What Are Your Views on Adam and Eve?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
21

Tell me more about what you mean, please.

1 Like
22

This is my take on a genealogical Adam and Eve (as distinct form a genetic Adam and Eve). It stems from the Flynn-Kemp proposal which has several roots going back 80 years in Catholicism and incorporates the Thomistic concept of a soul – something I think is lacking from Swamidass and company.

At some point during the process of human evolution, in the fullness of time, God chose two biological humans (or created them de novo) and supernaturally endowed them with souls (the form of the body). This makes them not simply animals or biological humans, but full metaphysical humans capable of abstract thought. These two individuals are the first two true metaphysical humans that are made in the image of God (imago dei). God also gives them preternatural gifts, access to him their natures otherwise do not permit and if these two individuals do not sin, they would not taste death. Neither would their offspring who would be born in that same state of grace. Though I do not accept a literal garden story, this belief draws on the theme of a special garden with a tree of life, and God’s covenant with Adam and Eve.

This view provides a portrait consistent with Paul’s punctiliar understanding of sin and death as stemming from one man. In the narrative, Adam and Eve are cut off from the tree of life which I take as indicting the story saw them as living forever otherwise. Since God must supernaturally create each human soul, we can easily imagine that after choosing Adam and Eve, God continued creating souls for all their children and children’s children.

This makes Adam and Eve not the genetic ancestor of all full metaphysical humans alive today, but the genealogical ancestor of all full metaphysical humans alive today. This alleviates the genetic difficulties, and it also allows us to affirm that while biological death was a natural part of life since it first formed, death came into the world for metaphysical humans as a result of sin. The original humans were aware of death but had access to life. For those of us who think scripture teaches original sin, we do not need to view it as a positive punishment God inflicts on us so much as a privation of the gifts bestowed to the first couple. Since Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were banished from Eden (Sacred Space) as the story goes, we lose access to the preternatural gifts God granted them. This is similar to a wealthy couple squandering away their money. Their children will now grow up lacking access to the wealth that otherwise would have been theirs had their parents not screwed up.

It also allows one to affirm that a flood could have wiped out all of humanity --save eight–at some point in the distant past.

Vinnie

3 Likes
23

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to in order to justify

  1. Humans as the image of God

  2. The Fall

  3. Original or endemic sin

What a poor view of God and His creative abilities they all have.

Richard

24

Speaking of broken records


2 Likes
25

I was wondering whether a thread about the compatibility or incompatibility of pragmatism with faith and religion would get anywhere; I guess not.

Richard

26

I’ve pointed out his misunderstanding of original sin multiple times from my perspective. Unfortunately, you cannot dialogue with a broken record because it repeats the same thing over and over again and doesn’t care or respond to what you actually write.

Not for you with such a poor attitude and a failure to discuss what people actually believe, as opposed to your caricature of their beliefs.

Vinnie

2 Likes
27

He doesn’t care. He has even said as much multiple times.

2 Likes
28

:thinking:

You believe in the Fall/

You claim actual ancestry to Adam and Eve.

Your view of Original Sin is non conventional but still manages to taint all humanity into a fallen state by our doing.

I see nothing wrong with my previous post.

:rofl:

That would seem to be par for the course on this forum.

I have seem little ability to understand let alone argue any view other than the one held by the poster.

There is very little discussion on this forum, and even less unbiased posting.

Pragmatism
the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
Websters Dictionary

Everybody is more concerned about academic, or theological definitions and accuracy rather than understanding the practical effects or consequences of their beleifs.

Richard

29

Right, let’s apply this to the doctrine of original sin.

Taken consistently, the denial of original sin does not merely alter one doctrine about Adam, it undermines the reason Christ is universally necessary.

Suppose human beings are born spiritually intact, with no inherited corruption, no fallen condition, and no alienation from God deriving from Adam.

Then ask a very simple question: why does every human being need Christ?

If I am born spiritually whole, then before I commit any personal sin there is nothing in me that needs redemption, then I do not need to be restored, regenerated, healed, liberated from a fallen nature, or transferred from death to life. I simply need to avoid making bad choices.

And if it is genuinely possible for me to avoid sin by the proper use of my natural faculties, then Christ is no longer absolutely necessary for my salvation. At most, He becomes an aid: a teacher, an example, a source of forgiveness after I fail, or an additional assistance from God.

