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

[AntoineSuarez]

@mark_stephenson

Michael Lloyd, in his book, ‘Cafe Theology’, suggests that the death and destruction on Earth before there were ever humans is a result of angelic disobedience. It’s an intriguing theory, and I would ask you not to dismiss it without reading his book.

Many thanks Mark for this thought-provoking comment.

In my view the crucial point of Lloyd’s rationale is the following one:

“There was in other words, a prior fall of the angels. And together with other writers (such as C.S. Lewis, E.L. Masca, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the American philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Stephen Davis), I want further to suggest that the different dimensions of creation are so inter-related that rebellion within the spiritual realm caused a hugely destructive disruption within all the other dimensions as well. The angelic rebellion actually distorted the whole way in which the material creation developed, luring it away from God’s original harmonious purposes, and introducing division, disorder, pain, predation, cruelty and killing, disease and death.” (Café Theology, Chapter 2, Fall, p. 82).

Regarding this “Fall of the angels hypothesis” Michael Lloyd admits: “It is not taught in the Bible as such. It is not official church teaching.” (p. 81).

This notwithstanding, there is a piece of scripture which could be invoked to support the hypothesis to some extent: The story of Job. Here clearly Satan introduces disorder, pain, cruelty, killing, disease, and death into creation.

Regarding this narrative two remarks are of interest:

• God allows Satan to act perversely.

• At the end, all the perverse things Satan produces contribute to improve Job’s love and fidelity to God and to bring an incomparable glory upon him.

On this basis, we are led to the following insights regarding both the degradation of creation and Satan’s action in the world:

1. God allows the wrongdoing of Satan and the evil in creation, albeit he could very well avoid it, because God seeks our salvation and final glory, and the state of degradation of creation (with illness, death, and concupiscence) and temptation by the devil are suitable to this aim.

2. The preceding point 1 is a mystery in the sense that, when evil happens, we (like Job and his friends) are not able to see the final good God is aiming for if we remain faithful to him. Nonetheless, like Job, we have all elements to acknowledge that point 1 is undeniable and confess (Job 19: 25-27):
   I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
   And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;
   I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!

3. It would be awkward that humankind is submitted to illness, death and concupiscence before the arrival of the first human sin: Indeed, before this first sin, humans were not in need of redemption and God could have been blamed for allowing humans to be tempted by tendencies of the flesh God made them of. Accordingly, God made the first humans in the image of God (not to be confused with the biologically nonsensical “the first Homo sapiens”) in a state of original grace, state they lost subsequently to their rebellion against God.

4. The state of degradation of creation since the beginning of the world can be considered a “retroactive” effect of the first sin, even if the first sin comes in time long after the beginning of the world.

5. God takes upon himself responsibility for all the evil resulting from having created us free and agreed to redeem us (i.e. the evil resulting from our sins, included the degradation of creation) and accepts to die on the cross, drinking in front of us the cup of suffering he let us drink, to demonstrate us, that this coup is not poisoned but hides a gem on its bottom (as Cantalamessa once brilliantly stated).

One could still add that the degradation of creation is “evil” only apparently, the same way as random in evolution is purposeless only apparently.

[St.Roymond]

@AntoineSuarez

“There was in other words, a prior fall of the angels. And together with other writers (such as C.S. Lewis, E.L. Masca, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the American philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Stephen Davis), I want further to suggest that the different dimensions of creation are so inter-related that rebellion within the spiritual realm caused a hugely destructive disruption within all the other dimensions as well. The angelic rebellion actually distorted the whole way in which the material creation developed, luring it away from God’s original harmonious purposes, and introducing division, disorder, pain, predation, cruelty and killing, disease and death.” (Café Theology, Chapter 2, Fall, p. 82).

