Thank you @Christy. I will look over this. 
Thank you @AdCaelumEo! It makes a lot of sense! I appreciate it! 
Wow! I find your propositions very interesting! @nobodyyouknow
I am literally blown away! Literally! 100%
1 Like
Thank you @AMWolfe! I will go deeper unto that!
Thank you for the insights!
1 Like
Hi Justine! This is a very good question. Most replies come from a different Christian Tradition. Mine is Catholic. So, I thought my perspective could also contribute in your personal journey.
My answer is we fall from Godâs presence because we are born into a world of damaged relationships.
Relationality is at the core of understanding the universe since God is Relational (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
But this answer depends on how I see and understand what sin is. And this is simple. Sin is the absence of love.
Why?.. Saint John insightfully says âGod is loveâ. And if we believe in the Genesis account, which is a narrative poem answering the ultimate question who are we as humans and what is our vocation, weâre made in Godâs Image. Which means weâre called to be-love.
So, what do I mean by love?
In my life every experience of God has been a relational one. Everytime I was a gift of myself to others, I experienced God. I learned that being love is to be a gift of yourself, just as God gives Himself fully to us.
Joining these thoughts, sin as the absence of love mirrors the absence of self-giving relationships. As humans, weâre the only species of Earth capable of perceiving God and understand the importance of relations of self-giving love to experience God, even through nature. Therefore, instead of nurturing those relations and somehow bring the entire universe into Godâs bosom, we began thinking toward ourselves, in that âIâ forgetting every âotherâ.
From a certain point in our path of self-awareness we became self-centered selfs and every human borns into a world of damaged relationships through the absence of a life-changing experience of love as total-self-giving.
So, where I am getting at?
Sin entered the world the moment we realized our calling was to be-love and decided to be something else. This is why the coming of God in Jesus is of paramount importance because in Him we move into the right path of being-love. Iâve always thought if Jesus saves us⌠from what? Why do we need saving? What does He save exactly? I was walking toward the subway reading a paper by Ian Barbour and there I found the answer. Jesus saves relationships!
All this is fully coherent with an evolutionary perspective of the world. First, Sin is not a scientific question, but a theological one. And since the Genesis account is a theological account where we constantly find deeper, and deeper levels of understanding what makes us human, itâs inexhaustible in scope and unfathomable in its mysteriousness. Itâs the Word of God! I couldnât expect any lessâŚ
3 Likes
Thank you @michaelpanao! That is an interesting view!
1 Like
Stepping into controversial territory here, so forgive me if some toes get stepped on âŚ
OT scholar Bruce Waltke points out that the result of the union of the clay and the breath of life in Gen. 2:7 was that man became a nephesh hayya, or âliving soul.â In Gen. 1:24, when the earth brings forth âliving creatures,â the Hebrew is the same, nephesh hayya, as that translated âliving soulâ in 2:7. There are many other texts (Gen. 6:17, 7:15, Ezek. 1:12, Isa. 31:3, etc.) that indicate that animals also owe their life to the âspiritâ or âwindâ of God. The divine breath animates all physical life â both man and animal are nephesh hayya, âliving souls.â To have the âbreath of lifeâ is simply to be alive (Job 27:3), not to be indwelt by the Spirit or bestowed with an immortal soul.
2 Likes
Many Reformed theologians in the past postulated a covenant with Adam (covenant of works, covenant of creation, etc.), but Anthony Hoekema, in his 1986 book Created in Godâs Image, outlines various reasons why this is not the case, the most obvious one being that Scripture itself does not call it a covenant. I think even most covenant theologians today have come to agree with him.
As for the second part, many (if not most) theologians view the Garden of Eden episode as, variously, a âtestâ or a âprobation,â but it is my judgment that these categories are being read into the text, not derived from the text. Genesis 2:16 says simply, âAnd the Lord God commanded the man, âYou are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.ââ This is a straightforward statement/command that does not at all fit the category of a test. It is comparable to a parent telling a child: âDonât eat raw chicken, for it will kill you.â or âYou are free to play in the yard, but you must not play in the street or you will get run over and die.â Just as parents donât say things like this to their children as a test, waiting to see if they will violate it, God did not say this to Adam as a test, waiting to see if he would pass and thereby âearnâ eternal life.
My 2c
2 Likes
Jay, your comment makes perfect sense to me, who sat under DR. Walktkeâs teaching many, many years ago.
Unfortunately, your post goes against the system Nobodyyouknow is proposing on this website. If I understand the system correctly it eschews any information not available from English translations of the biblical text.
I missed that aspect of @nobodyyouknowâs thinking, but since he is actively rethinking some of his other positions, perhaps that one is amenable to change, too. The domino effect, so to speak
Hi, @jhmulig. I have a bit of a different explanation for the question youâve asked: âHow do we explain the entry of sin into the world (i.e. fall of man) in a theistic evolutionary perspective?â I hope you mean it when you say that any answer will help!