That is a radically different Christianity.

That is also where the denial of an inherited fallen condition runs directly into the language of Scripture.

The New Testament does not present Christ as someone who becomes necessary only after an individual commits his first personal sin, It presents the whole human race as standing in need of regeneration, life, and deliverance in Christ.

Jesus says: “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

And again “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” ( John 3:5)

He doesn’t say “unless a sinner who has committed personal offenses is forgiven”, He says that one must be born again.

That is much more radical. Something is lacking in our first birth. Natural human birth does not, by itself, place a person in the condition required for the Kingdom. A second birth is universally necessary.

The same point appears in John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Not “no sinner who has committed enough personal sins,” but no one.

Acts 4:12 is equally categorical: “There is salvation in no one else.”

Again, the apostolic claim is not that Christ is one remedy for people who happen to make moral mistakes. Salvation itself is located in Christ.

Paul explains why through the Adam–Christ parallel: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin
”
(Romans 5:12)

And: “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” ( Romans 5:19)

Whatever precise account one gives of inherited guilt, Paul’s argument clearly goes beyond personal imitation: Adam’s act has consequences for those who are not Adam.

That is precisely why Christ’s act can have consequences for those who are not Christ: “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” ( Romans 5:18)

The structure of Paul’s argument is corporate: Adam → sin and death enter the human condition.
Christ → righteousness and life enter the human condition.

The same structure appears even more starkly in 1 Corinthians: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” ( 1 Corinthians 15:22(

This is particularly important.

Paul contrasts not merely two examples of behavior, but two states:

in Adam → death
in Christ → life

If there is no inherited Adamic condition, Paul’s parallel becomes impossible to explain. Why are people “in Adam” before consciously choosing to imitate Adam?

1 Like
30

Yes, agreed. And so one way to deal with that is to redefine sin to include an “original sin” that isn’t actually a sin one commits but rather a “sin” one inherits. Another way is to realize that what is lacking is something other than sinlessness. As Paul puts it, everyone falls short of the glory of God, a glory we were created to reflect.

In this second view, even infants or those who never develop the cognitive powers necessary to commit a sin still need Jesus and still can be saved by Jesus. Because “Jesus saves” means more than that Jesus forgives sin. Since there’s more to salvation than sin-forgiveness, we don’t have to invent inheritable sins to make everyone a sinner even before they sin.

That said, the concept of original sin can be helpful, but calling it “sin” just muddies the water and confuses the issue.

I would say that Adam’s act has consequences for those who show themselves to be Adam’s descendents – by sinning. Just as Abraham’s true descendents are discerned by their faith (Rom. 4:11–12), Adam’s descendents are discerned by their sin (the last clause of Rom. 5:12). When Jesus or Paul talk about descendents, they’re rarely referring to biological ancestry.

When Augustine and others looked at Paul’s “all have sinned” language, they immediately wondered, “How can this be true of infants?” But Paul isn’t talking to or about infants. Anyone who is old enough and intelligent enough to be able to understand Paul’s words should be able to recognize that they have sinned. (Paul may also be talking about people groups, as in it isn’t only gentiles who have sinned or Jews who have sinned but all have sinned. Likewise he says that Jesus’ act leads to “justification and life for all,” not necessarily meaning every person, but for Jews as well as Greeks.)

You don’t need the word “inherited” in that sentence. If there is no Adamic condition, Paul’s parallel becomes impossible to explain. For Paul, Adam is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for humanity. Adam is a way of talking about the human condition. But the good news is that being in Adam (destined to die) or in Christ (destined for life) isn’t about ancestry! We all start “in Adam” – even the literal, historical Adam began “in Adam” before he sinned (1 Cor. 15:45–49). “In Christ” is a gift, not anyone’s natural position.

4 Likes
31

You are right about one thing: the universal need for Christ does not, by itself, prove original sin. A sinless creature can still need grace, glorification and union with God.

But that does not settle the question of original sin. The question is why every human being is born into the condition from which Christ saves us.

If you mean that humanity inherits from Adam mortality, corruption and the loss of original righteousness, but you simply object to calling that inherited condition “sin,” then your disagreement is largely terminological (That is already very close to what classical Christianity means by the Adamic fallen condition)

But if you mean that this condition has nothing to do with Adam and is simply the normal condition of created humanity, then Romans 5 becomes impossible to explain: Paul explicitly says that sin entered through one man, death through sin, that one man’s trespass brought condemnation, and that “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.”

