A theological-biological explanation of “the original sin’s transmission”

Faith & Science Conversation
, , ,
575

The translation you propose as the “better” one, is actually the same I used in my quotation:

Now, consider the following question:

When did God decide “Christ’s salvation plan”, i.e.: that the Lamb will be slain for the sins of humankind?

In the perspective of God “outside time” the answer seems to be:

From all eternity, as time did not yet exist.

Now, as you very well state, this cannot mean that humans were “predestined/created to sin” by God.

But then, what does it mean?

You propose:

“humans… would have had to start sinning first” and then “Christ’s salvation plan became operational for all people in history”.

I basically agree, but this should not be understood in the sense that “a human act (the Fall) is the cause of a divine action, God’s decision of salvation”.

In my view the correct way to formulate things is:

God’s decision to redeem us is a consequence of God’s pondering that humans can sin, and it is God’s response to this possibility from all eternity, before sin happens. Thus, if sin happens, the fact that “the Lamb is slain” is not caused by sin, but by God’s will to redeem us:

No one takes my life away from me. I give my own life freely. (John 10:18)

It is important be aware that it is God’s decision what founds reality. All possible decisions humans can make that are relevant for eternal life (the only reality that matters for everlasting happiness!) are present in God’s mind, and God has a plan for each possible decision tree, and all these plans co-exist in God’s mind.

Therefore, the very fact that the world and humankind exist, results from God’s decision to create humans ordered to eternal life. But this decision is concomitant with the decision to redeem them if they sin. Thus, it is also fitting to say that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, very much in agreement with:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. (1 Peter 1:20).

576

I appreciate your point, but am not convinced that God’s resolve and the human free-will decision to sin can be parsed out as you seem to do here. It seems to me that both are necessary?
A father can resolve in his heart to save his daughter should she ever jump into the river, and yet the father will never act on that resolve until-and-if the child actually jumps into the river at some point. Most people (I think) would say that it was the child’s act of jumping into the river that actually caused the parent to get wet.

In other words, God’s plan/resolve is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the act of salvation to actually occur.

1 Like
577

Yes.

In a real sense that contradicts what you just said above, because ‘predestined’, or even ‘destined’ by itself, is a time-based and tensed word (as is all our language) and does not really apply to God.

Those who do not consider, ignore or forget that fact can say one of two things, either that it ‘cannot mean humans were “predestined/created to sin” by God’, as you just did, or they can say that it does mean that we were predestined to sin by God.

And that is where all the contention and vituperative language stems from between Arminian thinking and Calvinism, those who decry a ‘controlling’ God (ignoring his providential sovereignty) and those who are willing to confess an apparent paradox in our four spacetime dimensions, one of which is sequential time, dimensions to which God is not bound and constrained.

578

In my view, to address this question it is fitting to distinguish between God’s perspective from “outside time” and our perspective “in time”:

From God’s perspective, His Father’s resolve to jump into the river “from all eternity” means to get wet “from all eternity” as well, independently of the child’s act of jumping “in time”.

From the child’s perspective, his act of jumping into the river precedes in time the parent’s resolve to jump and to get wet, nonetheless, strictly speaking, also in this perspective “in time” it is “the parent’s act of jumping into the river” (and NOT “the child’s act of jumping into the river”) that actually causes “the parent to get wet”.

The effects God has to bear “from all eternity” for resolving to suffer and die to save me, are caused by God’s resolve, and NOT by my sin “in time”. God’s resolve is inseparable from the act of salvation, and in this sense a sufficient condition for this act. My act of repent is a necessary condition for God’s act of salvation to become efficient for me. My sin is only a necessary condition for me getting damned, and becomes a sufficient one if I do not repent.

And this is what it is meant by:

No one takes my life away from me. I give my own life freely. (John 10:18)

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. (1 Peter 1:20).

And what the Greek Father St. Irenaeus magnificently states:

“For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved [the human race] should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.” ( Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 22 §3).

