Unless there is inheritance, you yourself cannot attain to eternal life. That life is purely on the basis of inheritance of the sinless nature of Christ himself. Paul is clear on that.
Death entered because of sin. Before sin there wasn’t any death. The bible only records death after Adam sinned, irrespective of whether he was mortal before sin or not and if one is to go by God’s express command to Adam that if he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will die, then one can easily jump to the conclusion that Adam was NEVER destined to die or to experience death! That’s why there was a tree of life in the garden. Exactly in the same way that Revelation says the leaves of the tree will be for the healing of the nations - in whatever form that healing is to be applied.
This of course simply serves to underline the fact that your view of sin is vastly different from the standards God has set. God is sinless and completely OTHER. We have pain and suffering in the world which is totally unacceptable to God to such an extent that He will set the world on fire, literally to get rid of sin, pain, suffering and death. Even the smallest sin is unacceptable. But for you it’s OK. Problem is where do you stop? Who makes that judgement call? Is it OK to take something that doesn’t belong to you or to tell a little white lie? But it’s not OK to disobey your parents when they tell you to clean the dishes? Or to sexually assault the beautiful, totally unrelated woman who refuses to indulge your unbridled sexual appetite? Who decides?
Where exactly does Paul teach we “inherit” Christ’s sinless nature? I am not familiar with a theory of justification or atonement that speaks in terms of inheriting Christ’s sinless nature.
Actually the quote is “on THAT day you WILL die” and yet he lived for 930 years. Doesn’t say he will die at some point in the future.
It IS probable, Prode, that you and I have a different view of what constitutes Sin. And you have the advantage, since you appear to be supremely confident that you know the Standards God has set, while I worry that sometimes I, unwittingly, offend Him. I see no better plan than to follow the teachings of Jesus, who we believe to be truly God but still NOT completely OTHER. I look to BioLogos to help me understand the Scripture that conveys his teachings.
Vaya con Dios.
Al Leo
Prode, are you truly asserting that you know exactly how salvation works? To me, it is a wonderful mystery that I can only be thankful for, never anything I can comprehend. But if so, I too am unsure of your assertion. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” makes no mention of an inheritance requirement.
It is a mistake to take the anologies of legal inheritance rights that go with the Christian metaphors of adoption and sonship and conflate them with genetic or biological inheritance. Nowhere in Scripture, that I am aware of, is righteousness pictured as a biologically inherited trait.
It is important to keep the Genesis narrative flow in mind, if you are using the judeo-christian model of these ideas. When banished from the Garden as Adam and Eve were, there was never a point that they could return to the situation in which they existed pre-fall. Adam had no disposition for sin when he was created (ie. pre-fall). But after the events in Genesis 3 occurred, his fallen nature as well as his created existence could only support sin since there was no possibility to reverse the events (ie. go behind the angel with the flaming turning sword which kept Adam (and Eve!) from ever returning to a prior existence.
Upon what scripture or evidence do you conclude that Adam had no disposition for sin?
If we read Genesis literally … what we are told is that Adam didn’t know a thing about the difference between good and evil !
So, you have two choices. Adam did evil because he didn’t know anything about it…
… or because mortal flesh is not capable of avoiding sin when a person achieves status as a moral agent.
I’m not sure I understand your presuppositions. From the narrative in Genesis Adam (pre-fall) did not possess any knowledge of good and evil because he had not eaten from that tree as yet (Genesis 2 only). Assuming (and I recognize that this is an assumption on my part and is not visible in the text) that Adam ate from the Tree of Life because it provided nourishment (not to keep alive but merely for the pleasure that nourishment provides) in a sinless existence.
So is someone more or less inclined towards sin if he has no knowledge of what is good and evil? So many folks are keen to turn Adam’s decision to eat the fruit into some kind of galactic magic act … and yet:
-
he had no intention of sin in his head to begin with;
-
how does having an intention to sin transmit to all of creation?
-
what transmits to all of humanity is humaness . . . the very same humaness that Adam had even before the “intentional act with unintentioned sin” !
These are questions and wonderments made by sinners (myself included) who live post-exile from the garden. IE. We will never know since it is impossibile to get a view of things before the Fall. Obvously this even questions the narrative of pre-fall itself and its own condtions.
@Christy You’re right, of course. Just HOW we could inherit Christ’s sinless nature is problematical, but a cursory glance at the mess this world is in is proof that it did not occur in any meaningful way. But if we twist the initial conditions somewhat, it MAY make some sense.
Assumption #1: Once God created Life on this earth, he allowed it to become more complex and varied through a process we now call evolution.
Observation #1: As evolution proceeds it produces genomes that strive to be represented in the following generation, and as a result the final animal or plant tends to behave ‘selfishly’ or instinctively.
Assumption #2: After some 3 billion years life had evolved into a wide variety of beautiful forms, but there was no conscious creature to appreciate it, and it did not reflect (to any appreciable extent) some to the characteristics of its Creator; namely, true love and compassion.
Observation #2: Some 40 thousand years ago evolution had produced a primate (Homo sapiens) whose exapted brain had the capacity to operate as a computer/Mind, and with the conscious ability and awareness to use symbols, create new beauty, and appreciate its ‘creature hood’.
