There is a reason for saying that your conjecture is acceptable, because when we read the Old Testament fable of the serpent, the language has many suggestive moments, which are picked up in your notes, suggesting a seduction with erotic undertones which are then included in the story of Joseph finding Mary pregnant. This is the way that stories develop and sometimes there is a profound element to them, but I feel no affinity towards the idea, because the original biblical fable is thoughtful enough.
I read these fables and stories as allegories, and I think that any of us could identify with the inquisitiveness at some stage in puberty that produces conscious awareness, but as soon as we say, “I am,” we become afraid and at a loss, because we have woken up from our innocence, having eaten the fruit of curiosity, and we start to see the opposites: the highs and the lows, the light and the shadows, and the danger outside of the confines of our metaphorical garden. Mythology is for me not what happened at some time but describes what is continually happening.
So, as interesting as your presentation is, it does nothing for me except give me some short entertainment.
A Swedish Lutheran bishop explained it as a matter of being “practiced sinners”, which today would come out more like “professional sinners”: children sin without knowing what they’re doing, and thus haven’t built up any barriers to the Holy Spirit, whereas youth and adults have sinned darned well knowing that they’re doing wrong and have thus built barriers against even their own consciences. So the child can receive the grace of God via Baptism because there are no barriers whereas the adult who has built barriers has to throw down the barriers.
Logging in here for the first time in awhile and see 20 notifications on this convo…why do I get the feeling none of y’all are discussing the book or article in question?
I read the excerpt from the published material…i take issue with the following statement the author makes…which is absolute nonsense and about as scholarly wrong as one can get…its truly a pathetic theological claim
“No matter your view of Scripture, you must admit that theology does not come fully formed from the Bible itself. Instead, Scripture provides a story from which we extract some data points: God created everything; humans all sin; Christ’s death and resurrection somehow save us,”
The reality for Christians is actually the complete opposite of the authors absurd statement. This is exactly why we have a wide variety of bad theology floating around…lies like this lead good people astray.
What this author is doing is turning the entire biblical narrative into a fairytale…a great story (but nothing more). Thats a catastrophic theological position leaving ones entire Christian world view completely exposed.
Basically this means Christs physical suffering and physical death on the cross are pointless…nothing more than a great fairytale. Christ didnt die to save us from the physical wages of sin and suffering, he died for a fairytale ending.
The problem with all or nothing theology is that if you cannot accept one part you are left with one alternative; Nothing!
7 day creation, a fantastic garden, a tower to the sky, a worldwide flood. We haven’t even reached Abraham, and you have lost credulity. The Gospel is lost before we even start.
The crucifixion is not about the origin of sin it is about the existence of sin. If you are giing to insist on believing in Adam then you will lose belief in Christ. Instead of promoting faith you are killing it.
If people cannot distinguish between reality and parable then the resurrection is placed on a par with the tree of life.
Original Sin kills faith. It gives people an excuse not to believe. They don’t accept the Garden story so they don’t accept the existence of sin. Or at least the relevance.
Christ died for each person not Adam. The sin is individual it is not Adam’s. You do not have to believe in Adam. You do have to believe in Christ.
Thanks for bringing this old thread to my attention. Just last night at a non-denominational Bible study I attend, the discussion leader brought up original sin and said it was universally held, at which time on of the participants made a comment about it being in our DNA and Adam’s DNA must have mutated when he sinned and passed it down to us.
My tongue was tired of being bit, so I commented that now with CRISPR we could remove the offending bits of DNA and return to Eden, just to show how ridiculous that really was, then went on to explain how original sin could be integrated in an evolutionary framework, probably close to what Crisp and Green presents. But, it is difficult to express views this complex in a few sentences with those who have diverse levels of scientific literacy. I fear I butchered it somewhat, Therefore, bringing this book to my attention was a blessing, as I now have it on order to read and to share.
It also would be appropriate to link this podcast and book discussion in this thread:
It’s a tough question–many do find the concept of original sin really important to their faith. It’s a good thing the Haarsmas are involved, too, especially from a Reformed perspective, as that’s a deep and rich one.
Nice review. I think Haarsma’s book would be a good reference for anyone interested in how evolution and original sin can co-exist.
While I doubt many minds will be changed, I see a fair number of people who are troubled by cognitive dissonance as their old understanding differs from what they see in science. Just knowing that some have been able to reconcile those beliefs or doctrines may be helpful.
The four approaches in this podcast episode is better though I would alter the second. This idea of Adam and Eve being representatives is only important in the first explanation. And thus more consistent with this idea of a cultural spread of sin to the rest of the species, an influence of ideas communicated by God setting Adam and Eve apart fits better with the second explanation.
I would have been hard put to not just start laughing. Then when challenged I would have pointed out that if you look at the history of the church, “original sin” is a Roman Catholic doctrine that somehow went unquestioned at the time of the Reformation despite the fact that it can’t be found in the early church Fathers.
You are accurate, but laughing at the discussion leader in a group bible study where most are men over 60 and conservative is probably not a good idea if you want them hear what you are saying. I am sure I strained my credibility enough as it was.
I think that is because Haarsma’s book is looking only at evolution and original sin, and a specially made Adam and Eve is not a common view consistent with evolution, though perhaps in some scenarios with the hybrid semi-concordant model put forth by the genealogical Adam idea.
Thanks for posting. Excellent article by our forum contributor Jay Johnson @Jay313 . I am in agreement with it, and he does a great job of pulling a lot things together and presenting them in an easily understood form. Evidently, he has a well rounded cerebral cortex to have such command of language.
It’s a nice article but I still think they are treating it as a supernatural disease that somehow corrupted us instead of how other laws work. I can’t tell to be honest if he’s using it as a supernatural curse or not. If he means it as just purely a biological aspect I agree. In the article towards the end, it mostly seems like it’s just a biological thing and general social intelligence. But I feel like, we’ve disagreed many times in discussions about OS.
For example right now as far as a I know cotton candy is allowed anywhere. If all of a sudden cotton candy was landed illegal and a sin, we would not believe that suddenly in 2023 fall people begin to use cotton candy for the first time and sinning all at once. We would know that for last hundred plus years people have been eating cotton candy. Then it was outlawed. Nothing changed with us. Just what was permissible was suddenly not.
Likewise, humans have always been the same way. Humans a million years ago felt anger, happiness and so on. 40,000k years ago men were still rejected by women and probably forced themselves on them and women would be jealous of other women and try to get the man. Humans would get mad and kill each other. Just like our cousins chimps get mad. Even bees so signs of distress over being rejected. Studies have shown rejected bees are more likely to find fermented sugars and get “drunk” than non rejected bee.
So there was no fall. There was just a line drawn in the sand by God and accountability kicked in.