And nobody teaches that infants personally committed Adam’s sin. Original sin is a state contracted, and not committed, not a personal act or personal culpability.

So “we don’t need to invent inheritable sins” attacks a doctrine nobody actually teaches. It is a strawman. The real issue is whether humanity inherits an Adamic deprivation before personal sin. Romans 5 strongly says that it does.

Your reading turns Adamic solidarity into moral imitation in a way Romans 5 itself doesn’t.

Your proposal is basically “people sin → by sinning they show themselves to be Adam’s descendants.”

But Paul repeatedly says the opposite causal thing:

By the trespass of the one, the many died.”(Rom. 5:15)
“One trespass brought condemnation.” (Rom. 5:16)
“Because of the trespass of the one, death reigned.” ( Rom. 5:17)
“Through one trespass came condemnation for all.” (Rom. 5:18)
“Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners.” ( Rom. 5:19)

That is not merely “people resemble Adam by sinning.” Paul attributes the condition of the many to the act of the one.

Romans 5:19 is especially difficult for your view: “ήÎčᜰ Ï„áż†Ï‚ παραÎșÎżáż†Ï‚ Ï„ÎżáżŠ ጑Μ᜞ς áŒ€ÎœÎžÏÏŽÏ€ÎżÏ… áŒÎŒÎ±ÏÏ„Ï‰Î»Îżáœ¶ ÎșÎ±Ï„Î”ÏƒÏ„ÎŹÎžÎ·ÏƒÎ±Îœ ÎżáŒ± Ï€ÎżÎ»Î»ÎżÎŻâ€

The verb kathistēmi means to constitute, make, place into a condition. And Paul immediately uses the same structure for Christ: “Through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous.”

So if “made sinners” merely means “they sinned and thereby showed themselves to be Adam’s descendants,” consistency would make “made righteous” mean “they acted righteously and thereby showed themselves to be Christ’s descendants.”

But that destroys Paul’s parallel.

His point is:

Adam’s disobedience → the many are constituted sinners
Christ’s obedience → the many are constituted righteous

That is why Adam is “a type of the one who was to come” (Rom. 5:14). The parallel is not bad example / good example, but one man whose act affects the many / one man whose act affects the many.

The Abraham analogy doesn’t establish your case either: un Romans 4 Paul explicitly says Abraham is “the father of all who believe” and that his children “walk in the footsteps of the faith” of Abraham. But nowhere in Romans 5 does Paul say, “Adam is the father of everyone who sins.” That is being imported into the text.

Nor does Romans 5:12 settle the matter. I am perfectly happy to read “death spread to all because all sinned.” But verses 15–19 still repeatedly make Adam’s one act causally decisive.

And 1 Corinthians 15 makes the corporate structure even clearer: “Since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.” ( 1 Cor. 15:21)

“As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” ( 1 Cor. 15:22)

Again:

death through a man
life through a man
in Adam
in Christ

That is representative solidarity, not mere imitation.

As for infants, I agree that Romans 5 is not a treatise specifically about them. But “Paul was not writing to infants” is irrelevant to the scope of his claims. He is making statements about humanity, death, Adam, and the many.

So the central question remains: If Adam’s act has no consequence for anyone until that person independently sins, why does Paul repeatedly say that death, condemnation, and the constitution of the many as sinners come “through the one man” and “through the one trespass”?

The plain meaning of the text is that Adam’s act has consequences for people who are not Adam.

Romans 5:15–19 says exactly that, and reducing Paul’s Adam–Christ parallel to “people who sin show that they resemble Adam” does not fit the grammar or the logic of the passage.

Paul’s argument is much stronger than imitation: for him, the one affects the many.

The issue is you’re collapsing two things Paul keeps distinct: Adam’s original created condition and the fallen condition summed up in the phrase “in Adam all die.”

I agree that 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 presents Adam as psychikos, earthly, and not yet in the glorified, pneumatikos state revealed in the risen Christ: “The spiritual is not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.” ( 1 Cor. 15:46)

But “earthly and not yet glorified” does not mean “already fallen and under the reign of death.”

