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

Faith & Science Conversation
81

Antoine, you seem to be following up very well on the position taken by Pope Paul II when he said: "
_Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. But then you also maintain:

Antoine, you are making a good argument why Christianity should abandon the term ‘Original Sin.’ Sin is an action (or thought) taken freely by a conscious, responsible being, and we have good reason for believing that our early ancestors, A&E, committed such an act that was contrary to the will of their creator. So its OK for us to refer to that act as Sin. But as to whether there was a prior period of time where any humans were ‘sinless’, we must depend upon Scripture. Rationality (and the available archeological evidence) would suggest there was NO such edenic period. Modern biology tells us that each Homo sapiens is an unbelievably complex, marvelous creature, but we arrived on the earthly scene with a woefully inadequate moral sense–not quite _a_moral, but in no way an Image of our Creator. As an evolved creature, we were quite an accomplishment. As Genesis has God saying at this point in creation: “And it was Good”. Left out (I believe) was Him saying: “But it is destined to be better”

As an Action, Sin cannot be passed down to future generations. But billions of years of accumulated (evolutionary) information, genetically encoded, can be passed down. If God desires something better than early Homo sapiens, would He throw away billions of years of ‘evolution’s progress’ to start from scratch? I prefer to replace the concept of Original Sin (not clearly expressed in Genesis anyway) with the concept that the selfishness component of creation through evolution results in the ‘brokenness’ we observe in human nature–a brokenness that Christ came to earth to mend.

Yes, we humans are hybrids: creatures of both flesh and spirit. And they to fight with one another. God is not just a disinterested spectator in this contest. Jesus is clear evidence of that.
Al Leo

82

I think this is an interesting point, which deserves to be discussed.

According to your previous postings you seem assume that the creation of the primeval human persons endowed with free will (and therefore capable of being guilty of sin) happened at about 50,000 years ago:

My assumption is that this endowment happened at 3,500 BC.

In either case the primeval human persons with free will were created by God at a time when Homo sapiens consisted in hundreds of thousands (your assumption) respectively several millions (my assumption) of individuals spread all over the earth.

In this context the following questions are of interest:

  1. Were all these hundreds thousands respectively several millions of Homo sapiens endowed by God with free will at once?
    If YES, then the term “Adam and Eve” in Genesis represents obviously all of them.
    If NO, then the endowment with free will was a gradual process and one can further ask:

  2. Did God first endow with free will only a single couple, called “Adam and Eve” in Genesis?
    Or alternatively:

  3. Did God endow with free will a small population like that of a village or little town, and accordingly the term “Adam and Eve” in Genesis represents all of them?

  4. In Case 2 and Case 3, when did God endow with free will the other (hundreds of thousands respectively millions) Homo sapiens individuals?

My position is the following:

  • On the basis of the teaching of Jesus Christ himself I endorse that in the beginning God endowed with free will a small population. “Adam and Eve” can as well refer to this primeval population of persons endowed with free will, or a single couple among these primeval persons.

  • After (some or all of) these primeval persons sinned, God endowed gradually with free will all the other Homo sapiens individuals. This gradual process concluded at the end of Noah’s flood.

I would be thankful if you could express your position regarding Questions 1-4 above.

83

No.

No.

No.

First think population not persons. At what point did the entire population of homo sapiens have free will? Unknown and unknowable. Indications are it was around 50,000 years ago. It happened early enough that human migration carried it over the entire earth.

Can you point me to a verse that shows God used a second special creation to add free will to humans at some point.

I thought your position was the people outside the flood were all endowed with free will at the same time. You know “poof” you now have free will. They didn’t have it before the flood but they did have it after. And being a regional flood it certainly didn’t last a year. More like what, a few days or weeks?

84

The pericope of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6: 2-4.

85

Funny, but I don’t see anything about a special creation here. In fact I see nothing about free will at all. Just sons of God, for which there doesn’t appear to be any agreement on exactly who or what they were. But feel free to read whatever you like into it. For something as important as a second creation I would expect a little better support in Scripture.