I have to admit that I have no idea who E. L. Masca and Stephen Davis are.
For once I also have no idea where any Orthodox theologians stand on this idea. It is definitely compelling, and I especially like the phrase " the different dimensions of creation are so inter-related that rebellion within the spiritual realm caused a hugely destructive disruption within all the other dimensions as well" as it offers the possibility that though the first rebellion of Lucifer may have been when he realized that God was making humans to be like God, that rebellion could have had time-wise effects all the way back to the beginning; as you note:

@AntoineSuarez

The state of degradation of creation since the beginning of the world can be considered a “retroactive” effect of the first sin, even if the first sin comes in time long after the beginning of the world.

And I like that view of Lucifer’s rebellion precisely because humans were meant to be like God while Lucifer was more a mirror, and he saw that destiny for humans and wanted it for himself, thus “I will be like God!”

@AntoineSuarez

God takes upon himself responsibility for all the evil resulting from having created us free and agreed to redeem us (i.e. the evil resulting from our sins, included the degradation of creation) and accepts to die on the cross, drinking in front of us the cup of suffering he let us drink, to demonstrate us, that this cup is not poisoned but hides a gem on its bottom (as Cantalamessa once brilliantly stated).

I like the view of a mystic I once read that by “dipping into” the sea of evil and suffering that is humanity’s lot Jesus “absorbed” it all and thus when He died so did evil and suffering, but just as with humans who didn’t die immediately upon that initial sin so evil and suffering will also take some time to vanish.

The idea of a gem at the bottom of a cup echoes a fantasy story I once read where the cup – a chalice – was indeed poisoned, but the cure was to drink it to the bottom and swallow the thus-revealed gem. I like that version because it echoes James’ “count it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials”, that the escape from evil and suffering is not up and out but down and through.

@AntoineSuarez

One could still add that the degradation of creation is “evil” only apparently

If “evil” is defined as a lack in what is good, then that degradation is evil!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

There is no Original SIn in Judaism, who use the same Scriptures as we do (At least for this)

Why would this be?

Richard

[Randy]

That’s a great question, and Peter Enns describes that as you say, in his book, “Evolution of Adam.”. I have a lot more to learn about that. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist [now deceased])]

I expect it would be because of Romans 5:12? (I don’t think we would find it in the Tanakh. ; - )

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Does our ability to rationise stop at Pope Paul l?

Just because Paul believed something must we? Did Paul understand Physics and Biology?
Paul also believed that God controlled all things from the disobedience of Israel to the actions of the Babylonians or Pharaoh. I know some people still believe that, but I, for one, do not.

I reckon Paul is turning in his grave. He went to so much effort to be precise and still people get him wrong.

Romans 5: 14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Seems like he did not believe in Original Sin after all. Must have been misunderstood. It was a straight consequence, In with Adam, out with Christ. Nothing to do with it being unavoidable.

Romans is talking about the Law, and its consequences, not the origin of sin.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

There is no Original SIn in Judaism, who use the same Scriptures as we do (At least for this)

Why would this be?

That depends on which definition of “Original Sin” you’re using. At the most basic level, it just indicates the first sin, where it is better rendered as “Initial Sin” – or at least the initial human sin. Judaism just doesn’t put much more significance to that event than to any other sin, and doesn’t consider it to be the origin of all human sin via heredity, and definitely don’t consider it to have made Adam’s descendants to be guilty in any way. They do acknowledge that pretty much all humans sin (the exceptions are exceedingly rare) despite holding that children are born sinless.

The reason that western Christianity has a doctrine of inherited guilt is due to the drift into a legal model of sin and redemption that came to dominate more and more even from before Augustine of Hippo who expounded at length on the effects of the initial sin, constructing the doctrine we call “Original Sin”, a doctrine that carried right on down to and into the Reformation, whether the conservative Reformation centered at Wittenburg or the radical reformation that spouted most notably in Munster. So Western Christianity is very binary, black and white, so everything is either damnable by being sin or righteous due to avoiding sin, whereas Judaism has room for a lot of gray. Eastern Christianity is much closer to Judaism and the closest it comes to a doctrine of Original Sin is that children are born with a nature infected by the disease of sin.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

That depends on which definition of “Original Sin” you’re using. At the most basic level, it just indicates the first sin, where it is better rendered as “Initial Sin” – or at least the initial human sin

No problem here.