Romans 5 is explicit that something changes through Adam’s transgression:

Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” (Rom. 5:12)
“By the trespass of the one, the many died.” ( Rom. 5:15)
“Because of the trespass of the one, death reigned.” ( Rom. 5:17)

And 1 Corinthians 15 itself says: “Since death came through a man, through a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Cor. 15:21)

So whatever we say about Adam’s original natural constitution, Paul does not treat the present reign of death as simply identical with Adam’s original state.

In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:51 shows that “not yet glorified” does not entail “destined to die”: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.”

Paul can envisage transformation into incorruption without death. So Adam could be natural and unglorified without already being in the fallen condition described in Romans 5.

Nor does Paul ever say that the historical Adam was already “in Adam” before he sinned. He calls him “the first man, Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). The fact that Hebrew ’adam can mean “human being” or “humanity” does not make Paul’s Adam merely an abstract symbol for the human condition. Paul treats him as both an individual and a representative figure; Romans 5:14 even speaks historically of death reigning “from Adam to Moses.”

So “in Adam” has to be read from Paul’s argument itself: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” ( 1 Cor. 15:22(

That is more than “Adam represents ordinary humanity: adamic solidarity is specifically tied to death, immediately after Paul has said that death came through a man.

There is also a tension with your earlier argument, because previously suggested that people show themselves to be Adam’s descendants by personally sinning, but now you say “we all start ‘in Adam.’”

If we all start in Adam, then personal sin cannot be what first puts us there: you have already conceded a pre-personal Adamic solidarity.

The point of the matter, then, is whether that Adamic condition was altered by Adam’s transgression. Romans 5 says yes, explicitly so;

By the trespass of the one, the many died.” ( 5:15)

“One trespass” brought condemnation. ( 5:16)

“Because of the trespass of the one, death reigned.” ( 5:17)

“Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners.” (5:19)

So I’m happy to qualify the word “inherited.” If by it you mean that we inherit Adam’s personal culpability, as though we ourselves committed his act, that is not what I am arguing, but if by “inherited Adamic condition” we mean a condition into which human beings are born before their own personal acts, by virtue of belonging to Adamic humanity, and which has been affected by Adam’s transgression, then your own statement that “we all start in Adam,” together with Romans 5, gives us exactly that.

Call it ancestral mortality, corruption, deprivation of original righteousness, the fallen Adamic condition, or original sin, the terminology can be debated, it’s the substance that is much harder to escape: our solidarity with Adam precedes our personal choices, and Paul traces the fallen character of that solidarity to the transgression of the one man.

2 Likes
32

Thanks, Vinnie. That was helpful.

1 Like
33

My disagreement is focusing on ancestral inheritance from Adam, as if someone not descended from him would therefore not be human or couldn’t be saved by Christ. I also disagree with making what we are saved from a matter of what we have inherited. In many accounts of original sin, conversion seems to be about asking Jesus to correct our flawed “condition” rather than how we repent of our rebellion against God and injustices to others. It becomes almost clinical, and I don’t think that’s how we should look at our own sin.

We have very different ways of reading Romans 5. For me, it’s important that all these statements come in chapter 5, long after Paul has already established that all sin and fall short of God’s glory. Paul starts that in Romans 1 where his account of how humans fall has no Adam and no “one man” but rather a vague “they.” God creates the world and is revealed to humanity (1:20). Humans feign wisdom while turning from their creator to follow another creature in rebellion (1:22–25). They know this warrants their death (1:32). Eden is retold as the story of humanity, not just one couple.

While the number of people involved isn’t specified, their “ungodliness” and “injustice” are clear. The sins Paul talks about are vividly real: “Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (1:29–31). It seems over the top, but then Paul insists in 2:1 that his audience is “doing the very same things”! The problem isn’t merely people back then or gentiles or Greeks – the problem is simply people. Those given advantages, such as the Jews, didn’t fare better. “There is no one who is righteous” (3:10). That includes every people group. “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:22–23).

When Paul says “all have sinned,” he means actually committed sins, not inherited a sin nor contracted a deprivation. This is all established in the first three chapters. So when we get to the second half of Romans 5, Paul doesn’t need to finally tell us how sin entered the world and spread or how we need a saviour. That’s already been done! But it seems that Paul has recognized that his argument so far is hard to follow. He’s dealt with caveats (such as the gentile who by nature does what the law requires, and perhaps will be excused when they are judged by Jesus). He’s given a very nuanced view of the law. Many in his audience are going to be lost by now.