As a practising cataphatic Christian mystic, and as a fan of the hard sciences and the neurosciences, I started asking God about the questions of sin and suffering, and the answers I got back have all related to the way in which our DNA is structured to allow temporary (i.e. human) experiences of error (sin) followed by permanent insights into the meaning of free will, forgiveness, Divine Love, redemption (as opposed to salvation), courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion.
This relates to metaphysical questions about the soul and the way in which our souls are interwoven in our DNA blueprints to allow these difficult but transformative experiences.
This leads to further questions about baryonic matter (the stuff of life on Planet Earth) and how other forms of Godâs creative energies (e.g. dark matter, dark energy, magnetism, gravity, etc.) relate to our temporary human forms (which are made of baryonic matter) and our permanent soul consciousnesses (which, I suspect, are linked to dark matter through Godâs multiple quantum fields).
But if you accept the idea of the immortal soul in combination with Jesusâ teachings on forgiveness and love, then itâs not so hard to understand why God might have allowed our DNA to include the coding for our colossal ability to make mistakes.
Itâs only when we make grievous errors, then go through the stages of recognizing, forgiving, and healing our errors (within our human limits, of course) that we come face to face with the true immensity of Godâs courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion. Itâs, well, itâs an experience that can only be felt and deeply understood after youâve walked a mile in these shoes. (And this may explain why we see Jesus walking and walking!)
I feel quite certain that many of Godâs many children are able to achieve these insights without incarnating as human beings and slogging through all this confusion and pain. But I rather suspect itâs Godâs impatient bunch of children who insist on doing things the hard-but-fast way!
Blessings to you now and always.
1 Like
Interesting discussion. I wanted to give my view of what being created in the image of God means. Seeing that the very nature of God is love (1 John 4:8) I feel that Genesis 1:26 is referring to humans being created with the capacity to show unselfish love, self sacrificing love. Humans can rise above their instinctual desires for self preservation for example in helping others. And perhaps the capacity for spituality.
Colossians 3:10 links Godly qualities with us being made in the image of God and Jude 19 mention some people being animalistic following their natural instincts and having no spirituality (most translation say ânatural instinctsâ.
So perhaps sin in the inherited propensity to follow our more animalistic natural instincts rather that our spiritual godly capacity. And maybe with each generation its becoming stronger.
Or weakerâŚ
Yes, natural desires becoming stronger, love and spiritual capacity growing weaker.
By the way, Steve, I see you are new here. Welcome to the forum. We look forward to getting to know you better and hearing your thoughts. If you need any help with posting issues etc, just message the moderators. Info is posted that will help you in that also. Most of us do not bite, and those that do have had their shots.
I donât think it is clear here that âsin lieth at the doorâ means grain offerings is a sin. I think in saying âsin lieth at the doorâ is saying, sin is waiting for you to open it and will pounce upon you. Like being rich, sin lieth at your door. It can make one more easily sin, but is not a sin itself.
Perhaps the grain offering that wasnât as pleasing to God as an animal offering could result in envy or covetousness towards Abel. This could be the sin that lead him to murder. God could have been warning Cain to not covet, it can lead to murder. Sin taking opportunity in a flawed choice, and making a flawed choice allows sin to lieth at ones door.
I kicked this idea around, but ended not going with it do to the end there. Imputation of sin didnât automatically affect everyone at the death of Jesus. Opportunity for imputation of sin came through the death of Jesus. We still have to ask for our sins to be imputed, it isnât automatic because He died.
But you say that we all sin automatically through Adam? Making Adam more powerful than Jesus?
I agree with that, and think this is exactly what Romans 7 is speaking of. âWe know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.â
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinnedâ
So sin entered the world through Adam. But all did not sin through Adam. Just like justification entered the world through Jesus, but all were not justified through Jesus. All are sinless, until they sin, just like all are sinners, until they accept Jesus. But prior to Adamâs first sin, sin existed, but it couldnât have been charged against us. It now can be charged against us, and is, when we break the law.
Rom 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,âŚ
Again, all humans werenât condemned, rather those who broke the law were condemned.
Rom 5:18 ⌠so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
Just as all humans were not justified by Jesus, just those who asked in faith for it.
In Jesusâ death, all are capable of salvation, just like through Adam, all are capable of sinning.
It seems like Adam was almost non-consequential. If it wasnât Adam that sinned, then the next person would be the one that sin entered the world with. Breaking the law is bad regardless of who did it first, Adam just happened to be the one that showed us it is bad.
Rom 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyoneâs account where there is no law.
Those who do not sin against the law sound like they wont go to hell, they havenât rejected God, they never knew Him or His law. Though they will be accountable for their sins. It almost sounds like there is 2 kinds of sin, sin withing the law, and sin apart from the law.
To make it less complicated I will refer to it as SinL and sinC.
-SinL being sin within the law is the sin itself and rejection of God.
-SinC is apart from the law it is just the sin as in our conscience.
