The Evolution of Original Sin

Faith & Science Conversation
31

I disagree. Building doctrine on what Satan/Serpent says is likely to be more twisted than truthful. I see Original sin as an accumulation of theology that distorts what the Bible actually says.

Biblically, God never said attaining knowledge like His was a curse or even bad. He never said the desire to be like Him was evil or bad. In fact, the entire Bible is the repeated attempts to get people to act more like Him.

Biblically, humans NEVER “fell from grace.” If it were true, Cain would never have been born. Instead, God gives more grace because each one of us must learn to choose His goodness over our selfish evil.

Satan/Serpent did evil by leaving out the command of, “Don’t.” What he twisted was Eve’s thinking. She desired wisdom like God without asking Him for wisdom. This let her rationalize disobedience, before eating the fruit. Adam did not even go to that much effort. Neither received wisdom. Biblically, what they received from eating wasn’t even mortality. It was shame and the consequences that would come with knowledge.

The truth spoken by Satan/Serpent was that the people would gain knowledge like God. They did. God did not say all of their offspring would inherit that first sin. He did say that their sin changed them and their offspring. We inherit the desires of selfishness and the ability to accept without thinking twice. Those two are produce bad decisions. However, we also inherit the Breath of God and Knowledge like God’s. Those two are good things.

Of the three participants in the Eden story, only Satan/Serpent received a curse. The ground was cursed, not Man. But ground is not a person. This is not a curse like Cain received who no longer could grow plants. It describes a distortion of relationship with plants that equated to the distorted relationships of Woman’s daughters. By becoming a farmer, Man would prefer one plant over another. Unwanted plants would find plowed ground beneficial, and farmers would learn to hate those plants. The daughters would desire one man over another. Unwise choices distorted marriage into dictatorships, and hatred would surface.

There is a difference between what evolves naturally and a distortion of the natural. I think too many dogmatic Christian doctrines were forced into being after Gentiles ruled the Church because they did not understand what God said. Jesus said the Jews have knowledge of truth. If our “truth” is based on something other than God’s given truth, if our “truth” contradicts truths already established, why would we want to keep non-biblical “truth”? In using the evolution theme, extinction is needed.

Or David, the poet, spoke in an exaggerated form that had nothing to do with Adam.

How about Enoch?

The Bible says we are to be holy like God (Lev 19:2). If we inherit sin from Adam, not just the ability to sin, then these goals are pointless.

32

Don’t expect any conservative seminaries to redo the doctrine of OS. And the number of liberal professors that have been fired from religious-affiliated colleges for not towing the theological line over the past two decades has been significant, including Enns. I would suggest that 99% of pew-sitting evangelicals are totally unaware of the problem which has resulted from the findings of 21st century genomics.

I would further suggest that the problem is actually much worse than most intelligent Christians are aware. If one accepts source criticism, as virtually all non-evangelical scholars do, plus a goodly number of liberal evangelical scholars, then one must actually consider both the Yahwist (J) theodicy of Gen. 2-3 (the Fall) and that of the later Priestly § Gen.1 creation narrative. The interesting fact, as pointed out by Gary Rendsburg of Rutgers Univ. and others, is that they are different. P clearly views evil as pre-existing the creation described in Gen. 1, which is found by reading Gen. 1:2 as the original audience would have done. What Elohim created was order (good) - while purposely leaving some chaos (evil). Interestingly, from the findings of modern complexity theory, the optimum combination of order and disorder leads to emergence which characterizes the mult-level universe in which we reside. From this perspective, maybe God didn’t have a choice but to create a world which included both chance and necessity - or good and evil. This raises the question as to why Paul did not recognize both theodicies - or chose to use only the Gen. 2-3 version to show his view of Christ’s substitutional atonement. Deep issues here, with no simple solutions! Cheers.

1 Like
33

Actually, the creeds were intended to terminate the endless fighting and killing resulting from doctrinal difference between the various archbishops in the early church. See, for instance, “The Jesus Wars”, “AD 381” and “When Jesus Became God”. They were also used to minimize the threat from various non-orthodox groups such as the Ebionites and the Marcionites by preempting their doctrinal appeal. The development and inclusion of the doctrine of the Trinity, which has almost no Biblical support, reflected this latter purpose. Cheers.