So Paul transposes his whole argument to a new key. He’s talked about the human condition of Greeks and Jews as well as Christ’s gift, but now he compresses it into a man-vs-man. He dispenses with most of the nuances and dispenses with portraying diverse groups of people. He telescopes everything into a contest between two champions and their uniform followers.

To make things simple, Paul reduces pluralities to “one.” Paul loves doing this. Elsewhere, all our baptisms are the “one baptism”; all that Christ offers is our “one hope”; all believers are Christ’s bride, or members of his body, or stones that form one temple. So here, to get a proper foil to the one man Jesus Christ, Paul collapses the humans he originally called “they” and Genesis calls Adam and Eve into “one man.” And because Adam’s story has one transgression, he likewise collapses Jesus’ entire life into a singular “act of righteousness.” This paragraph of Romans isn’t the place for nuance. Paul’s done that already. Here he’s going for something more punchy.

Paul does something similar in 1 Corinthians 15. While in Romans he collapses everything to two men, Adam and Christ, to Corinth he collapses his argument to two men named Adam as well as someone named Death. Read Romans 5:12–21 as if it’s the whole letter and, yes, it seems to make sin entirely the fault of a literal man named Adam. Or, read 1 Corinthians 15:42–57 on its own, and you might think Adam’s predicament is entirely due to a literal person named Death.

Focusing on this one paragraph, this one man-vs-man illustration, to figure out what Paul is teaching about humanity and sin and salvation is just as bad as expecting a pastor’s sermon illustration to fully articulate every point they’re trying to get across. It misreads the genre of this paragraph and misses its place and purpose in Paul’s letter.

(And really, allowing this paragraph to use vivid language that can’t be taken hyper-literally is good for your position too. The Catholic view is that original sin is an inherited deprivation of sanctifying grace. That’s as far from a literalist take of “Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” as my own view is.)

This is already way too long. But if you want to see how I get even more into the weeds of how I read Romans 5, you can check out my earlier thread on why Adam is not Jesus’ type.

Yes, I see Adam and Eve’s story as being the human story. Sinning doesn’t make us human, but replaying their story confirms that them’s us.

2 Likes
34

That’s because the Bible is theological literature meant to tell us about the relationship between Yahweh and His Creation, with a focus on us humans. As with all literature, the essence is in the meaning, not in any “practical effects”.

35

How about “original flesh”, using the common definition of “flesh” Paul uses to indicate the fallen nature?

“Death” here likely does not mean physical death but spiritual, i.e. we are born without a connection to God, and without that connection our spiritual side is dead – not just flawed, not merely broken, but dead. Reasonably, a dead being can do nothing good, and so we stand incapable of actual spiritual good apart from Christ.

36

Think ancestral inheritance as in the Passover ritual: When Israel left Egypt, there came with them a “mixed multitude”, people not born from the sons of Jacob/Israel. They became part of the people/nation, and along with those “of the blood” declared themselves part of the people of Israel.

1 Like
37

So Biblical theology is purely cerebral. It has no practical use or value.

:thinking:

:thinking:

:thinking:

:woozy_face:

Richard

38

Several issues are being conflated here.

First, “descent from Adam” does not mean that humanity is defined by possessing some special piece of “Adamic DNA,” nor does it imply that a hypothetical non-descendant would somehow be subhuman or intrinsically unsavable.

A historical-genealogical Adam model makes a precise claim: the human race can share Adam and Eve as universal genealogical ancestors without having descended genetically and exclusively from a population of two.

That distinction is scientifically important, because genealogical ancestry is not the same as genetic ancestry: after enough generations, someone can be a genuine ancestor of yours while contributing no identifiable DNA to you. Work by Chang, and later by Rohde, Olson and Chang, showed that universal genealogical ancestry can arise surprisingly quickly even in large and geographically structured populations.

So Adam and Eve could, in principle, have lived within a larger population and eventually become ancestors of everyone alive today. That requires neither a recent two-person genetic bottleneck nor the claim that all present human genetic diversity came exclusively from them.