Genesis 6: 1-4
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

86

My hypothesis posits the presence (~50K yr. ago) of perhaps a million Homo sapiens whose capabilities had evolved to the point of 'critical mass’; i.e. their brains were much larger (via exaptation) than needed for mere survival, their vocal chords were capable of the range of sounds needed for complex vocal communication, bipedalism freed their hands to achieve great dexterity. At this stage, a couple (not necessarily of opposite sex, but possibly A&E) underwent an as-yet-undetermined epigenetic change that fixed brain circuitry that experience had proved useful (i.e. their brains became ‘programmed’ via a Lamarkian type of evolution). This immediately led to the invention of language, and an explosive interchange of information. It marked the first time on earth that God made a covenant with one of His creatures. He gave them a conscience; i.e. a free will that could override the selfishness intrinsic in their evolved natures.

Once in place, this ‘brain programming’ would perforce spread much more rapidly and widely than any DNA-based positive mutation could have; i.e.faster than through sexual transmission. Strong evidence for this Great Leap Forward exists: belief in an afterlife, skills in painting & sculpture, music etc.–Gifts that accompanied the Covenant.

I can see no advantage of postulating a gradual endowment of Free Will. Not surprisingly, many of the humans with the new gift of Free Will would chose to misuse it. The writers of Genesis wanted to emphasize the magnitude of this transgression by including in Scripture the story of a Flood that wiped out all humankind save the family of Noah. Since there is no credible evidence for such a world wide flood, and since such an action is entirely foreign to a loving Creator, I personally chose to consider the Noachian Flood as pure myth. If my Christian Faith depended upon the historical accuracy of the Flood. it would force me into agnosticism. Ham’s rebuilt Ark has the exact opposite effect on me from the one he intended. Each of us must inform our conscience as best one can, and then respect others who do likewise but with a different result.
Al Leo

87

Dear Al Leo,

I like very much some of your claims and would like to understand better where and why we may disagree:

The basis of my reasoning is that moral evil as such can never be caused by God. I think this cannot be questioned, otherwise one would accept that God can contradict Himself, what is absurd.
This means that if we observe ‘brokenness’ in human nature, there must be a completely free decision on the part of humans at the origin of this brokenness.

Consequently I fully agree to your claim that:

However I further conclude that this primeval divine gift of free will was such, that the so “endowed creature” was not impaired in her/his decision by “selfishness intrinsic” to evolution. This is what I call “original state of grace or righteousness”. In particular in this original state lust was even more intense than now, but it did not create a propensity to sin capable of silencing the voice of conscience, as for instance in case of Kind David.

In other words the primeval persons endowed with free will were entirely free NOT to sin.

All this leads me to conclude that these primeval persons (one couple or a small population) sinned against God, and this first sin in human history is the origin of the ‘brokenness’ we observe in human nature.

However I also acknowledge (like you) that an important ingredient of this ‘brokenness’ is “the selfishness intrinsic in our evolved natures”:

Therefore, to be consistent with the principles I enounced above, I have to acknowledge that the “flaws” intrinsic to the mechanism of evolution (as such not a moral evil) were wanted by God as means to move humans to atone in case they sinned, helping them to realize they cannot be like God without God’s Grace. This state of things is nothing other than “the state of original sin”, which is not an actual and personal sin but a state of “need of Redemption”.

In summary, my view is a consequence of two principles I consider beyond question:

  1. Moral evil can never be caused by God.

  2. Everyone is free NOT to sin.

So I would be thankful if you could express your opinion regarding these two principles to elucidate whether they may be the cause of an actual or apparent disagreement between us.

88

Antoine, I agree that what I have highlighted in your above quote is absolutely true, and so I believe that any disagreement between us is largely apparent, not actual. Perhaps it is nothing more than the question of timing: when did humans receive the gift of “the original state of grace or righteousness” and when did they receive the gift of “conscience & free will”. I interpret the GLF as evidence that Homo sapiens was suddenly capable (by dint of considerable will power) of rising above the selfish, instinctive demands of the kind of evolution that, while it did produce the marvelous variety of life on earth, did so at the cost of great pain and suffering of individual creatures. To the sense of fairness and justice that the GLF imparted to H.s., it seems that God should have given these ancestors of ours enough grace to give them a reasonable chance to exert enough will power to rise above instinct. But if given enough grace to make it a sure thing, then humankind would be just puppets, not free creatures. As the authors of Job were well aware, we will never fully understand God and his justice unless and until we are joined with Him in the next life.