1 Like
579

Interesting, but now we’re getting into God’s relationship with time, which is speculative, and so it’s not something I want to make strong doctrines around. But if you ask my opinion, I do not think that Jesus existed as incarnated and “slain” in the Godhead from eternity past (as you seem to suggest), but that his incarnation was something new for the Godhead that happened at a fixed point in human history. As an Open Theist, my opinion/speculation is that God relates to his creation in real time, not “outside of time”. Therefore, when God created the material universe (in my opinion) he created the potential for sin to enter world, but it was only the freewill of humans that actualized that potential, and then triggered the incarnation plan when they sinned. However, I think the nature of God is eternally Kenotic Love-- the Trinity pouring out love within themselves, and so this “posture” of self-sacrificial love has existed from eternity past. His plan for salvation may have existed for eternity, but I don’t think was enacted towards creation from all eternity. If that makes any sense?

1 Like
580

Both/and? It’s not something we can get our heads around. God absolutely relates to us in sequential time, for which not inconsequential detail we have much factual evidence. Just within the last couple of hours I was talking to an industry rep about one of God’s real-time interventions in my life almost exactly 56 years ago.

581

In order to clarify what I suggest, I dare to repeat which my axioms are:

  1. The aim of creation is that humans share divine eternal life.

  2. The incarnation plan is necessary in order humans can share divine eternal life, and therefore it goes along with the creation plan.

  3. The redemption plan is necessary in order fallen humans can share divine eternal life, and therefore it goes along with the creation and incarnation plan for the case humans sin.

This said, my suggestion is that the following statements both hold:

  • in “the Godhead” all is “from eternity”,

  • “for the Godhead” each decision regarding human history is new.

So for instance, the decision to create the world and humankind is “in the Godhead from eternity”, although it happens “at a fixed point in human history”. And the same holds for the concomitants decisions regarding incarnation and redemption.

Nonetheless, the decision to create the world and humankind is “something new for the Godhead”, as creation is not something necessary for God to be and live. And the same holds for the concomitants decisions regarding incarnation and redemption.

Please let me know whether you may agree to the preceding claims; then I will comment further.

1 Like
582

Hi Antoine. I can’t presume to understand how a timeless being thinks about how and “when” to create the universe but we seem to agree that the Godhead exists “from all eternity” and that the aim for creation was that sentient, self-aware creatures(humans) could share in a free-will (loving) relationship with God, and that the Godhead chose to create at “some point in time”. It seems that the point of difference between your view of incarnation and mine is that you think that the second person of the Godhead (Jesus) existed as incarnated and slain from all eternity whereas I do not. Do I have your view correct there?

I think the phenomenon of “time” was created when God created the universe and as an Open Theist, think God then experiences and relates to creation through time–via a future that he also experiences as one where not all facts are completely settled, i.e., he leaves space for created free-will agents such as angels and humans to affect the exact course of history–within bounds, of course (as the masterful chess-player he knows how to react to all moves of all free agents to finally achieve his purpose). I think God’s plan for incarnation and salvation was there from the beginning, but that God didn’t decide to enact that plan until humans actually sinned. And, as an Open Theist, I don’t think God knew with 100% certainty that humans would sin when he created (that’s the freewill part). although probably was pretty certain they would…!). Had humans not fallen, I’m not sure the incarnation would have been necessary–I don’t don’t think the Garden of Eden was a literal, historic place–but it speaks of God “walking in communion” with humans in some primordial pre-fall state without specifying that it was humans communing with an incarnated Jesus at that point in time. But its an interesting question for me to speculate about. Had humans not fallen, would God still have chosen to incarnate himself as a human to relate to creation in that way? I guess he could do so if he wished? But for me, this is speculative and goes beyond what scripture can be made to say about a firm doctrinal position…

cheers.

1 Like
583

Yes, in this we find common ground!