That does not prove (scientifically) Adam and Eve existed, nor does population genetics explain the transmission of original sin, It simply means that universal genealogical descent from a historical couple is compatible with population genetics. The hypothetical “what about someone who is not descended from Adam?” therefore does not establish the dilemma you suggest with respect to present humanity.

More importantly, I think you are setting up a false choice between an inherited condition and personal rebellion.

Classical Christianity affirms both.

I did not commit Adam’s act, and I am not personally culpable for his decision, but I enter existence already mortal and corruptible, within a humanity whose present condition precedes any personal choice of mine. I then commit my own sins, for which I really am responsible and of which I must repent.

So these are not competing accounts:

Christ heals what is wounded in human nature.
Christ forgives the sins I personally commit.

The distinction id important because original sin is not supposed to turn my pride, cruelty, injustice or idolatry into something Adam did instead of me. Those are my acts.

Original sin is, again, contracted and not committed, it is a state and not an act, and does not have the character of personal fault in Adam’s descendants. This is what Catholics affirm. Orthodox accounts commonly make the same basic distinction between Adam’s personal transgression and the mortality and corruption subsequently shared by humanity.

So when you object that a “condition” sounds too clinical, that is really a pastoral objection to one way of presenting salvation, not an argument against the doctrine itself.

Christian salvation has never been only juridical or only therapeutic. Scripture speaks in both registers: forgiveness and repentance, but also healing, regeneration, liberation, new creation, resurrection and incorruption.

A person can be culpable in one respect and wounded in another.

I need forgiveness because I have sinned, i need healing because human existence is disordered, i I need resurrection because I am mortal.

Christ addresses all of these.

That is also why personal repentance cannot exhaust the meaning of salvation: an infant has no personal rebellion of which to repent, yet remains mortal and in need of life in Christ. An adult shares that same mortal condition and, in addition, has committed personal sins requiring repentance.

So I am not replacing repentance with a “flawed condition” model. I am saying that personal culpability does not exhaust the human problem.

That is precisely the force of Paul’s Adam–Christ argument: through the one man sin enters, death enters and reigns; through the one trespass the many are affected; through the obedience of the other come righteousness and life.

Personal repentance is indispensable. But Christ saves us from more than the bad things we individually chose to do, because the human predicament is larger than the sum of our personal transgressions.

The issue with this reading is that it makes Romans 5 say much less than Paul actually says.

I have no problem with Romans 1–3 teaching that human beings commit actual personal sins. “All have sinned” in Romans 3:23 does not need to mean that everyone personally committed Adam’s act, and original sin does not require that reading.

But it does not follow that Romans 1–3 has already exhausted Paul’s account of Sin, Death, and the human condition.

Romans 1–3 establishes that Jews and Gentiles alike are personally sinful and accountable to God. Romans 5 then develops the argument further by introducing a broader Adam–Christ framework.

That development is visible in Paul’s language itself. In Romans 1–3, people sin. From Romans 5 onward, Sin is also described as a power that:

enters the world — Rom. 5:12
reigns in death — Rom. 5:21
exercises dominion — Rom. 6:14
dwells in man — Rom. 7:17, 20

So Paul’s account is now broader than a catalogue of voluntary acts.

I also see no textual basis for the claim that Paul reached chapter 5, realized his argument had become too complicated, and therefore simplified it into a man-versus-man illustration. That is a theory about Paul’s compositional psychology, not something the text says.

And the actual structure of Romans 5:12–19 is strikingly consistent:

“through one man” sin entered — 5:12
“by the trespass of the one, the many died” — 5:15
death reigned “through the one” — 5:17
“through one trespass” came condemnation — 5:18
“through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” — 5:19

Your proposal is that “the one man” is really Paul collapsing Adam, Eve, and sinful humanity into a single rhetorical figure.

But Paul never says that, and your analogies don’t establish it.

When Paul speaks of “one body,” he explicitly explains how many members constitute one body “.One baptism” names a single shared baptismal reality; it doesn’t provide a precedent for rhetorically turning many distinct human agents into one individual agent

Romans 5 does something different: it contrasts the one with the many.

If “the one” is simply the many rhetorically compressed into one, the contrast on which the whole paragraph depends becomes much harder to explain.

Romans 5:14 makes that even more difficult: “death reigned from Adam to Moses.”

