I have to agree. That is a fine article on how Romans 5 was treated by Augustine - - treated poorly.
But, of course, there is no way NOW to convince the Evangelicals of this case. Some will be convinced … but not a lot … and not right away.
So, in the meantime, Romans 5 is provided for if we accept that God does some one-off miracles now and then - - without any intention of overthrowing the physical sciences behind evolution!
1] In a one-off miracle, God arranges the miraculous birth of the Son of God.
2] In a one-off miracle, God arranges the miraculous resurrection of Christ.
3] In a one-off miracle, God arranges the de novo creation of Adam, separate from the pre-Adamite population that evolved on Earth long before there was an Eden.
4] And at least one more one-off miracle, like [3], regarding the de novo creation of Eve.
And so - - with de novo creation of Adam and Eve, Original Sin can be treated in a traditional way without throwing Evolutionary evidences into the trash.
This piles assumption upon assumption. If someone landed at night (no record of it) and if someone made a friend (no record of it), and If they had a child who interbred with the natives (no record of it), then Swamidiss is right. Seems to me that is a pretty far our set of events for a group of people who seem very unfriendly to outsiders. In fact so unfreindly that this imaginary night time ship wreck person must have raped someone to make the natives not like outsiders.
It’s called providence. YECs LOVE providential thinking and providential scenarios. And you may have noticed that they are quite happy to pile assumption onto assumption.
I’m waiting for the flash bulb to go off with you @gbob… the GAE scenarios are designed to appeal to Christians who are particularly invested in a providential (and even miraculous) way of looking at the world.
If you don’t believe in providence, just say so. But don’t try to tie up a metaphysical scenario because you don’t like providence. Nobody can prove providence, right? That’s why it’s called FAITH.
Good for you! You asked how original sin and fairness fit into my view, but your enthusiasm for GAE took over the rest of your comments. I’d like to answer on both counts, but I’ll start a new topic to separate the two, since one has nothing to do with the other.
I’ll restrict my GAE-specific replies to this topic, and the other will be a GAE-free zone. Deal? I’ll come back and post the link after I write the OP. I’ll post a reply to your GAE questions later, maybe tomorrow.
I guess for me I miss most of these complications because I don’t believe in original sin.
Sin has always been here.
Romans 5:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Later on it says God wrote the laws on our hearts.
Romans 2:15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.
So those who never heard the law, is judged by their conscience that convicts them on if they were good or not. Not good as in perfect, but good as in seeking fruit of the spirit. So I sort of see it like a manifestation of your honest self calling you out.
Thanks for posting that, Randy, I’d really have to think about his interpretations more, because that is so different than the interpretations I have learned over the years
Is Enns a Universalist, then? It wasn’t entirely clear to me what his definition of salvation would be
That’s a good question. I’m not sure. I doubt he’s the standard one. He writes,
“I believe that what the Bible calls “sin” is real— and you don’t have to read about Hitler, Stalin, or George Steinbrenner to find examples. Each of us carries around an alarming ability to harm each other in a seemingly non-stop variety of new and inventive ways.”
His interpretation of Romans goes a bit along with Scot McKnight and Beverly Gaventa, where the main context of Romans is clarifying to the Judaizers and Gentiles of the Roman church that they don’t need to circumcise or conform to the outward trappings of the covenant. God always saved by repentance and forgiveness, even before the covenants, and circumcision was only an outward reminder of this. He writes more about this in Evolution of Adam. Actually, his views are not original, and from what I can read, most agree that Augustine did misunderstand the text. @Marshall can clarify better for me here, I think. However, the whole drift of Romans is more complex.
@Klax and @gbrooks9
Your exchange in the past 8 posts or so are all very off topic to the questions I have asked about how people understand God’s fairness/justice in regards to the Genesis 3 story seen from the context of evolution.
If possible, I’d request a moderator to move your conversation into an offline personal discussion so that this thread could stay on topic. Would that be possible @jpm ? Thanks!
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
30
Sorry MOI, responded to the top post, which seemed generic, not yours below it. Happy to respond to yours.
My first response is that you’re looking down the non-evidence based end of a telescope.
I do not understand the point you are trying to make
I would like people to respond from a Christian perspective about how they address the questions about the theological idea of the Fall as they relate to evolution.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
36
This Christian can only perceive the Fall and its overwhelming influence on Jesus’ and subsequent Christian thought, as C6th BCE final edit, metaphor for the human condition, since behavioural modernity clearly emerged 40,000 years ago from ten times that distinct human lineage at least. Myth cannot be our starting point. Science, now, this end of the telescope, is. The evolution of morality, the study of which is in its infancy is. I’m not sure where you’re coming from either MOI. What comes first? Sacred myths or rationality?