@St.Roymond

that children are born with a nature infected by the disease of sin.

That is one definition I abhor. It just isn’t the nature of sin. It is making into a thing.

Yes I know the Western derivations and the ultimate Calvinistic “absolute Depravity” which I also abhor. I was brought up with the Methodist mantra
All have sinned
All can be saved
All can be saved to the utmost.

I have grown to reject the initial declaration as being both unjust and untrue. But, I admit, that is a very human compassion (That I believe God shares)

I reject the Pauline derivation on 2 counts. One being that he was still a Pharisee and his theology is still basically Pharisaic (No original sin) and the second being that I do not think the text is meant to be taken that way.
I am not anti-Paul. I am anti-misinterpreting scripture.

Then again, even interpreting scripture is not an exact science, or something all can or do agree upon.

I think you will find that the thing I object to the most is being told what I must believe

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Romans 5: 14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command

I underlined the critical clause: this isn’t saying that there was anyone who did not sin, he is saying that some didn’t break commandments.

Though the NIV is playing very loosely with the text here, giving an interpretation instead of an actual translation. This is far more faithful to the Greek:

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam”

Paul does not expound on what he means by “sinning like the transgression of Adam”, so the NIV is engaging in eisegesis. A fair argument can be made that it;s giving what he did mean, given the context, but that’s something that should be in commentary, not shoved into the English as though it comes from the text.

So this assertion:

@RichardG

Seems like he did not believe in Original Sin after all. Must have been misunderstood.

Is not supportable from the text, though it must also be noted that Original Sin as formulated by Augustine is as much an interpretation as what the NIV does, or even more, so from that perspective Paul hardly believed in Original Sin because that doctrine is taken from just one aspect of Paul’s view of sin and and redemption ignores the rest; Paul’s view isn’t restricted to just one model.

@RichardG

Romans is talking about the Law, and its consequences, not the origin of sin.

Selective reading much? This is clearly a statement about the origin of sin:

. . . sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

that children are born with a nature infected by the disease of sin.

That is one definition I abhor. It just isn’t the nature of sin. It is making into a thing.

Paul seems to view sin as a thing when he says it “came into the world”, that it “increased”, that it “exercises dominion”, that it “seeks”, “produced”, “revived”, “dwells” – all words that apply to a “thing”.

@RichardG

All have sinned
. . .

I have grown to reject the initial declaration as being both unjust and untrue.

So you believe that scripture can be wrong along with believing that God can be evil – and saying that the scriptures can be wrong is saying that the Holy Spirit can be wrong, which calls good evil . . . and insults a Person of the Trinity.
That is not Christianity no matter how much you want to protest!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

So you believe that scripture can be wrong along with believing that God can be evil

No andno.

I beleive Original SIn to be evil and not of God

God is not evil…But any suggestion that He would subject humans to such an infliction is.

@St.Roymond

Paul seems to view sin as a thing when he says it “came into the world”

Sin does not have to have substance or any physical quality to exist. or even grow. Sin is an action not a disease And it is very much an individual one casued by an indiviual’s own decision.

@St.Roymond

aying that the scriptures can be wrong is saying that the Holy Spirit can be wrong,

The Holy Spirit did not write Scripture. Inspired does not mean dictated, besides it does not refer to Paul. That would be tantamount to Paul saying
I am right because I say so.

So your accusation about insulting the Holy Spirit is not only false it is a gross misjudgement. The only unforgivable sin!

It is not Scripture that is wrong. It is how people interpret it or use it. And i am siry to say that you are not using it properly. Paul’s word are part of a complete teaching and you take them alone and out of context.

@St.Roymond

Selective reading much?