Paul places Adam and Moses in a temporal sequence. That is not naturally read as “death reigned from humanity to Moses.”

Even granting Adamic or Edenic echoes in Romans 1, that would not by itself establish that Adam in Romans 5 is simply another name for collective humanity

The same problem applies to your treatment of Christ’s “one act of righteousness.” Paul may summarize Christ’s obedient mission under one climactic act, even granting your proposal that Paul summarizes Christ’s obedient life and mission under one “act of righteousness”, that would still be a compression of the actions of one person, not a compression of many different persons into one actor.

Nor does the personification of Death in 1 Corinthians 15 make Adam equally non-personal. Paul calls Adam: “the first man Adam” ( 1 Cor. 15:45)

and contrasts:

“the first man”
with
“the second man.”

He also says: “Since through a man came death, through a man also came the resurrection of the dead.” ( 1 Cor. 15:21) followed immediately by: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)

Death can be personified as a power while Adam and Christ remain the representative men associated with those two orders. Those are different literary functions.

So I do not think Romans 5 is merely repeating Romans 1–3 in simplified form.

Romans 1–3 says that we personally sin.

Romans 5 adds something else: our personal sins occur within a larger Adam–Christ framework in which Paul repeatedly attributes real consequences for the many to the action of the one.

That is the point I have been making all along: Adam’s act has consequences for people who are not Adam.

You can debate what those consequences are and how they are transmitted. But turning Paul’s repeated one → many structure into “the many sin, and Paul rhetorically calls them one man” requires much more than the text itself gives you.

On your parenthetical point

As for this:

“The Catholic view is that original sin is an inherited deprivation of sanctifying grace. That’s as far from a literalist take of ‘Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners’ as my own view is.”

I do not think the two moves are equivalent.

I have never argued that Paul means every descendant somehow personally performed Adam’s act, or that Adam’s personal culpability is simply copied into everyone else.

Catholic doctrine explicitly denies that. Original sin is contracted, not committed, as I have stated multiple times: Adam’s personal transgression remains his.

The Catholic interpretation therefore preserves Paul’s one–many structure: one man commits the disobedience → the many really suffer a resulting condition.

The theological language of deprivation of original holiness and justice, a wounded human nature, mortality, and inclination to sin attempts to specify what that effect consists in.

Your interpretation makes a much larger move. You are proposing that the “one man” himself is a rhetorical compression of the many people who personally sin.

Those are not the same kind of interpretation.

The Catholic reading says: “Paul really does mean that the act of the one has consequences for the many; now we must explain the nature of those consequences.”

Your reading says: the “one” is really the many themselves presented rhetorically as one.

So Catholic theology interprets the effect of Paul’s one–many relation.

Your reading substantially reidentifies the subject of that relation.

That is why saying both readings are equally “non-literal” does not work. The issue is not wooden literalism versus metaphor, the issue is whether Paul’s repeated causal structure (the disobedience of the one → consequences for the many) is being preserved or dissolved.

And my argument has always been the former, not the claim that we all somehow personally committed Adam’s individual act.

The thing is, if we all “start in Adam,” then our Adamic solidarity is prior to our personal sins. Our later sins may manifest or replay the Adamic pattern, but they cannot be what first places us in Adam.

So “replaying their story confirms that them’s us” may explain resemblance, but it doesn’t explain the underlying solidarity.

The question remains: why are we already in Adam before we replay Adam’s story?

And this is exactly where Romans 5 says more than “Adam and Eve are an archetype of what humans do.”

Paul repeatedly uses causal language:

“through one man sin entered the world”
“by the trespass of the one, the many died”
“through one trespass came condemnation”
“through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners”

That is much stronger than: “Adam did what all humans eventually do.”

Your formulation makes Adam primarily a mirror of humanity, yet Paul presents Adam as much more than a mirror: he is a representative figure whose act has consequences for the many.

I have no objection to saying that we “replay” Adam’s story. We do, plainly.

But imitation and solidarity are not the same thing.

Imitation explains why we act like Adam.
Solidarity explains why we are already “in Adam” before our first personal act.

Your own statement that “we all start in Adam” concedes the second, so the remaining question is whether Adam merely symbolizes the human condition, or whether his transgression actually contributes to the condition into which the many are born.

Romans 5 strongly points to the latter.