Perhaps there is a better Hebrew word for sinL and sinC, this would have allowed me to understand Romans a LONG time ago. But it has confused me like crazy until recently understanding this concept of 2 sins (which is clearly speaks of, I just never was able to differentiate them beforeâŚ
Rom 2:14-15 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
This is our conscience, that all humans were given. My guess is that it is in our genes. It wasnât in the Neanderthal, but was placed in the human genes when made in the image of God. God knows right from wrong. Man was probably doing right and wrong things before Adam. Adam was just he first lawful sin and rejection from God.
When Jesus died on the cross, He forgave those on earth, of all of their past sinsL, like an animal sacrifice would have done. But when Jesus rose from the grave, He conquered death and sinL. Now there is only sinC, there is no longer sinL, Jesus conquered it. We will still in our earthly bodies sinC, but it is no longer rejection of God sinL, because in choosing Jesus and what He did for us, sinL is gone, it can no longer happen.
Rom 6:2 We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
We canât sinL, there is no law. We donât have to follow it, and in not following it, we are still sinC, but we are no longer rejecting God (through Christ) we are no longer able to sinL!
I now believe that though the entry of sinL was through Adam, sinC was there from the beginning of humans (homo sapiens).
Jesus did not sinC, which also given the law (an Israelite) means He did not sinL.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.
I think means the wages of sinL. Just like Adam was told if he sinL, he will die.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.
The sinC took advantage of the law to make a normal sinC, become sinL (death).
But this law is necessary to show us the Holiness of God. God wants us to know Him, all of Him, and the only way to show us His holiness was to give us a law. Sin ceased this opportunity, to take a ânormalâ sinC and turn into a really bad sinL. But the law is not bad, it just revealed to us the holiness of God.
God wants us to be holy, but we can only be mad holy through Christ. In giving us the law, He showed us how every sinC, is a sinL, and thankfully Jesus died so that all sinL is gone and we are now holy through Jesus, who âblocksâ God from seeing our sinC, and conquered sinL.
Now we see the holiness of God, we knew that sinL was to not sinC, which we can now do (not sinC) as Jesus âblocksâ God from seeing our sinC, so it is if we never did it.
Rom 7:13 Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
Though this doesnât account for atheist.
Rom 1:18-32 speaks on this
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world Godâs invisible qualitiesâhis eternal power and divine natureâhave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
The wages of sinL is death. But what happens to those outside the law? Yes they will be held accountable for their sinC, but the punishment is not death.
But, they clearly reject God. I think their rejection of God in this life. The spirit is used to mean life. Meaning if we run out of life and rejected God, then we are rejecting the Spirit.
Matt 12:31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
I guess a 3rd kind of sin, sinU (as in unforgivable). SinU is rejection of God, not through not being able to follow His laws, but rejecting Him. The Holy Spirit whispers in our ear since the dawn of creation who God is. While all might not know His laws, all have been told of who He is as the creator, by creation itself.
Matt12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
While still alive, rejecting God or Jesus, is just a bad choice, and hopefully you donât die (as we never know when that will happen). But you can always change you mind to choose God, and your past can be forgiven. But when our life/spirit is up, and we rejected God, this is ultimate rejection of the Holy Spirit, is unforgivable, time is up.
But to those who donât willingly reject God, they donât know of the Biblical teachings or the law, they just see the creator who is made evident to us all as in Romans 1. I am not sure I believe they go to hell. There are those who attempted to live a good life with minimum sinC and those who lived a bad life who committed maximum sinC. It does say we will be held accountable for our actions, we will reap what we sow.
But I also know that we canât earn our way into heaven, none, come to the Father but through the Son. Perhaps those who lived a good life, (pay punishment for their sinsC) and then will go to some paradise where they can then accept Jesus? And those who lived a bad life also pay punishment for their sins, and possibly have a chance to accept Jesus too? But many wont, due to hard hearts and being angry at God. Like Lucifer, could he ask forgiveness? Or is it that he wonât, because his heart is so hard?
In which case, would that show God as merciful when He killed those in the flood? Or when we killed those in Sodom and Gomorrah? Merciful in killing them before they ârackedâ up more punishment for the many egregious sinsC they kept committing?
Rom 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
What does perish mean? Will thy just die and be no more?
Rom 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
When a person learns that God told the Israelites to not covet. Does that awareness of law make them a sinnerL? Or Could only those under the law, circumcised, be accused of the law? So are all non-Israelites (Gentiles) alive apart from the law? Which would back up that the wages of sinL is death, not sinC. As apparently sinC you are still alive, but sinL, you die.
I guess Paul only put a verse or two on this as this was not his focus. Though it is neat to know and understand, I guess it really isnât that important. The importance here is that we can be joined with God through the covering of our sinC and abolishing of SinL. through Jesus. This is what he goes on the whole book speaking on. As our actions shouldnât change based on knowledge of what happens to those who donât know God. But we are as God said, to love God with our hearts, minds, souls, and our neighbors as ourselves, and to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.
A&E might have been the first Homo sap. to have sinned . . . .
The Eastern Orthodox church says they were.
But they were simply the first. They did not create sin for subsequent generations.
If you use @Swamidassâs scenario, they were the first to know they behaved badly, and thus have sin attributed to their account.