The Evolution of Original Sin

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Question for everyone here.

Given the predominant Christian view that human beings have both a physical body and an immaterial soul, where exactly is this Original Sin contained? Is it something that is passed down through the physical body via genetics or is it passed down through the spiritual/immaterial part of man?

It seems that the Greeks used to think that the body was bad and the spirit pure. Christians however seem to have reversed that to where the body is neutral but the soul itself is corrupt from conception.

I’m just asking what the predominant Christian view on this is even if people here disagree with it.

22

In the realm of science, Truth (or the closest approach to it) is realized only after many false leads have lead nowhere. In my opinion (and it is just an opinion) the belief that each human enters this world as an enemy of God is an example of such a false lead.
Al Leo

1 Like
23

@olivercrisp

A serious problem with “original sin” is that most people do not define it properly, because they fail to place in the right relational context. They call it disobedience when it is really rebellion against YHWH. The original man and woman rejected YHWH’s word and listened to the serpent, even though God has done everything for them and the serpent had done nothing. They believed the serpent who claimed YHWH was holding back from them so YHWH could lord it over them.

The original couple rebelled against YHWH and sin came into the world as their mistrust alienated them from their Creator. They failed to take responsibility for what they had done, blamed others, even YHWH and did not repent. This original sin set the tone for human existence separated from YHWH, which was not fully overcome until the coming of Jesus Christ and the founding of God’s Kingdom through the Spirit.

24

It is sometime since I read detailed discussions that included “original sin” so I need to rely on memory. The general outlook is that all humans have sinned, and the works of the flesh (unspiritual mankind) have been demonstrated throughout history as sinful (and these are listed). I think Augustine discusses how we may reconcile this with terms such as human nature and if this is passed on from parent to child.

Christians began conversion by repenting, baptism and living as reborn in Christ, so my thinking is they would think their children would continue in a state of grace (thus infant baptism became the norm).

A thread and a number of posts on this site took place some time ago on soul, spirit and so on, and it may be useful to visit this discussion.

Passing down some spiritual attribute physically is a difficult subject - we use terms such as carnal human attributes, and other similar terms, that encapsulate the wrong deeds done by us (sins). Since this is a universally correct observation, it is reasonable to conclude that all human beings are sinful, and this includes looking at some original point when we began to sin.

The story of Adam and Eve is particularly insightful as in this case, we are taught that even when we are in communion with God, and all of our physical needs are met, we can still be tempted to act contrary to God’s will. This solidified the universal aspects of human nature - and is an extraordinary way of focussing our attention on salvation through and in Christ.

25

Interesting this should cruise by my desk today. I’ve just posted an original article on the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. I argue that the [Hebrew] text support the notion that Adam and Eve were expelled because they discovered their sexual natures and became procreative. Sin enters the narrative in the observation that Adam and Eve suffer the consequences of making a free choice. In its cultural context this was quite radical when compared to other creation stories of that time most of which explained misfortune as being caused by the whims of capricious and/or vengeful gods. Thus the Garden story is the first time in history in which the human is shown as responsible for their decisions (sinful or otherwise), not other gods. LIke the first creation story, it is a powerful rebuke to the polytheism of the surrounding pagan cultures.

This is not as radical as it might appear. A number of scholars, include Brettler, Sarna and others accept this interpretation. If you’ve a mind to explore this interpretation, including my translation and commentary, you can visit Genesis: The Story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and click on the verse(s) of interest.

Blessings,

Michael

26

How else were they supposed to be fruitful and multiply?

2 Likes
27

Is anyone familiar with Rene Girard and Mimetic Theory?I am going to share a quote from The Jesus Driven Life by Michael Hardin. Hardin is one of Girard’s students and this follows on the theory:

"You may have seen the poster or heard ‘children learn what they live’. The thing we now know is that this is true until the day we die. We are all copying each other (and others in our culture) all the time. There is not a time when we cease copying, when we are somehow free from imitation. When we say we are ‘made in the image of God’ we are saying we are copies; we are meant to copy or imitate God. But we have not done that; we have learned to copy one another in our brokenness and that is our downfall. The Scripture does not say sin entered the world through Eve but through the male, Adam (Genesis 3: 6-7). Why is this, didn’t she also disobey? How is it that sin is not reckoned to her? Because it was Adam who initiated the copying, Adam imitated Eve’s desire, rather than God’s desire."
The Jesus Driven Life by Michael Hardin pg. 148

This is the dividing point here for the concept of original sin, it is our imitation of each others desire instead of God’s desire. From here all jealousy, lust etc. flow. There is much more to Mimetic Theory than this but that encapsulates original sin. Girard also came to be a follower of Jesus because of the difference in the story of the scapegoat in Jesus compared to ancient myth stories.

28

You should browse around the biologos.org website some rainy day. There are plenty of scientists and philosophers who write for us that would beg to differ on this point.

29

The questions that may arise when considering the general view of sin and when it originated amongst us, and the overall outlook provided by evolutionary thought, may become complicated. There are a number of factors that must be considered, both on our understanding of doctrine, and our limited understanding f evolution and descent of humanity. A useful treatment of the subject, which includes orthodox and catholic outlooks, but also includes major evangelical views (as I understand), is provided by Kemp, in “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis”, 2011, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 2.

It is a useful paper as it considers almost every argument put forward on origins and genetics of humans, and also a detailed discussion on original sin.

30

Thanks Christy. Unfortunately I just happened on this site while doing a quick search and don’t expect I’ll have time to do much browsing, unless I am referred to something specific.

And, sorry that my statement wasn’t very clear. What I was referring to is the fact that modern science is built on the principle of methodological naturalism (MN). This isn’t something that’s up for debate within the scientific community.

I don’t know how familiar you are with the topic but the simplest way I can explain it is with an example. Say we set up a trial to determine the effectiveness of some new medication. We put together a large sample size, we create a control group with a placebo pill where neither those taking the meds or those administering it know the difference (double blind), and we make sure the selection of who takes each pill is randomized. We then collect accurate data and run the results through statistical analysis. And, this process can usually give us a pretty good idea of the effectiveness of the medicine.

Now those of us from a Christian background tend to also believe that God can heal people miraculously as well. And, if that’s the case, there’s always the possibility that the reason some of the people in our experiment got well is because of direct supernatural intervention and not because of our medicine. However, there’s nothing that science can do with that information. This is a variable which, unlike other variables, we have no way of controlling. So, we make a conscious decision to just ignore that possibility when doing science. We’re not saying we know for a fact that God doesn’t exist or that there was no miraculous healing involved, we’re just choosing to eliminate that variable from our thought process because we just don’t have another choice.

Unlike Philosophical Naturalism which is a belief system, MN is only a methodology. However, this methodology does have significant implications, as I mentioned in my original comment. If you exclude the supernatural variable at the very beginning from the equation (aka MN), you will ALWAYS arrive at only natural conclusions. There will never be a time when science will align with any super-naturalistic philosophy. If it seems like such a philosophy can be harmonized with science at the present time, it is only because science is currently only at the frontiers of understanding that particular topic. As science progresses, supernatural possibilities will slowly be choked out like grain by the weeds.

This doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with science; it is the most effective method we have for gathering knowledge about our universe. But we have to be conscious that the method does have limitations and we need to look for ways to work with and around those limitations.

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