I wouldn’t presume to try and condense what Jordan Peterson has to teach about the Adam and Eve story when it is so complicated that it takes him with his formidable intellect 2 1/2 hours to explain.
As to only focusing on the Bible JP most certainly does not fall into that category.
You state that you are no fan of JP’s which is fair enough but have you listened to any of his Biblical lectures?
If you have and think that he has nothing to add then I am surprised but all power to you.
I totally understand you not wanting to waste 2 1/2 hours or even an hour for that matter but I suggest you listen to say 10mins and if you find it uninteresting then don’t continue.
Dear David,
I have listen to other presentations by JP and just do not get anything out it. First of all, with what authority does he speak? What special knowledge has he discovered? Genesis has existed for over 3,000 years and the last major discoveries about it occurred in the third century AD by a biblical scholar who could speak Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. He created the first and only side-by-side comparison of the early versions of the OT, called the Hexepla.
This is why I consider Origen of Alexandria the premier expert on the OT. With his scientific basis, he published 6,000+ works on the Bible. Just read book 1 of his 32 book analysis of the Gospel of John and I think you will agree that speaks with much greater authority than any modern scholar or orator.
He is also the biblical scholar I am aware of that seamlessly reconciled Platonism, Judaism and Christianity.
He speaks from the authority of being an expert in psychology, biological evolution and mythology which gives a unique and useful angle on the story of Adam and Eve and the fall.
With his knowledge of psychology and evolution he has really helped me understand how the story of Adam and Eve fits in with our scientific understanding of evolution.
If these stories were inspired by God (which I believe) then the knowledge that they contain should fit well with our scientific knowledge.
Most biblical scholars do not have the knowledge of psychology, biological evolution and Mythology that JP has so he can unlock unique information from these stories.
He often acknowledges that he is working from the angle of Psychology, evolution and myth rather than religion and that there is much more in these stories than he is uncovering.
JP does ramble around when lecturing but generally pulls everything together by the end. Starting at about the 30min mark cuts out some of this.
Dear David,
I am glad JP is of value for someone. For me, a knowledge of psychology, biological evolution and Mythology do not help to uncover the spiritual meaning that the Yahwehist instilled in the books of Moses. Socrates and Origen were experts in drawing out this level of meaning in a logical fashion.
Best Wishes, Shawn
You do not know that it was not Paul’s view. You might think it, and you might be right (I don’t think you are) but you can not state for certain. There is a great deal of scripture (some of from Pauline epistles) that people use to support the doctrine of Original Sin, it is not just based on “Augustine derived it.” Here is just a small sampling:
The intent of our heart is “only evil continuously”. (Gen. 6:5)
Our “righteous” deeds like filthy garments to God. (Isa. 64.6)
We are like a leopard who cannot change his spots. (Jer. 13:23).
Nothing clean can come from an unclean birth. (Job 14)
We are born in sin. (Ps. 51:5)
Nobody is good. (Luke 18:19)
We cannot see the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3)
We cannot enter the Kingdom of God. (John 3:5)
We must be compelled to come to Christ. (John 6:44)
We are not righteous. (Rom. 3:10)
We do not understand; we do not seek God. (Rom. 3:11)
We have turned aside; we are useless. (Rom. 3:12)
None of us does good. (Rom. 3:12)
We do not fear God. (Rom. 3:18)
We are hostile to God. (Rom 8:7)
We are unable (not just unwilling) to submit to the law of God. (Rom 8:7)
We cannot please God. (Rom 8:8)
We were dead (not just gravely ill) in our sins. (Eph 2:1)
We walked according to Satan. (Eph 2:2)
We lived in the lusts of our flesh. (Eph 2:3)
We were children of wrath. (Eph 2:3)
Personally I think it is impossible to support the claim that Paul did not believe that we are born in and to sin. But I could be wrong. However I am certain you statement of certainty of Paul’s position is unfounded.
To me the only debate is over the “federal” view. In that view we are actually charged with Adam’s sin as he was our representative. That comes from one way of reading Rom 5:12. I personally don’t accept that, because I believe it impugns God’s character and I don’t think scripture demands it. But it doesn’t really matter, I believe in the scriptural (you can call it Augustinian) view of Original Sin (as do those who affirm the federal view) which is far worse than being charged with Adam’s sin–it states that prior to conversion we can not do anything that is not tainted by sin.
Again, I’m not really intending to write a support of the doctrine of Original Sin, but only to claim that your certainty that Paul didn’t hold to it cannot be supported.
I’m rather keen on discussions of pre-Adamites. In fact, I would suggest that the way Genesis 1, 2 and 3 are written was an intentional effort to leave a trail of crumbs for those so motivated to search deeper within the texts.
The Greek Irenaeus believed we were born “to sin” as part of our rehabilitation as humanity.
The Eastern Orthodox don’t struggle with all this Sin/Sin/Sin/OMG/Sin like the Latin church does.