34

You would do well to read the Patristic writings as you will learn that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on scripture and Apostolic teachings.

The fierce conflicts you refer to, most often reflected the palace politics of Rome during that period. Historians have also noted that there were a number of wealthy Romans who sought to elevate themselves by becoming Bishops, and they tried to expand their influence (and wealth) by removing Christian Bishops. It is a common ploy by non-believers to omit these facts, and try to portray the Church as violent and filled with arguments. Such a ploy is both dishonest and ill advised, The Church’s position shifted from great external persecution at the hands of Rome, enormous external misinformation from various pagans, to where these forces became internalised as a result of acceptance of Christianity by Rome.

This is the background that caused the Church to formulate Orthodox Christianity - the effort was great and we have Orthodoxy to this day - an enormous accomplishment by any measure.

35

Having read Patristic writings plus being well acquainted with the early church history, I suggest you point out the exact scriptural and Apostolic citations regarding the Trinity of which I am apparently ignorant. Furthermore, please identify the wealthy Romans who became bishops so we can all be enlightened. Labeling those who dare to differ with your version of Orthodox history as ‘non-believers’ is a common ploy to attempt to discredit them. Based on your position, one wonders why the numerous councils and various creeds were even necessary in the fourth and fifth century if Christian doctrine and actions were so harmonious. By the way, why was the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 referred to as the ‘Gangster Synod’? And why did Christianity Today refer to those centuries as “theological intrigue filled with conspiracies, Byzantine plots, murder and mayhem”? Must be those apostate non-believer writers at work.

36

Is that a given?

“Original Sin” does not just mean “first sin.” It means much more than that–more, that is, than is said in the third chapter of Genesis. If you only had Genesis 3 to go on, you would never extrapolate “the doctrine of Original Sin.” Consider that for many, Original Sin implies total depravity (not just for Calvinists; Arminius agreed). And yet God says to Cain, “sin crouches at the door and desires to have/master you.” Total depravity implies that each descendant of Adam (Cain included) is already mastered by sin.

Or maybe (by plain reading) he was “born illegitimately.” This speculation is supported by Jesse’s denial to Samuel of having another son…

38

A start to an understanding of the politics and various manoeuvrers during the period you are interested in, is for example, in “Athanasius: Select Works and Letters”, Author(s): Athanasius Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor). I will have to look through my sources to find quotes from a history of Christianity, so I have to defer to your sources unless you insist on looking through mine.

I think you are giving an uncharitable twist to my comment:

as I had anti-Christians in mind who would quote pagan sources against Christianity. You seem to have taken that remark personally - I am not aware of your background nor am I interested in that.

On the Trinity, I am somewhat taken aback by your aggressive response. A number of early writings go into depth regarding the formulation of the Trinity, and since you say you have read them, I see no point in indulging you in a pointless debate… The Gospel has many references (I and the Father are one, in he beginning was the Word, and so on). I am not aware of any Christian who does not equate these and other teachings with the Trinity - perhaps you may wish to explain why you disagree.

You misinterpret what I have said - there is no doubt that conflict occurred on many occasions during this period, and I have made a relevant comment on this - the source I gave above makes that very clear, including the politics surrounding the Emperor. Your comments appear very odd to me.

39

The doctrine of “Original Sin” is an attempt by Men to control other men, through the clergy/laity hierarchy developed very early on in the Historical exercise of Ecclesiastical power.

Consider; the Doctrine of “The Immaculate Conception” is directly a result of the doctrine of “Original Sin” because it was designed to protect Jesus from inheriting “Original sin” from Adam.

Several problems with that. First, Adam was not the first to sin. Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, then brought some to Adam, and He did eat. Even Paul recognizes this as he comments - “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”(I Tim 2:14)

But the Ecclesiastical hierarchy of the early church developed doctrines and creed designed to control Men’s minds, as “laity” taught by “Clergy.” And this continued until they finally declared Mary to be pure at birth; in a doctrine they named “The Immaculate Conception.”

