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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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
.
2 Likes
Dear JPM,
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.
3 Likes
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?
Sacred myths?I wouldnt agree on that.Cerntaily not a historical fact but a metaphorical one.As far as morality the evolution of that its at least at its peak i think
1 Like
My Bible in Romans 5 says “death came to all people, because all sinned—”. Certainly, Adam was the first, the leader, the prototype, the one who introduced death, be it spiritual or physical, responsible for his death, but not that all people, because it states explicitly that the cause of their death is their sin. Do you reject this scripture ( to use your words)?
Well, certainly Adam was hoping to shift the blame to Eve, but I don’t think we can shift the blame to him. We certainly may have his propensity to sin, and whether figurative or literal, we may thus be burdened with that, but if it comes down to having infants burn in hell because Adam ate a pomegranate, I think that theology needs further examination.
Of course, those sort of gaps in soteriology have led to such other attempts to patch the holes by infant baptism, or in my Baptist upbringing by the concept of "age of accountability " to ease the discomfort of dealing with a God who would so condemn infants and children as a result of “original sin.” Might those conflicting attempts to find a solution to the problem not indicate that the underlying premise itself is flawed, and not an accurate interpretation of the God’s word?
2 Likes
Dear gbrooks9,
I was responding to JPM’s comment by looking closely at his claim and what scripture actually says, and not what any variant church practices and or beliefs.
The better question regarding Rm 5 as a litmus test is what did Jesus actually achieve on the cross?
1 Like
But that is the point. Romans 5 is not, after all, about how to be saved. It’s against Judaizing. You might like this by David Bentley Hart.
2 Likes
Translation isn’t the problem, epistemology is.
I think I agree…but the translation changed the understanding. It is not even about how Christ saves, right?
Thanks
I’d agree Randy. Regardless of what the text says even if impossibly perfectly translated. If all we can bring to the text is the most literal historical-grammatical method as our epistemology then we’re damned, or rather the vast majority of humanity is.
Can you clarify details? I think Paul is not even talking about salvation here. Thanks.
I would agree with you on other texts but I think Enns’ and Hart’s point is that Augustine completely missed Paul’s point.
Are we talking Romans 5 only or 9-11 too? I see Paul talking about salvation throughout, that’s the point. I like Enns (5) and Hart (9-11) but better translation will never convince those allegedly using the historical-grammatical method. That would require objectivity, disinterest. Fear, the mind killer, has them by [the] throat. To me Paul is struggling to include his beloved unconvertable Israel in salvation. Just because the East refuses to see something that the West refuses not to, doesn’t make either of the[m] right.
Ooh, I love this stuff. I’ll have to wait till tonight or tomorrow to think, read and comment better, though. Thanks.
Me too! I must detail my response before that.
Later:
It’s not possible, it would take too much all round. Even a synopsis of Romans 5 alone. To me it’s soused in salvation! And in PSA that liberals and Orthodox pretend isn’t there and nasty Protestants, who picked up Augustine’s torch, hold up as the singularity at the heart of God’s pure, true, pathologically righteous, arbitrary, meaningless justice. It can’t be helped if one is suspended in all meanings, caged above that by a ‘high view scripture’.
1 Like
Yes, Randy, I appreciate this struggle that the concept of Original Sin could bring, that it is not fair for God to judge me for Adam’s (or anyone else’s) sin. Thank you for stating that so clearly. This concern is clearly held by many, and so has got me thinking over the past couple of days…
What if we could look at it from an opposite point of view: Perhaps rather than thinking of Original Sin as being unfair, Original Sin is the great equalizer. Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. We are all guilty of sin, we cannot earn our salvation by doing any number of good works or paying any amount of penance. We are all in the same boat. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. This idea of Original Sin also explains why God’s great sacrifice of Himself, Jesus on the Cross, was necessary for the the salvation of all, and why Jesus would say “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Which was a point that @Paul_Allen1 was making.
I would agree with that assessment that God is not vindictive, but wants the best for us, as a parent cares for their children. That idea is supported in passages like this one in Hebrews 12:
4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
I do not agree with the argument against Original Sin that Peter Enns sets up in that article you sited, because there are clear examples of paradox in the Bible, in which two seemingly self-contradictory ideas are actually both true at the same time (bringing this over from comments I already made on Jay’s original sin thread).
One paradox example is:
- Man’s free will
- God’s sovereignty
Those ideas seem to be mutually exclusive, yet somehow they are both held to be true in the Bible
There are likewise some mysteries about Original Sin, so paradoxes could be contained within that concept, too:
- We are all responsible for our own sin
- At some point in time in human history, Sin entered humanity, and it became true that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23) and “there is no one righteous” (Romans 3:12, Psalms 14:3; Psalms 53:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20)
Notably, point #2 differentiates us from the rest of creation. We do not hold a predator morally responsible for killing its prey. Nor do we say that it is immoral for an alpha male to fight with others of his species to maintain dominance
I do not find the arguments made by Enns or Hart convincing. In Romans, Paul is not only addressing the problem of Judiazers. Paul is addressing both that problem and the problem of our own sin.
2 Likes
Your characterization of Protestant Christians and our beliefs is completely unfair. Please tone down your rhetoric. You are setting up a straw man to then try to tear it down. God’s justice is NOT pathological, arbitrary or meaningless.