My view is that the decision of the Godhead (Holy Trinity) to create humankind goes inseparably along with the decision that the second person of the Holy Trinity becomes incarnate as Jesus, to the aim of making it possible that humans share the divine Trinitarian life, and the decision that Jesus becomes slain in case humans sin, to the same aim.

For the Godhead, this decision is “from all eternity”, although Jesus is born and slain “at some point in time” (about 2000 BP), as you very well state:

I comment now on some quite interesting points you address:

As said, for me incarnation is necessary in order we can share the divine Trinitarian life.

You may ask: why?

Because sharing the Trinitarian life means that I become son of God, i.e.: Christ himself.

But how can this be in order that the Son of God (“the second person of the Godhead”) maintains his identity and I maintain my identity?

This can be achieved because Christ incorporate us in his body, according to:

“so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” (Romans 12:5)

So, the incarnation is necessary in order we can become the body of Christ, and thereby Christ himself, children of God.

This has a number of consequences, for instance:

When God makes the first humans and orders them to eternal life, God is in fact making them in the image of Jesus, and thereby in the Image of God. In other words, it is the body of Jesus, prepared by God from all eternity, that defines the human body. And the other way around: Evolution aims to prepare the body of Jesus and thereby the human body.

Nonetheless, “these first humans were NOT communing with an incarnated Jesus at that point in time”, as you rightly claim.

I like specially your following comment:

This fits very well with my proposal:

When God created the universe, God created a universe that is convenient for both cases: the case humans sin and the case humans do not sin.

Thus, since the very beginning God submitted the universe to decay, which in particular for animals involves illness, death, and selfish instincts (conditions that are encoded in the genome and transmitted by DNA replication), but endowed the first humans with the capability (“original grace”) to master this state of decay.

Thereby humans were perfectly free to sin or not to sin. But if they decided to sin (as they did), they would lose original grace and fall into the state of illness, death, and inclination to sin, i.e.: the state where we are now after the Fall.

This state should not be considered a punishment coming from “God’s rage”, but rather a condition coming from God’s mercy: thereby God let us become aware of our weakness and move us to freely search for God’s help and love.

584

Nicely stated.

I’ve pondered this view before, and been accused of circular reasoning if evolution is correct. But then there was that fellow student who claimed to have determined that God only needed to intervene seven times after the first cell to get humans, so . . . ???

585

Thanks for this comment!

I would rather say that it is your “accusers”, who are falling into “circular reasoning”.

“If evolution is correct” then:

One cannot establish by mere evolutionary biological criteria which creature is human and which is not, as the beginning of Homo sapiens is totally fuzzy. You need some additional principle coming from outside.

So we define “human” on the basis of the bodily differences we can observe today because we have written in our hearts the commandment:

“You shall not kill another human being (i.e.: another creature sharing the same type of body you share) but you are allowed to use animals (i.e.: creatures sharing bodies sharply different from the body you share) for food” (Genesis 9:3, 5-6).

In fact, “the origin of the species” is this very commandment!

So who wrote this principle in our hearts, he did it in a particular moment when he considered that the difference of lifeforms was sharply enough for us to distinguish between humans and animals. And then he wrote also in our hearts the reason for this commandment:

“For God made humankind in the image of God.” (Genesis 9:6)

And this is the same as to say:

“For this human body is the body I have prepared for my Son from all eternity”.

In other words, Genesis 9:3,5-6, is a universal revelation that both, announces the incarnation of God and allows us to define humankind.

586

But evolution still has to arrive at what we call a human being, and if we are made in the physical image of Christ then evolution has to at least teleological, it has to end up with humans sharing 99.98% of DNA. The beginnings aren’t really relevant, the relevant point is the DNA at the time of Christ. So the DNA of Christ is determined by evolution but if we are made in the physical/biological image of Christ then evolution is determined by that image. That makes it a chicken v egg situation where the egg is determined by the chicken but the chicken is determined by the egg.