In my opinion there is no direct conflict between the Story in Gen. 3 and evolution, because the Fall deals with the beginning of Sin which is a spiritual problem, while evolution deals with the creation of humanity which is a scientific issue. However it should be said that humans are sinners, the the origin of sinn whould be a human problem occupying the interest of both science and theology.
The conflict is not intrinsic, but is based on how people frame the problem. For instance if one believes that evolution is based on survival of the fittest, conflict for scarce resources with follow humans, then there is no need for the Fall, because humans were created by evolution as sinners.
On the other hand science thinks that homo sapiens emerged from a community of hominids, not from an original couple. If one thinks that the story of the origins must take place as it sis in Gen 2-3 for it to be true, then there are conflicts. The is the type of problem that Joshua Das is trying to resolve.
My view is that humans did evolve and they did so through the guidance of God, Who did not use survival of the fittest, but geology and ecology as the basis to make changes in life forms over the ages.
We cannot way how sin and evil came into existence in God’s good creation, but they did, and Gen. 3 is by far the best explanation thus far, so it gives every evidence of being spiritually or existentially true.
Perhaps I am biased in my modern worldview that focuses on the individual rather than the corporate body of humankind, but the more I look at these issues, the more I wonder if the whole concept of original sin is flawed. It is a human doctrine derived from a few verses, and not something strongly supported in scripture. Despite the whole of the history of Israel being the story of them falling away from God, never is it mentioned as a factor, but rather the problem is the sin of Israel itself. Even when Paul mentions sin originating in Adam, he then says in Romans 5 that death came “because all sinned,” not because Adam sinned.
Romans 5 NIV
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 sinned.
Anyway, just musing. It seems that while doctrine and tradition is good , it has to be examined as it is manmade and subject to cultural bias.
My kids really struggle with the idea that the whole world is messed up from Adam’s sin (which is taught in our tradition) . One quote was that there would be no pain, suffering, or illness if no one had ever sinned). Not only does this set them up for mistrust of science when they realize that death has always been, but it makes God out to be a vindictive, unjust being, who punishes all of creation for one sin. Our tradition has also said that if Adam didn’t do it, we all would have caused the death and suffering, because we just can’t avoid it. That also seems to make God a rather sadistic creator–who not only sets us all up for failure, but punishes us for his predisposition. I am really concerned for what my kids will view God as, as I’ve struggled with that same message when I grew up.
I think that C S Lewis’ and George Macdonald’s views, that God treats our failings are a parent would–with corrective, rather than vindictive, discipline–in our own interest–makes more sense. Most of my family hold to the original sin and Fall doctrine, though, and I don’t argue with them. 5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work
As a theological term, the universal participation of human beings in the fall of Adam. Two questions debated by theologians have important ethical implications: Does original sin mean that humans inherit a propensity to sin, or is sin transmitted merely through the socialization process? Does original sin mean that humans are born guilty before God, or does a person first incur guilt through the act of willful sin?
JPM, why is Adam called the “first” man in 1 Cor. 15:45? We are related to Adam in more ways than simply by genetics.
In Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15, the Apostle Paul draws several parallels between Adam and Christ.
Jesus is described as the “last Adam” just as Adam is described as the “first man” (1 Cor. 15:45).
In these passages it is clear that Adam’s fall into sin was substitutionary and vicarious in nature just like Christ’s atoning obedience. To reject this is to ignore scripture.
Rom. 5 says that we are condemned by virtue of Adam’s disobedience just as surely as we are justified by virtue of Christ’s obedience.
While the imputation of Adam’s sin is the problem confronting all (Rom. 5:12), the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the remedy to that problem (Rom. 5:17). Do you reject these verses also?
So our participation in Adam’s disobedience and our participation in Christ’s obedience are linked together in such a way that if one rejects the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin—the basis of the doctrine of original sin—JPM you must also logically reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the basis of the doctrine of forensic justification.
Intelligent heretics have always seen that the doctrines of original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and forensic justification stand or fall together as a unit.
Our relationship to Adam is spoken of in the same terms that are used to speak of our relationship to Christ. For example, we are “in Adam” just as we are “in Christ.”
Our, union with Adam and union with Christ are two realities that share mutual meanings. All those “in Adam,” i.e. in union with Adam, receive certain things by virtue of that union just as all those “in Christ,” i.e. in union with Christ, receive certain things by virtue of that union.
The Bible teaches a concept of imputation in which God takes the life and works of someone and applies them to the record of another who is then treated on that basis. Christian theology has always taught that there are three great acts of imputation:
1. Adam’s sin is imputed to us at conception.
2. Our sin was imputed to Christ in the atonement.
3. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in justification.