But @swamidass at www.PeacefulScience.Org is working on Evolutionary scenarios that include Original Sin as part of the underpinnings of God’s use of Evolutionary processes.
Hi @gbrooks9, For me, pre-Adamites are only a byproduct of the spiritual story in the Bible. Genesis 1 - 3 are not purposely cryptic, just not understood in the material sense. The Garden of Eden is in the same ‘place’ where Jesus met the criminal crucified with him. (Luke 23:43) The fall of Adam and Eve was from a spiritual plane onto the harshness of earth. When Adam and Eve incarnated on Earth did not necessarily coincide with the first people.
Thanks for this. I don’t think we are too far apart. The texts you cite emphasize that we are all sinners, indeed, we are trapped in our sinful behavior until the grace of God transforms us.[I might not use all of those texts to make this point, due to interpretive issues, but it doesn’t change the overall point.] I wasn’t intending to deny the deeply rooted nature of sin, nor did I intend to say that Paul would deny that. My point was that I can’t find in Paul an affirmation of the notion that we genetically (or quasi-genetically) inherit a sin nature. Paul position seems to me to be fully compatible with a view that we all (universally) become sinners through a process of de-formation because we are born into a sinful social and familial order.
There is a different explanation other than sin being genetic. Why is it so hard to comprehend that we are all fallen souls, and that God created the material world to bring all His children home? This assumption fits all of Paul’s points above listed by @heddle. The fallen have been under Satan’s reign and it is each one’s task to turn to Jesus.
I agree that some are only roughly supportive and are at risk of being fodder for confirmation bias. However, I think Romans 3:10-12, 8:7-8 (to limit the discussion to Paul’s writings) form a fairly substantial argument (as definitive of any doctrine, IMO) that we are born sinners in rebellion to God, as opposed to being born innocent, so to speak, and learning to sin.
This reminds me of a story from the late (but modern–i.e. 20th century) Presbyterian theologian John Gerstner. He was visiting a church that was going to have (infant) baptisms during the service. On the way in he was handed a white rose. Upon inquiring why they were handing out white roses he was told: “it represents the innocence of the children.” Gerstner then asked: “You do, I assume, know what the water represents?”
Thanks. Logically then, though, would it not potentially follow that God would be the author of sin if He created us fallen? It is not that we are perfect or superhumans, but that our fallibility is the rough material for learning…an evolved individual with adaptation and rudimentary higher reasoning capabilities rather than sin or evil itself.
I am partial to the concept of moral ability and inability. I view Original Sin (Or as the Calvinists call it, total depravity) to state that prior to a supernatural regeneration we are morally incapable of pleasing god, and yet our free will is not violated.
I have an imperfect (as are they all) analogy of the antinomy of moral inability and free will. A sane parent holding their infant in the kitchen has free will, yet is (thankfully) morally incapable of putting their child in the microwave. It is something they literally cannot do, even thought they are free to make such an awful choice.
So I don’t think it makes God the author of sin, although I appreciate your point. The fall has radically changed us so that without regeneration we lack the moral ability to choose good-- and so we choose evil.
But hey-- we Calvinists are always Debbie-downers.
Augustine specifically developed Original Sin as a doctrine that takes the onus off of God.
But Irenaeus, who wrote before Augustine, thought it was very logical for God to give us souls with some sin in them - - as part of our innoculation process for redemption.
I see a difference too. Being born a sinner means you are born into an identity that will inevitably be actualized by your own choices and actions. Sinners sin. Being “born with sin” conceives of sin as some kind of possess-able, heritable, entity.
Sin is an event that can be made into a noun in English and Greek. But the essence of the word sin is an action, not a thing. In many languages the idea of sin can’t be expressed as a noun, it has to be a verb clause. It’s like when creationists talk about “sin” as an independent agent that fundamentally altered God’s creation. (As in “sin entered the world and caused herbivores to become carnivores.”) Conceptualizing sin as an entity may be helpful for some kinds of abstract reasoning, but at the end of the day, sin is fundamentally and basically a verb.
I think that I have no problem with the idea that we are created imperfect, in the idea that we are finite; just like any father, God would not punish us for that. In fact, one of my joys as a father of 11, 8, and 5 year old children is teaching what little I know to them and opening their eyes to how to interact with the beautiful world in a holy way. However, if we were created with the inability to avoid sin, that becomes a great deal more difficult to understand if we think that even (as in my church it’s considered, though I don’t agree) the tiniest infraction would result in eternity in Hell.
I like the idea of Calvin more and more in that we can present all of our being for sanctification; I’m afraid that making that substance evil reflects badly on God. However, the whole picture is confusing to me.
Thanks for your dialogue. I’m not saying that you or the others take this stance; I’m just trying to understand it better. My pastor actually preached on Romans last Sunday, saying, “I know it’s hard to imagine that we all reject God and those who never heard of Jesus are going to Hell because they have rebelled against the essence of what He’s revealed–but are you going to agree with God or man?”
Thanks.