587

Throw God’s omnitemporallity into the mix and decide ‘which came first’. :slightly_smiling_face: We could talk about logical order though.

588

“What we call a human being” cannot be established by mere evolutionary-biological criteria: In biology there is no imperative for introducing the category of species. It is the prohibition of homicide we carry “written in our hearts” that has motivated us to distinguish between the human species and other lifeforms. And thereafter to define other species to classify and explain the animal world.

We first establish which creatures are human beings and which creatures are not human. And only thereafter we define human and non-human DNA!

In other words, it is important to acknowledge that:

Evolution rests on an assumption that evolution itself cannot guarantee , i.e.: the internal commitment to the principle that humans shall not kill other humans but are allowed to use animals for food. This principle is the basis for assigning rights coherently, and the internal commitment to it is “the real origin of species”.

As far as one shares this assumption, then the scientific attitude is that evolution worked the way it worked to bring about the conditions that make it possible to implement this moral principle. In particular, evolution produced the disappearance of a large number of intermediate varieties to produce the sharp distinction between humans and animals we have today, so that it is possible to clearly establish which creature is human and which is not. The distinct species we have today did not originate only by means of natural selection: it was rather by means of natural deletion that evolution brought about these distinct species, and thereby laid the groundwork for assigning rights.

So far there is no circular reasoning here.

The “circular reasoning” would be to claim that “evolution has to arrive at what we call a human being, because what we call a human being is that at what evolution arrives”. And I “smell” that your accusers are using this type of “reasoning”.

But there is more:

Evolutionary psychology suggests that the internal commitment preventing humans to kill other humans enacts behavioral mechanisms required in order humans can live in big communities. Therefore, it is fitting to assume that these mechanisms appeared in the Neolithic, as this is the moment when the first big cities appear.

And Evolutionary psychology suggests furthermore that such a internal commitment would not have worked if it had rested only upon the fear of being “caught”. It rather comes from the belief that humans are responsible toward some High God, the characteristic belief of so called “doctrinal religions”. This belief was crucial for humanity to develop to the civilized urbane stage we observe today.

At this point noting speaks against unfolding the following theological reasoning:

Why the universal prohibition of homicide by God?

In Genesis 9:6 we are told:
“For God made humankind in the image of God”.

Furthermore, we are told by Scripture:

  • “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14).

  • Jesus Christ “is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn over all creation”. (Colossians 1:15).

  • “so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” (Romans 12:5).

  • Jesus Christ is “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).

If we put together what we know from Evolution and what Scripture tells us, then the “logical order” seems to be:

God decided from all eternity the incarnation of his Son, to the aim of making it possible that creatures share divine eternal life.

Then God from all eternity conceived the body for his Son, and thereby defined the human body.

Then through evolution God formed the human body in the image of his Son’s body, as a distinct species sharply separated from other animal species.

At some time in the Neolithic, God made the first humans “in the image of God”, i.e.: ordered them to share divine eternal life, and called them to live on earth respecting each other.

And sometime later (about 2000 BP) the Son of God, Jesus Christ, appeared on earth sharing a human body, i.e.: the body God had prepared from all eternity for his Son.

Strictly speaking, the DNA of Christ is primarily determined by the fact that it is the DNA of Christ’s body, that defines also the human body. Christ’s DNA was the means by which Evolution formed Christ’s body (the body God has prepared for his Son from all eternity).

589

All species have that prohibition to a large degree, and where there are exceptions humans share them – it was not that long ago that the “other” was not regarded as fully human, which tells us that the prohibition in our hearts isn’t all that strong.

That’s just mysticism, really; when we’re talking about evolution it’s the DNA that counts. Measuring by a prohibition “written in our hearts” isn’t actually useful because it is a weak prohibition that only applies to those we perceive as part of our group.

