Thanks to all of you for having formulated the Position you endorse. The debate going on in others threads shows interest for discussing pros and cons of the different Positions I-III more in depth.
On my part I would like to point out some advantages of Position III:
-
It fits to the available scientific data, in particular evolution.
-
Agrees perfectly to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.
-
Respects the core commitments of BioLogos.
-
Is in accord with the Catholic Magisterium, in particular the Declarations of the Council of Trent.
-
Integrates the core teaching of the Fathers of the Church, in particular Augustine of Hippo: “Original sin” has to be explained outgoing from the universal need of Redemption through the Grace of Jesus Christ, and not the other way around. Nonetheless Position III avoids formulations suggesting that “original sin is genetically transmitted.”
-
Incorporates relevant theological thesis as for instance: Anselm’s thesis that “the state of original sin” consists mainly in the “lack of original grace”, and Thomas Aquinas idea that this state also essentially involves “concupiscence”. However Position III also endorses that “selfishness intrinsic to evolution” is an important ingredient of “concupiscence”.
-
Fully respects human freedom: “Original sin” is a state (not a personal trespass) resulting from the first sin in human history and consequently everyone is actually free NOT to sin. This seems to contrast with Richard Middleton’s position.
-
Assumes the main tenet of “Homo divinus” (Denis Alexander, Sam Berry, Graeme Finlay) that “Adam and Eve” were not the progenitors of all humankind, but were the first two human persons (living during the Neolithic) who disobeyed a categorical commandment of God. However Position III avoids transmission of sin by “spiritual contamination”.
-
Assumes the idea of “Relational damage” (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) that in the beginning of human history “transmission of the state of original sin” did not exclusively happen at the moment of biological reproduction. However it links “transmission of the state of original sin” to the first sin of human history and not to sins thereafter.
-
Endorses Denis Alexander’s claim: “there is no need to keep theology in a watertight box, in isolation from the materiality of the created order.”
In summary, Position III seems to be a good basis to promote the view that science is helping us to discover new Revelation truth contained in Scripture, and Revelation is helping us to better understand evolution as a process which lays the groundwork for assigning rights.
Now, assumed that God created the primeval human persons (“Adam and Eve”) by endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free will, the following Question deserves to be discussed:
Was “Adam and Eve” a single couple or a primeval (little or large) human population?
I think it may be interesting to continue the debate in this thread by discussing also this Question.