That God can choose to “impute” sin or not to “impute” sin is clear from Psa. 32:2 and Rom. 4:6. That it is God who determines what sins are to be placed on one’s record is clear from the usage of the word in Scripture: Lev. 7:18; 17:3–4; 1 Sam. 22:15; Rom. 4:8, 11, 22, 23, 24; 5:13; 2 Cor. 5:19; James 2:23.
That Christ suffered and died for our sins which were imputed to His account by the Father is the very heart and soul of the Christian Gospel (1 Cor. 15:3–4).
Our sins were imputed to Christ and He was viewed and treated by God accordingly. Such passages as Isa. 53:4–6; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24, etc., are so clear that only a deranged mind could miss this point or perhaps it may not match BioLogos thinking
Once a person accepts the justice of Christ bearing his sin, guilt, and punishment, then he or she cannot logically or exegetically reject the justice of his bearing the sin, guilt, and punishment of Adam.
In the Biblical doctrine of justification, the righteousness of Christ is “imputed” to us - God places it on our record and then views and treats us in terms of that righteousness (Rom. 5:1–21; Phil. 3:9).
Righteousness can be imputed to us because Christ is our representative (Heb. 9:11–28) and because of the solidarity of His people for whom He came (Matt. 1:21).
Justification is based on the concept of imputation just as much as the doctrines of original sin and the atonement.
In Scripture, genetic solidarity in and of itself can serve as a sufficient basis for moral and spiritual implications.
The superiority of Christ’s priesthood over against the Levitical priesthood is based solely on the fact that Abraham, the genetic source of Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6; 7:4–10).
That all men and women participate in a genetic solidarity with Adam is the basis for the doctrine that all are created in the image of God.
If JPM, you deny the justice of genetic solidarity when it comes to original sin, you have also, in principle, denied that man is God’s image bearer. Are you prepared to do that?
Adam procreated his descendants “in his own image” which had been corrupted by his fall into sin and guilt (Gen. 5:3).
That Adam’s depravity was passed on to his children is manifested by the universality and inevitability of man’s sinfulness that reveals itself “from the womb” and even “in the womb” (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; 25:22–26; Psa. 14:1–6; 51:5; 58:3; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:1–3).
In Rom. 5:12–21, Paul clearly draws several parallels between the representative nature of Christ’s actions and the representative nature of Adam’s actions.
In 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us that by virtue of our being “in Adam,” i.e. in union with Adam as our head and representative, we are all spiritually dead. He sets forth a parallel between being “in Adam” and being “in Christ.”
What Adam or Christ did is viewed by God as what we did.
When Adam sinned, we sinned (Rom. 5:12).
When he died spiritually, we died spiritually (1 Cor. 15:22).
When Christ was crucified, we were crucified (Gal. 2:20).
We died, were buried and rose when Christ our Head and Representative died, was buried and rose from the dead (Rom. 6:1–6; Eph. 2:6).
JPM - a human doctrine derived from a few verses? Not strongly supported in scripture? Doctrine is good but is to be examined and subject to cultural bias?
Here’s my take. I think there was a historical fall or multiple historical falls but I’m agnostic about whether or not the Genesis account is mythologized history of the historical fall of the Israelites ancestors, whether their ancestors were objectively the “first” humans to sin, or whether it is meant to be an archetypical account of multiple historical falls that have taken place throughout human history as far back and farther than any people group can remember. I do not think the ancestors of the Israelites are necessarily the first or only human beings that God has revealed himself to, but as a Christian, I accept their story as the story that is part of the divine revelation I claim as my own.
I think the image of God is a calling, and so I don’t think it is in any way a product of evolution. Humans needed to have evolved certain capacities to be able to fulfill the calling, but I don’t think God was required in any way to issue it just because those capabilities were in place. God chooses whom he chooses when he decides to choose them, not because they have “earned” the calling in some way by their development or achievements.
I think sin does not exist apart from God initiating a relationship and communicating a standard. I think sin is inherently relational (that is, you sin against God, others, and yourself) and it is not the same thing as violating some sort of community standard of morality or dictum of your own morally-aware conscience. Some things are (or have been) sin that are not necessarily immoral (like taking the name of the Lord in vain) and the reason they are sin is simply because they violate a standard God has set. I think there are some fundamental differences between righteousness in God’s sight and general morality, especially looking at Israel’s history and covenantal law.
So, as far as evolution goes, I don’t think it matters when exactly in history humans developed moral reasoning capacity, it matters when they intentionally rebelled against God. I don’t think we know when exactly that happened “for the first time,” though I believe the Bible teaches it did, and it does, and that the resulting breech in the relationship between God and humanity has been affecting us and our ancestors for as long as anyone can remember.
And yet MILLIONS of good and fine Christians within the Eastern Orthodox communities have lived and died for centuries without taking this interpretation.
Is the interpretation of Adam in Romans 5 the litmus test for salvation?