The above argument may be severely lacking in the view of a trained philosopher, but my Ph.D. is of an entirely different sort.
best regards,
Al Leo

89

The pericope of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 is immediately preceded by Genesis 5 with the genealogy from Adam to Noah. This is used by Luke (3:23-38) to establish Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam, and in Luke 3:38 Adam is called “son of God”.

This a clear confirmation through the New Testament that the “sons of God” referred to in Genesis 6:2-4 were humans created by God the same way as Adam was created, that is, through endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free-will. Accordingly this endowment was still happening at the age of the Flood.

In this perspective the whole narrative of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) acquires the meaning of a “second creation narrative” describing how the Creation of humanity is completed and the new world emerges from the ancient one. This is clearly signified by Genesis 9:3-13, which reports God’s covenant with Noah concerning the whole humanity: It is “a covenant for all generations to come” and the rainbow “will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth”; and for the first time God definitely proclaims the prohibition of homicide and links it to the fact that mankind is made in the image of God.

90

That’s not the way I read it.

Genesis 6:1
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful

You have men, which I take to mean us humans, having daughters, which I take to mean us humans. Both of which should have free will as descendents of Adam. No mention made of people born outside the line of Adam. Now add the special class of “sons of God”, for which there is no clear agreement on who or what they are. And what do you get? Whatever you want I guess. And BTW, the offspring of the women and sons of God appear to be the people that are going to be destroyed in the flood, correct? I thought you were suggesting these people where outside the scope of the regional flood.

The OT is blind to any people living outside of the ANE.

Genesis 9:8-12
Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:

So God established his covenant with Noah, HIS descendents and every creature that was on the ark. No mention made of the rest of the world. It is clear from a plain reading of this text that the covenant was between God and Noah.

Now if you want to expand this covenant to include all of humanity you can do so, but don’t use that expansion as a reason for coming up with your second special creation of free will on humans that aren’t even mentioned in the text. Not when there is a simplier explaination, modern humans have always had free will.

91

The “special class of ‘sons of God’” is highly relevant to understand Genesis 1-11. From the context it follows that the “sons of God” referred to in Genesis 6:2 and 4 were undoubtedly human beings (not angels), since they interbred with the “daughters of men” and had offspring with them.

Additionally (“interpreting Scripture with Scripture”) they are called “sons of God” the same way as Adam is called “son of God”. From this it follows that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are created the same way as “Adam” is created in Genesis 1 and 2. And this means (in the light of today’s science) that both, Adam (Genesis 1-2) and the “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2-4), originate from Homo sapiens creatures which were endowed by God with free will, that is capability of deciding by their own to love God or reject Him.

In summary, it becomes clear that in Genesis 6:2-4 “mention is made of people born outside the line of Adam”: Today’s evolutionary science help us a great deal to interpret coherently Genesis 6:2-4, the likely most enigmatic pericope in the Old Testament. For me this is a strong sign that both Science and Scripture come from the same Mind![quote=“Bill_II, post:90, topic:35442”]
And BTW, the offspring of the women and sons of God appear to be the people that are going to be destroyed in the flood, correct? I thought you were suggesting these people where outside the scope of the regional flood.
[/quote]

Truly enough: The offspring of the women and sons of God were people that became destroyed in the flood. I am not suggesting at all they “were outside the scope of the regional flood”.

Nonetheless Genesis 6:4 states: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward”. Whether the term ‘Nephilim’ refers to the “sons of God” or their offspring, the verse undoubtedly means that also after the Flood there were people born outside the line of Adam.