39

P.s: regarding this

I just want to those that this reading is not a late Augustinian invention. as a remarkably broad range of Fathers, West and East, understood Adam’s transgression as having objectively affected subsequent humanity.

Irenaeus of Lyons writes that through the disobedience of the one man “the many were made sinners and forfeited life,” while through Christ’s obedience the many receive justification and salvation. His entire doctrine of recapitulation presupposes that what was lost in Adam is restored in Christ. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 18, §7 , CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.18 (St. Irenaeus) )

Cyprian of Carthage, discussing infant baptism, says that a newborn has committed no personal sin, yet has “contracted the contagion of the ancient death” by being born according to Adam. That is especially significant because Cyprian explicitly distinguishes personal sin from an Adamic condition present from birth. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle 58 (Cyprian of Carthage) Epistle 58, §5

Cyril of Jerusalem says directly that “one man’s sin, even Adam’s, had power to bring death to the world,” and contrasts this with Christ bringing life to the world. (Epistle 58 (To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants), §5. CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem) )

Athanasius of Alexandria teaches that after the transgression death and corruption gained mastery over mankind and that corruption “prevailed 
 over the whole race.” He explicitly says that repentance alone could not “remedy a fallen nature,” which is why the Word had to restore humanity through the Incarnation. CHURCH FATHERS: On the Incarnation of the Word (Athanasius) On the Incarnation, §§5 e 7.

John Chrysostom, although far less Augustinian than Augustine, still teaches that Adam’s sin brought mortality upon those descended from him. Commenting on Romans 5, he repeatedly treats Adam’s act as doing real harm to the many, not merely providing an example for imitation. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 10 on Romans (Chrysostom) Homily 10 on Romans

Cyril of Alexandria says that “corruption is extended against the whole nature of man because of the transgression in Adam. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885) Book 1. pp. 6-129. Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I, Chapter IX, argument 17.Cyril of Alexandria says that “corruption is extended against the whole nature of man, because of the transgression in Adam.” This is especially significant because Cyril explicitly speaks of the corruption of human nature as a whole and traces it to Adam’s transgression, not merely to the later personal sins of individuals.

Theodoret of Cyrus states very plainly that, because Adam became mortal through sin, his descendants “inherited a mortal nature.” He explicitly distinguishes this inherited mortality from each person’s responsibility for his own personal sins. Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1839) Part 1 Commentary on Romans, Chapter V

Ambrose of Milan says, “In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died”. CHURCH FATHERS: On the Death of Satyrus, Book II (Ambrose) On the Death of Satyrus, Book II, §6.

Jerome likewise says that an infant has committed no personal sin but is nevertheless born among “Adam’s sons” under the “ancient death,” and elsewhere states that no one born from Adam’s seed is born without sin and that even infants require regeneration in Christ. CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Pelagians, Book III (Jerome) Against the Pelagians, Book III, §18.

Augustine, of course, makes the anti-imitation argument explicit. He says that if imitation alone made us sinners through Adam, then imitation alone should make us righteous through Christ. For Augustine, Romans 5 describes propagation, not merely imitation. CHURCH FATHERS: On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book I (Augustine) On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book I. Chapter 9

Gregory the Great later summarizes the same tradition by saying that through Adam “the whole human race” came under the penalty of death and corruption, from which humanity is delivered through the second Adam, Christ. CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 34 (Gregory the Great) Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 34

So the Fathers certainly differed over the precise content of Adam’s legacy. Some emphasized mortality and corruption, others deprivation and condemnation, and Augustine developed the strongest account of original sin as such.

But the common patristic pattern is very, very, very difficult to reconcile with the idea that Adam merely symbolizes what every individual independently chooses to do.

Adam’s transgression objectively affects the many; each person then also commits his own personal sins.

That is precisely the distinction at issue in Romans 5.

40

This is what is called “overthinking”

Sin is caused by making a choice.

To make that choice you need to have enough information to do so.

Adam (by Scripture) ate and his eyes were opened and so were all humanity’s

Therefore Adam gave humanity the ability to sin.

In with Adam, Out with Christ

It is so simple.

But Catholicism makes it convoluted and cruel, let alone offering the excuse of diminished responsibility. “Its not my fault it is Adams!”

I wonder why God moaned about Adam and Eve
 something to do with refusing to accept responsibilty?

Richard