No. You are confusing details with theology. Paul compares Jesus and Adam but you are imposing an understanding of the nature of sin which is not there,

I will repeat

The one thing I object to is being told what I must believe. You do not have that authority. Make your claims by all means but stop insulting my faith and my Christian status.

Richard

[Bucky_Wood]

Since St. Roymond has not replied, I am simply going to take the liberty of correcting some of your ‘quotes’ of his and your replies. You have conveniently altered his statements into straw men. E.g.
He points out that Paul seemed to view sin as a ‘thing’ by saying “sin came into the world”. Then you change the topic to tell us what YOU say about sin. Neither St. Roymond or other readers care about your opinion next to Pauls. You said…

@RichardG

Sin does not have to have substance or any physical quality to exist. or even grow. Sin is an action not a disease

Then you respond to his point about accuracy of the Bible. You dismiss his thoughts with…

@RichardG

The Holy Spirit did not write Scripture. Inspired does not mean dictated

Many of us do not believe in innerency. So exactly how do you have this knowledge of exactly what the Holy Spirit meant, since His inspired communicators may have been mistaken? So…you knew what God meant, while the Apostles were only human and did not accurately communicate His thoughts…
And finally…you seem offended by a reading of anyone that tells you what to believe…

@RichardG

being told what I must believe

Most of us understand the statement of “surely you must believe such and such” to mean that there is a supposition of that belief, not a demand that you believe it.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bucky_Wood

I am simply going to take the liberty of correcting some of your ‘quotes’ of his and your replies.

So tell me. Wnat makes your answers and statements more accurate than mime?

What gives you the right to correct me?

On whose authority do you speak?

Richard

[Bucky_Wood]

@RichardG

Wnat makes your answers and statements more accurate than mime

You altered the essence of the original statement in order to provide a contrived answer. I did not do either. I did not answer his questions, I only properly reiterated his comments.

@RichardG

What gives you the right to correct me?

On this forum, the “Rules” give me the same right to read/respond to you, that you had to read/respond to him St.Roymond

@RichardG

On whose authority do you speak?

I speak on the authority of:

1. The principle of Fairness, where you do not misquote another
2. The constitution of the United States of America and
3. Native intelligence and common sense
   A common debate tactic is to do what you did. E.g., if someone were to say…“as opposed to you, I think that the world would be better if everyone followed God’s message” it would imply that you did not think the same thought. That would not be a fair methodology nor fair to your message.
   I have listed the exact items that you mis-characterized, so rather than ask me again “what did I do wrong”, simply re-read the original.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bucky_Wood

I speak on the authority of

That does not give you authority. That gives you freedom of speech. They are not the same.

If only people would discuss without the need for asserting their own correctness.

As I have said elsewhere

It is not just winning it is the taking apart that counts
(I trust people know the correct version)

Richard

[Elias_Wood (Elias)]

Hi, I was trying to read through these early comments and was struggling to understand something. I am sorry in advance if this is addressed elsewhere; feel free to just link me. I tried to read through the convo but it seemed to devolve into some hatefulness.

It sounded like you in the first post were saying original sin started with adam and eve and was then passed down biologically. In the next couple it seemed like you were saying that the deterioration started at the big bang.

Would that mean Adam and Eve came into a sinful world? If God is good, how could he create something that would immediately turn to entropy (or not good) without sin interacting with it?

I have also long pondered the idea of Adam and Eve being metaphorical beings but if that’s the case not being sure how original sin would’ve originated.

There is also the argument that God created adam and eve in a microcosm of the Garden of Eden and there were others who evolved outside of it and that too just doesn’t make sense, as to why God would do that or feel the need- esp. if he knows everything and knew they would sin?

Not trying to poke holes but am genuinely curious.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Elias_Wood

If God is good, how could he create something that would immediately turn to entropy (or not good) without sin interacting with it?

There are some assumotions here.