Taking account of all this, my theory about the Flood states the following:

Outside the region where Noah and his family dwelled (“the scope of the regional flood”), and spread all over the earth, lived (about 14 millions) Homo sapiens creatures, which were not endowed with free will, and in this sense were not in image of God:

  • Before the Flood a number of these creatures (likely living in the region around Gobekli Tepe) were endowed with free will by God and created in His image: these were the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2, who went to the region where Noah’s family lived and interbred with women in the line of Adam. All these “sons of God” and their offspring went destroyed in Noah’s Flood.

  • At the end of Noah’s Flood all Homo sapiens creatures living outside the scope of the Flood were endowed by God with free will and thus created in His image: These new humans in God’s likeness and their offspring are the “Nephilim” referred to in Genesis 6:4 by means of “also afterward”.

In conclusion, since the end of Noah’s Flood all humans living on earth are in God’s image and in this sense the Flood account describes how the Creation of humanity comes to completion. This is clearly signified by Genesis 9:6, where for the first time God links the prohibition of homicide to the fact that mankind is made in the image of God and anticipates the proclamation of the 10 Commandments to Moses in Mount Sinai. God’s covenant with Noah, like that with Moses, concerns the whole humanity and not only “people born within the line of Adam”.

I hope this clarifies my position and thank you for the opportunity to meet a possible misinterpretation.

92

This is far from “a clear confirmation.” I think it’s more likely, considering that Hebrew ‘son’ also meant ‘descendant,’ that the Sons of God referred to Adam’s line, and daughters of men referred to all the other humans from Gen 1:26 created in God’s Image, who were told to spread out over the earth and multiply.

93

Sorry but I doubt it so the “undoubtedly” is far from assured. And you said earlier that the Nephilim weren’t important. You were going on the sons of God aspect. This little section of Genesis suffers from a wide range of interpretation. For something as important as a special act of creation I would expect to find a little better support.

And yet Cain clearly knew that homicide was wrong as he was afraid of the consequences.

You want to use some of the evidence of history to support your theory but you have never addressed the full extent of what history tells us. Modern humans have been around for at least 50,000 years. The behaviors exhibited by these modern humans are no different from what we see today. They believed in an after life. They believed in a greater power. They had a sense of law. They built temples. They had all the earmarks of having been created in God’s image. Why do you feel the need to build a story for a second special creation?

94

Genesis 6:2-8 should be considered the end of the section beginning with Genesis 5:1 [Wenham, G.J. p. 164]. In the light of Genesis 5 it is plain that your interpretation regarding “sons of God” is not appropriate, but regarding “daughters of men” is very fitting:

Regarding “sons of God”:

If the author of Genesis 6:2 had wanted to refer to Adam’s line, he would have used the term “sons of Lamech” (Genesis 5:30). The term “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2) means fathered by God (generated by God’s will), in the same way as the term “sons and daughters” of Seth, Enosh,…Methuselah, Lamech (Genesis 5:7,10,26,30) means fathered by Seth, Enosh…Methuselah, Lamech (generated by Seth’s, Enosh’s…Methuselah’s, Lamech’s will).

On the other hand the same term “sons of God” is used in other pericopes of the Old Testament for the angelic court surrounding Yahweh (Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 38:7), and 2 times in the book of Job it is even used for the fallen angel Satan (Job 1:6 and 2:1).

From this it follows that the term “sons of God” in the Old Testament has to be interpreted in the sense of personal beings created by God independently of any creature’s decision, and in this sense it is apt to describe angels (holy and fallen ones), Adam, and the human “sons of God” referred to in Genesis 6:2,4.

Notice that my claim about “clear confirmation” refers to Luke 3:23-38, which was written in Greek. Luke is using Genesis 5 to trace Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam, and he calls Adam “son of God” clearly in the sense of “fathered by God”. By contrast, names different from Adam in Luke 3:23-38 are called “son of someone”: “son of David”, “son of Abraham”, son of Noah” etc. This confirms that the term “son of God” applied to humans means human persons who are fathered by God independently of any creature’s decision and therefore cannot be called son of another human person.

