take the Genesis timeline, then yes, it would be after Homo sapiens arise.

@AntoineSuarez

It seems to me this is what you assume in your genealogical model, and it is what I assume in my model with a primeval little community of free accountable human beings (in my view both models fit to the BioLogos principles, and may be equivalent in the end, as I will discuss in a coming post).

They are equivalent on a scientific level. Though I am not convinced by your theological overlay. The notion of God deciding to manufacture souls with original sin, by fiat, seems to make Him the author of sin. I cannot understand why He would do such a thing, but perhaps you have a way of making sense of that. I think there are better options, that do not make God an author of sin.

And yes, this is “consistent” with the BioLogos belief statement. There are a large range of views on Adam that are technically within the BioLogos tent. However it is not the preferred view, it seems.

@AntoineSuarez

Before continuing I would be thankful to know whether you agree to my claims in this post or could eventually suggest how to formulate things better.

Hope that helps.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

Image/Non-Image applies to a population not individuals in the population. The percentage of the population that could be called Image Bearers went from 0% to 100% over some period of time. By the time the Bible was written the percentage was at 100% and so it can say we were all born in the image of God. The Bible really doesn’t say anything about HOW we became image bearers so this is really all just speculation.

Bill,
This is a remarkable view!

I think we are basically stating the same with different words. So I put my claims in relationship with yours:

1
You distinguish between the “population of Image Bearers” and the whole population of (I presume) Homo sapiens (or “anatomically modern humans”). The “population of Image Bearers” went from 0% to 100% over some period of time.

I call Humanity the “population of Image Bearers” and claim Humanity went from 0% to 100% of Homo sapiens over some period of time.

2
You claim: “By the time the Bible was written the percentage was at 100% and so it can say we were all born in the image of God”.

I fully agree and would like to refer to Genesis 9:6 as biblical support for your claim: It is at this moment that the percentage becomes 100%.

3
It seems rather obvious that Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:21-24 can be considered Biblical references to the moment when the percentage ceased to be 0%.

It is also obvious for me that according to these Scripture pericopes the descendants of Image Bearers are Image Bearers as well.

4
Interestingly, between Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 9:6 there is another Biblical reference to population as Image Bearers: Genesis 5:1-2.

This pericope can be interpreted in the sense that the percentage of Image Bearers was increasing because God was creating new Image Bearers, who were not biologically descended from the first Image Bearers (“Adam and Eve”). This fits rather well to the episode in Genesis 6:1-4, which on the one hand can be considered bridging Chapter 5 and the account of Noah and the Flood, and on the other hand refers to “Sons of God”, that is, humans in the Image of God who had no mother or father like Adam. This interpretation is supported by Luke 3:23-38, which includes Genesis 5:3-32 within the genealogy of Jesus-Christ, and uses the term “Son of God” to qualify Adam.

In conclusion: Genesis 6:1-4 appears like a clear reference to the period of time when the “population of Image Bearers” went from 0% to 100%.

5
I finish by commenting your challenging claim: “Image/Non-Image applies to a population not individuals in the population.”

I think it contains a brilliant insight but should be formulated more accurately as follows:

“Image applies to both a population AND the individuals in the population.”

This relates to my claim that a population of Image Bearers is a population called to live according to moral judgment and the “Golden Rule”. Thus, it would not make sense calling “Image Bearer” a single individual alone without reference to Humanity.

The Incarnation of God reveals us the dignity of the human body, that is, individual and humanity all in one.

[Bill_II]

@AntoineSuarez

“Image applies to both a population AND the individuals in the population.”

You can say this but the problem is there is no way to identify any specific individual as an image bearer. So it is kind of pointless to add this to my definition.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Bill_II

You can say this but the problem is there is no way to identify any specific individual as an image bearer. So it is kind of pointless to add this to my definition.

You say that the percentage of Image Bearers is 100% at the latest “by the time the Bible was written”.

So now you can identify “any specific individual”, that is, any individual exhibiting a human body, as an image bearer.

Thanks for explaining your objection more in detail.