Evolution doesn’t require any such assumption, it only requires biology. Most humans who have died from other than natural causes have, after all, been killed by other humans. We are very much – like the dogs who bonded with us long ago – pack animals, and have always regarded humans not of our pack as legitimate targets for slaughter. That’s easily checked by perusing discussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where many people, Christians included, advocate for killing them all as a proper course of action (despite the fact that vert few, if any, Russian soldiers have any actual wish to be in Ukraine).

Assigning rights applied only to one’s own pack, an attitude which still prevails among much of humanity. Evolution had nothing to do with changing that, the change comes only from the expansion of the pack to include more than just the people who one knows by name. The pack attitude can be found among anti-gun liberals who think it would be just fine to kill all those who own guns.

So do all the other mammalian species have a belief in responsibility towards some High God? Our reticence in killing other humans is no stronger than that held by other species towards their own.

So evolution in your view is teleological, it has an aim point: the DNA that makes a body human was determined beforehand and evolution had to end up there. This means that God defined the body of the Son with all the detritus and messiness that one would expect from a haphazard process fed by sloppy changes.

This leaves the question of why God would design a body for the Son that gives all the appearance of being the result of a sloppy process including some very obvious inefficiencies. Human bodies aren’t all that great in terms of engineering.

1 Like
590

Nonetheless, in biology there is no imperative for introducing the category of species!

We introduce it first of all to distinguish between humans and non-humans in our daily life:

The motivation for distinguishing is the will to assigning rights coherently, i.e.: by means of the principle that humans shall not kill other humans but are allowed to use animals for food, the foundation of law.

The observable basis for distinguishing is the anatomical difference between the human body and the bodies of non-human animals we observe today. This difference establishes the standard calibration to define what is human. And, as we are told by evolutionary science, this difference is the same as it was at the time of Jesus Christ (2,000 BP), and when God made the first humans in “the image of God” sometime during the Neolithic (< 12,000 BP).

We can establish that some DNA is human only because we compare it with a traceable reference-standard DNA, and to establish this standard we have removed some cells from a body we know is human without having to examine its DNA.

Evolution, like any science done by humans, takes implicitly humans as axiom. In any science based on observation or mathematical reasoning (quantum physics, cosmology, mathematics) you cannot escape “the anthropic principle” at the end of the day.

Evolution, like science, is founded on assumptions that science itself cannot found.

591

Not in terms of biology – biology doesn’t care about rights.

That’s the only one of your three that makes any sense.

1 Like
592

As a matter of fact, we humans have achieved to live in big cities in cramped conditions, under strong psychological stress.

Other mammalian species have not achieved such a thing.

This demonstrates that “our belief in responsibility towards some High God” is an archetype deep-rooted in our collective unconscious, so that “our reticence in killing other humans” is quite strong and, in general, works pretty well!

593

Matthew 1:1 and 1:7:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
….
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

It looks like God has no problem in designing a body for the Son as being the result of a horrible sin of David, a sin that involves murdering a loyal friend and servant after having perpetrated adultery with his wife!

In comparison to this, other “sloppiness” and “inefficiencies” are just peanuts, aren’t they!

1 Like
594

this is an interesting statement…do you think that perhaps our emotions may be a means of determining write and wrong even in a world where man has been corrupted by sin and may not even know it or of Gods law?

I recognize that this is a theological precipice for YECism…it could support the claim that primitive man is not subject to the wages of sin is death in judgment. However, this is another reason why i take issue with the claim that we are living under the new covenant. We know that the apostle says even Abraham was saved by faith in the grace of God.

If primitive man could sin, and God cannot accept sinful beings in his kingdom because even their physical presence is an abomination…then there would be little chance of primitive man receiving salvation as he didnt have the capacity to repent. His consciousness was not one of that kind of ability to reason early on. taht suggests that they (primitive man) were an experiment gone wrong and God stepped in to give them better brains in order to resolve that stuff up (cue adam and Eve in the garden). Strange thing from an all-knowing, omnipotent God i would think.