Assumption #3: God granted that gifted primate a conscience and the freedom to use this Gift to rise above Instinct and become, to a real extent, Images of its Creator. But to a large extent, Humankind rejected this Gift, with Sin being the result.
Assumption #4: Although present to some extent in all of his Creation, God chose to come to Earth in the special form of a Human, with the same Homo sapiens genome that had rejected His Gift. This special Human, Jesus, had the potential to Sin, could be tempted to do so, but could and did resist.
Conclusion: All of us humans inherit the Homo sapiens genome with the recently added Gift of Mind/Soul. We all have the potential to overcome our animal-instinctual heritage to become, like Jesus, the Image of our Creator.
I would honestly appreciate any response from @Christy, @Jonathan_Burke, @Eddie, @Relates and others: Is the ‘Christian Tent’ large enough to accommodate the above world view? Or is it out-and-out heresy? I see it as harmonizing Science and Faith better than any other view, but the concepts of justification and atonement would need rethinking. And it surely may not the best way of teaching young kids.
Al Leo
Observation #1: Survival of the fittest and the Selfish Gene are scientific myths. They have not been proven to0 be true. God’s Creation was good, not evil. Evolution is good.
Assumption #3: Humans also were created as good. However humans have to choice to be good or not. Sadly we have chosen to be selfish or evil.
Assumption 4#: The antidote to evil or sin is Love. God the Father so loves us that the Father sent God the Son to demonstrate how much God loves humans, andf pay the price for the sins of the whole world. When we accept responsibility for our sin, turn to God, and accept God’s forgiveness, we are saved and receive God the Holy Spirit into our hearts.
Conclusion: All humans have the ability to choose for or against God, just as Adam and Eve did in Gen 3. Rhis choice makes all the difference, not their theology.
As soon as humanity was capable of becoming a moral being … humans failed the test of perfect morality.
There’s no way for mortal flesh to be perfect. And that’s why we need God.
I think the Christian tent is pretty large. I don’t think anything you said is heretical. I think it is incomplete because it doesn’t really address how we are reconciled to God, or that we need to be reconciled to God, which is the crux of atonement and justification. Personally, I need more theologically than just imitating Christ. I think the kind of identification with Christ that the Bible speaks of when describing salvation is deeper and more complex than the simple imitation it seems you are describing. We got more out of Jesus’ death and resurrection than a human example to follow. I think we are incapable of imitating Christ without the spiritual regeneration that comes from grace by faith (because of Christ’s atonement which secures our justification 
).
I added some additional thoughts below:
I think you can run into problems when you make God’s election contingent on human development or achievement. Other animals use symbols, communicate, and have primitive sorts of culture. Although obviously a certain level of development was necessary for God to be able to relate to humanity the way he chose to relate to humanity, I don’t think the development was the reason or motivation for God initiating the relationship.
I think we have discussed this before and I see image bearing and sin in a different light. I think image bearing is a role offered to humans and I see sin as tied to violating God’s revealed will and rejecting his rightful authority. I don’t see God’s image as moral potential/conscience, or sin as generic immorality.
This strikes me as very orthodox.
I guess I don’t like the ultimate end-goal being defined in terms of humans overcoming instinct/animal. It is too anthropocentric. I think the end-goal is our Christ-likeness, but I don’t think the point is to make us more fulfilled humans (though that is a side-effect). The point is to fulfill God’s mission on earth, the mission he gave us as image-bearers, the mission of reconciling the world to God and bringing all creation under God’s just reign for God’s glory. The point of it all has to be reconciling our relationship with God for his ultimate glory, not merely human self-actualization.
@aleo, even though I’m not on your official list, I’m confident you want as many opinions as possible.
I think the figurative aspects of Adam & Eve are easy enough to discern:
-
They are the story of the first “moral beings” in the hominid family. I don’t think they are the literal progentitors of all Humanity … but they represent humanity just like the first man on the moon represented all of us - - without having to be on the hook for paternity support to 4 or 5 billion souls at the time.
-
Using the template of a toddler’s mind - - it is easy to see the frustration and confusion of an innocent child, who knows nothing about good and evil - - suddenly confronted with the consequences of a decision he makes that suddenly he realizes was morally deficient!!! … though made at a time when he didn’t even grasp morality fully.
^^^ This is the theme of Adam and Eve that survives whether you are a YEC or not!
Evangelicals insist this story can only have meaning if Adam and Eve are the genetic source of all humanity - - but that is not very sophisticated thinking.
God is about the human spirit striving for a higher morality. And the Adam and Eve story would be relevant even to the talking primates of the movie franchise Planet of the Apes.
So ThAT is a pretty big tent, Al - - if a story works for any primate that would understand it !
What happens to nonbelievers?
The truth of Evolution does not nullify the other truths of most Christian denominations. For most, Hell or some kind of purgatory keeps on running rooms at a reasonable rate … some for long term occupancy!
This is why BioLogos has to be a Big Tent operation - - if we went around adopting a narrow view insisted upon by some theologians… it would just upset the denominations who think the narrow view is too narrow…