So if Mary was conceived immaculately, then Christ was protected from this Original Sin of Adam." The rest of Mankind carries the burden of “inherited Sin” which makes us inherently corrupt.

But wait, Paul speaks again to this issue- He tells us it is natural for men to obey the law, not sin. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:”(Romans 2:14)

And it there is in fact a bible doctrine of original sin, how then to explain Enoch, who pleased God and was translates\d so that he did not suffer death; that natural wage of sin.
.

40

Several times on this Forum I have tried to stir up interest in a book by the Nobelist, Christian de Duve, entitled "Genetics of Original Sin". I wonder why none of the BioLogos staff or respondents have taken note of it.
Al Leo

1 Like
42

[quote=“tom, post:3, topic:4439, full:true”]
Thank you for this Post – one I believe is at the heart of our faith and existence.

The creation story in Genesis 2-3 that includes an account of a human fall in the Garden of Eden doesn’t say anything about original sin.

With respect, I disagree completely. To me, Genesis 3:5 clearly spells out the nature of our original sin… “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God".

This is the first sin in scripture making it the Original Sin. And rather than being about a simple act of disobedience, it illustrates the very worst of all sins – the desire to be god-like, to have ‘our will be done’, etc. A quick scan of human culture shows that this sin is pandemic and has countless forms. One could argue that every form of sin is merely a variant of one kind or another of this Original Sin.[/quote]

May I haste to point out, nothing is said about “desire to be God-like” being sinful. In fact we are often told to “Be ye Holy, for I am Holy.” We are encouraged throughout two covenants to attempt to be more like God. For that reason, I do not see emulating God to be sinful. Nor do I see wanting to be “more God-like” to be a disappointment in God’s eyes.

Truth of the matter is a little more subtle, in that Genesis does not camp on the grounds of first sin. Paul says more about it in his letter to Timothy.

My personal observation is that Adam had already known the bachelor-lifestyle, and did NOT want to return thereunto. He understood God’s instruction to him, because he evidently passed it on to Eve. I say this because when Eve quoted the injunction to Satan, she added a phrase that did not come from God’s injunction to Adam.

So Adam saw Eve approach him with a fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in her hand, and heard her words of offer, “Take and eat,” and his first response would be one of horror, in that he was very cognizant of God’s command to not eat thereof; Adam would remember his loneliness, which did not become evident to him until after God brought Eve into his life.

God’s company would have sufficed but only until Adam “knew Eve” as God had told him to. Adam did NOT want to give that up, so he joined Eve in her sin, possibly as an attempt at protecting her from her own folly, possibly simply not wanting to let her go alone into this
“Death” thing God had suggested. Having no experience about such things, he could only speculate, but he knew it did not sound like something good.

Anyway, whatever prompted Adam, he did not sin first; Eve did. So the doctrine of “original sin” is a mismatch from its inception. It says the man sinned first, due to forgetting that “Adam” was a name given to both Adam and Eve; “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”(Gen 5:1-2)

And Paul reminds us of this schema as he relates to us - " And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."(I Tim 2:14) So that when reference is made to "sin entered by one Man Adam, it included Eve from Gen 5:2. That eliminates the oft quoted “contradiction” made by doubters as to the veracity of scripture.

[quote=“tom, post:3, topic:4439, full:true”]
And this is consistent with evolution if it marks the point in which an animal species evolved past mere survival to the ability to grasp the concept of a Creator. But it is we humans who have chosen to go the next step bringing sin into an otherwise perfect creation.[/quote]

Respectfully disagree, for the following reasons. There is nothing in Genesis, nor in the Historicity of Man to suggest the Genesis account is false. I realize there is a non-scriptural scientific account offered in understanding Man’s beginnings, but it is not offered in rebuttal to scripture, only as an alternative understanding.

Nothing in the record rebuts Genesis account. It only differs. I consider the sources.

As for the assessment that the creation was “perfect,” again I disagree. According to the Genesis account, "God looked on everything he had made and saw that it was “very good.”