Regarding “daughters of men”:

By using this term the author of Genesis seems to highlight that the population living around Noah did not consist only of people descended from Adam, as you very well suggest. This may mean that at the time when God created Adam, He also created other human persons the same way, that is, by endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free will. All these primeval persons are referred to in Genesis 5:1 and, like Adam, they could also be called “sons of God” and subsumed in Luke 3:38. Accordingly, “daughters of men” refers to women descended from these primeval persons (Adam and others), and their marriages with the “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2) ratify that these characters were human beings.

In conclusion also your interpretation confirms that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 were humans created by God the same way as Adam was created, that is, through endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free-will. Accordingly this endowment was still happening at the age of the Flood.

95

That was not my interpretation.

96

I fully agree to what you say.

If we share the two principles you highlight, then the disagreement is mainly a question of the “timing”: I propose about 3,500 BC (when we find evidence for writing and sense of law) and you propose the GLF “about 40K yrs ago”.

So in any case it seems we agree also in the following:

It is certain that humans received from God the gift of "conscience & free will” and “the original state of grace or righteousness” not later than 3,500 BC.

Now you claim that this occurred before for a number of reasons. So it would be very valuable for our search to discuss your arguments more in detail.

Another important question you indirectly raise is what may be the meaning in God’s plan of:

I think it may be also useful to discuss this issue in coming postings.

97

You are right. I formulate my claim more accurately:

Your interpretation regarding the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 cannot be considered appropriate in the light of Genesis 5 and other pericopes of the Old Testament (Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6, 2:1,38:7).

By contrast your interpretation regarding the “daughters of men” is fitting and supports my interpretation that the “sons of God" referred to in Genesis 6:2-4 were humans created by God the same way as Adam was created, that is, through endowing Homo sapiens creatures with free-will.

98

What I said earlier is this:

By this I mean that to unravel this pericope we have primarily to understand what the term “sons of God” means. But when this is done then the “Nephilim” become also highly relevant because of the parenthetical remark “and also afterward” in Genesis 6:4: This remark implies that also after the Flood there were “sons of Gods”, that is, humans created in the image of God as Adam was created.

Agreed.

Nonetheless I am showing that in the light of evolution, the Old Testament (Genesis 5, Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6, 2:1,38:7) and the New Testament (Luke 3:38) the correct interpretation is that referred to above (human beings created in the image of God the same way Adam was created).

Genesis 1-11 is a good demonstration of 1 Kings 19:11-13: God often conveys his messages in “gentle whispers”, and we risk missing them if we believe they have to be accompanied by storms, earthquakes and fires (see Silence and Evolution by @jstump). And the amazing thing is that some of His messages in Scripture we can decipher only today thank interpretation keys we get through science: Genesis 6:2-4 is paramount. But in my view another example is Melchizedek as a non-adamic human person (this may also be of interest for @Swamidass, @Socratic.Fanatic @Jon_Garvey @Christy).

Cain was taught by God tat killing Abel would be wrong and a big sin (Genesis 4:7). However after Cain sinned God curses him with the words: “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground” (Genesis 4:11), and not with the words: “from each human being, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being” (Genesis 9:5).

In this sense Genesis 9:3-17 proclaims that the creation of humanity (creation of humans in the way Adam was created) was achieved.

99

@Christy
Different claims by Christy in another thread (already closed) are highly relevant also for this thread and it may be useful to compare them to the principles that have been highlighted here in preceding postings:

Quote by Christy:
I understand spiritual monogenesis to mean that one human pair was initially given immortal souls that were corrupted by sin and this spiritual corruption was inherited by all their offspring.

I find this statement quite fitting. Nonetheless I think one should also explain which was the fate of the other (presumably hundreds of thousands or millions of) “humans pairs” (Homo sapiens creatures) that were not given immortal souls and lived at the same time as those who “initially” were endowed with “immortal souls”. When were they given immortal souls?

Quote by Christy:
Many people link spiritual inheritance with biological ancestry. Some traditional teachings on original sin and the fall do require this belief.

As we have seen the core of the teaching of St. Paul, Church Fathers like St. Augustine and theologians like St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas are the following three principles:

  1. To reach Salvation humans require Redemption by Jesus Christ.
  2. Moral evil can never be caused by God.
  3. Everyone is free NOT to sin.