1. That entrophy comes from sin
2. That entrophy is evil
3. That the existence of sin could somehow have been avoided (by God)

Try none of the above.

Entrophy or decay is a natural necessity. As soon as something comes iinto existence it will react with the surrounding environment and therefore be affected (damaged) That is nothing to do with sin or evil it is just the way things are.

There is also the existence of self repair or healing. Imballances are corrected. Damage is reduced. But death is the ultimate end for every living thing, That is also just a part of this creation. And it is necessary because without death their can be no new life (to rpelace it) and in many cases the death is a means of sustaining other life.

There is no need to over theologise creation. It is as God intended. It would be ludicrous to think that humanity could just wreck creation (although we are trying to)

It boils down to the nature of sin. Unfortunately there is a wide disagreement here on what that might be (and i am in a minority here) The “popular” version is that sin is both infectious being passed down to all. endemic and unavoidable. Suffice it to say that is not my understandinng. I reject Original Sin. My view is that Sin is a choice, and specifically a choice to go against God (and I am not alone, in the real world)
Clearly your answer will depend on your view of sin, but, if you are going to try and rationalise sin against God’s Love and care it does not make any sense for Him to inflict it on all. The answer here is that Christ is the provided answer, but that means that Christ has to be both known and accepted by all. Christianity may claim that as true, but reality says otherwise.
If you accept the notion that we have free will that must mean that we are free to believe in God or not. If Original sin exists then to not beleive is to sign a death warrant, so it becomes an invalid choice, or at best the equivalent of being told believe or die.
Hopefully I will not be accused of misrepresentation of beliefs.

Richard

[Bucky_Wood]

@RichardG

without the need for asserting their own correctness.

There is a huge difference in one offering to another that he is incorrect, versus saying that he IS correct. I am only offering an observation. I offer no opinion that could be a claim of “correctness”.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist [now deceased])]

@RichardG

If only people would discuss without the need for asserting their own correctness.

Big-time irony there!

[Bucky_Wood]

@Dale

Big-time irony there!

Isn’t that the truth!

[AntoineSuarez]

@Elias_Wood

Hi, I was trying to read through these early comments and was struggling to understand something. I am sorry in advance if this is addressed elsewhere; feel free to just link me.

Thanks Elias for these thoughtful remarks.
I answer them with pleasure and want very much that the “hatefulness” you detect in some comments does not longer appear in this thread.

@Elias_Wood

It sounded like you in the first post were saying original sin started with adam and eve and was then passed down biologically. In the next couple it seemed like you were saying that the deterioration started at the big bang.

In my view, transmission of “original sin” does not mean transmission of a personal guilty but transmission of a state consisting mainly in illness, death, and concupiscence.

The state of original sin results from the state of deterioration of creation, when this is not overpowered by original grace.

Thus, the state of original sin becomes transmitted biologically by DNA replication in absence of original grace.

Adam, the first sinner, was created in state of original grace and, therefore, in Adam, before he sinned, the state of deterioration of creation did not lead to illness, death, and concupiscence, i.e.: the state of original sin. After his first sin, Adam lost original grace and the state of deterioration of creation became in him the state of original sin.

The state of deterioration of creation started at the big bang, but it becomes the state of original sin only after the first human sin.

@Elias_Wood

Would that mean Adam and Eve came into a sinful world? If God is good, how could he create something that would immediately turn to entropy (or not good) without sin interacting with it?

Adam came into a world ruled by entropy, but as long as he did not sin the state of the world should not be considered “sinful” (i.e.: “not good”). Only when the first human sin enters the world, entropy turns to illness, death, and concupiscence affecting human beings, i.e. the state of original sin.

Notice however that even this state is ambivalent: On the one hand it is “not good” because it leads to suffering and temptation of human beings. On the other hand, it is good because it is used by God to give us sinners the opportunity to remain on earth and repent, instead of directly damning us to hell.

In this sense the state of entropy (deterioration in creation) can be considered a “retroactive” effect of the first human sin.