“Very Good” does not mean “Perfect.” “Perfect” is a reference in scripture to “completeness.” And it was just started, not completed. We are told Christ was “Perfected” at his demise. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;”(Hebrews 5:8-9)

43

[quote=“Henry, post:4, topic:4439, full:true”]
There are some groups of Christians that are open to discussion on this subject and others that are not. As a Southern Baptist, I say death was in the world for animals before the fall. Did not plants die that the animals ate? Human beings were the only ones who were promised the possibility of eternal life; however, they did not obtain it in the earthly paradise due to sin. [/quote]

Respectfully, may I suggest, while it may be correct that they did not “obtain eternal life” as that would require ascending into heaven, they certainly had access to it. Remember, Adam and Eve still had access to “eternal life” until they were exiled therefrom,

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and <color=blue>take also of the tree of life, and eat, <color=red>and live for ever: 23 <color=blue>Therefore the LORD God <color=red>sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

[quote=“Henry, post:4, topic:4439, full:true”]
Therefore, humans remained physically mortal until the present. We receive spiritually eternal life when we accept Christ; however, we are also promised a resurrection of the body in some way. There are different interpretations on just how this will occur. But we now have the promise of immortality through Christ. Will there be a resurrection for animals? [/quote]

Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

[quote=“Henry, post:4, topic:4439, full:true”]
Getting back to original sin, I believe the doctrine can stay as it is. Billy Graham, a fellow Baptist theologian who graduated with a BTh at Florida Bible Institute and a BA in Anthropology can accept a form of conservative theistic evolution, but he still takes Genesis and original sin seriously. I must agree with him. C.S. Lewis believed in a literal Adam and Eve and also that other human beings were created. It did not really change his feeling about original sin. I do like Dr. Lamoureux’s book on evolutionary creation, and I am reading it for the second time. However, I do feel he is more liberal than Billy and I are. God Bless. Charles Miller, BA, MAR PS: My MAR is the same thing as a Master of Religious Education.[/quote]

I disagree with the entire suggestion of the doctrine of original sin. It is one thing to tell us of the origin of sin, it is quite another to invent a doctrine that imputes the sins of one, upon an entire race, when scripture tells us otherwise.

Ezekiel 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

We are only responsible for those sins for which we can be held accountable; for example, if we teach our children to lie or steal, we will be accountable for those events should they happen prior to the child’s maturity. And any sins we commit ourselves, we are accountable for. But Adam’s sin belongs to Adam and Eve’s belongs to her.

44
45

Do me a favor and get it. You will find it very illuminating.
Al Leo

46

Sounds like an interesting book … any comments about the main argument of the book?

47

The subtitle, “The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity” gives some idea of the thrust of his argument, but it is not so much in the manner of a struggle “red in tooth and claw” type of selection. I think Roger @relates might find this viewpoint interesting. Edward O. Wilson wrote the Foreward. I am not comfortable with Ed’s world view, but I admit he is an effective writer. Naturally I was taken with de Duve’s statement that “the acquisition of language was a crucial step in homanization” and that it occurred as “the great breakthrough” or the “great leap forward”.
Al Leo

1 Like
48

Where can I find Billy Graham’s thoughts on conservative thiestic evolution?

49

@Nick_Allen…

“The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74”

I suppose one might say that Billy Graham was “agnostic” about the Creationism…

2 Likes
50

I believe in a Local Eden. God created the world (and people) by thiestic evolution as described in Genesis 1, and then created Adam and the garden in Eden through special creation as described in Genesis 2. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin entered the garden for the first time. Sin had been alive and well outside the garden long before. What Adam and Eve did in the garden was to choose to be culpable for their actions, and they represented us when they did it in that each of us would make the same choice. This is God’s way of proving to us that he is not evil for creating us. Because we are not God, we are not perfect and therefore we will sin, and some of us will choose to reject God. Without the experiment of Adam and Eve, we could argue that God is the author of evil. Because of Adam and Eve, we can see that we are culpable. We can see that given the choice of living in a perfect garden, vs. being able to choose right from wrong for ourselves, we each would choose to have knowledge of good and evil. The result is that we require a world to live in that challenges us, and is difficult, and is filled with other people who have the freedom to make the wrong choices and hurt us. So, sin is just the necessary logical result of free will. Adam and Eve are the answer to the Problem of Pain. Jesus is the solution to the Problem of Pain.

1 Like
53

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.