These are also the key principles of the Catholic papal Magisterium and the Council of Trent. It seems to me that they are the basic principles endorsed by BioLogos, What we believe as well.

It is true that certain formulations of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas seem to link “inheritance of the primeval spiritual corruption of souls” with biological ancestry, but this is not essential to their teaching. As Pius XII declares in the encyclical Humani generis such a link should be maintained only if otherwise one could not explain the universal need of Redemption. In other words what is crucial and unquestionable is that all humans are in need of Redemption.

Quote by Christy:
Other traditions, including my own, teach that although “the fall” (human sin and rebellion entering the world and corrupting relationship with God) was a real historical event in redemption history, humans do not inherit Adam’s guilt. Rather they are born into sinful human community and identity (they have a “sinful nature,” a human propensity to sin and disobedience), but all humans by their own free choice sin against God and are held accountable for their personal rebellion.

I fully agree to the first part of this quotation:
“the fall” (human sin and rebellion entering the world and corrupting relationship with God) was a real historical event in redemption history.

However the second part requires careful analysis:

If by “humans do not inherit Adam’s guilt” one means that humans cannot be personally held accountable for Adam’s rebellion against God the same way as Adam was, then I fully agree, and as far as I know all Christians traditions agree in that: Suppose that after sinning Adam had died without atonement; according to Christian faith he would have been condemned to hell. By contrast Christian traditions professing that infants are conceived in state of original sin have NEVER professed that infants deserve eternal damnation if they die without Baptism.

Similarly I fully agree to the claim:
“Rather they are born into sinful human community and identity (they have a “sinful nature,” a human propensity to sin and disobedience)”.

By contrast I am less enthusiastic about the last claim:
all humans by their own free choice sin against God and are held accountable for their personal rebellion.

The reason is that here is assumed that:
Humans are NOT free NOT to sin: Either everyone is predetermined to personally sin, or sin propagates from sinners to innocents necessarily like sort of spiritual contagion.

And this is contradiction to Principle 3 above.

So, if we want to keep to this Principle 3, then we can’t help accepting that the first sin in human history is the reason why humans have a “sinful nature,” and “a human propensity to sin and disobedience”. And this is the core of the traditional teaching about “the state of original sin”. By the way, the first sin of humanity was not necessarily identical to the sin of the first human pair endowed with immortal soul.

Now how can “the spiritual inheritance” of the corruption caused by the first sin become transmitted to the “immortal souls” of humans of all times?

Well, after “the fall” God was faced with a choice between these two alternative worlds:

  • Send those who sin immediately “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), so that only righteous people remain on earth.

  • Let the sinners in this world to move them to atone, and then organize things so that all people on earth (the sinners and the righteous) share “a human propensity to sin and disobedience”, that is, have immortal souls that are not endowed with the original grace the primeval human souls initially had.

Apparently God chose the second possibility and according to Romans 11:32: “bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” These words define very accurately what transmission of original sin means: It is a consequence of the first sin wanted by God in His mercy in order to make Salvation possible for all. In this sense it is important to stress that the real cause of the “propensity to sin and disobedience” humans are born with, is the first sin of humanity and not God.

100

I think humans are free to not sin. But I also think all humans, in their freedom, will choose sin because of their sinful nature. And I agree sin is a human responsibility not something we can pin on the way God created us. But I don’t think we can pin it on Adam and Eve’s failure either. We each bear full responsibility and guilt for our personal abuse of our freedom and failure to be faithful images of God.

I feel that your explanation leaves out the fact that in some real way, we are all Adam and Eve. Had Adam and Eve never sinned and we had been born free from any inherited or communally contracted sinful nature, each human individual would still make the same choice they did. (It took God incarnate to show humanity how to live justly under God’s rule.) I think that this is the all-important fact is what we are to take away from Genesis 2, and it is why I’m not overly concerned about whether or not Adam and Eve are historical people or mythological people or how everyone got immortal souls. I think their role in Scripture, whatever their historical status, is to provide an archetype and teach a truth about how all people respond to God’s rule and authority.

5 Likes