What Changed with Sin?

“… just as imperfect as any other human’s biology.”

The emphasis on biology, and by extension some version of evolution, into theological questions inevitably ends up in a situation that is unreasonable. Some may argue that sin is a result of evolutionary processes that caused humans to have a “moral consciousness”; if we regard this as reasonable, we are left with a progression of such consciousness and moral accountability, depending on how evolved particular groups of presumably human creatures. This outlook does not make sense - natural human beings are agents that can view all things within good and evil. Our ability to inflict our mistaken notions of good and evil on the world is attested by thousands of years of human activity.

When we then consider Christ, the entire human enterprise begins to make sense - this is theology, not biology.

It is noteworthy that in all discussions on sin, I have not seen a remark that mirrors biblical teaching - i.e. sin is breaking God’s law and commandments - those that talk of God’s love, and yet ignore His commandments, are prone to fall into error.

Clarifications:

  1. There are historians who think that “gnostic” views were inherently a part of messianic Judaism before the birth of Jesus. Disdain for the material world is implied in the books of the Maccabees.

  2. Other historians consider this gnostic element to have intruded into the Primitive Church, as indicated in the Gospel of Thomas.

  3. Gnosticism became increasingly polarized in later Christianity with more emphasis on Satan and Good vs. Evil.

  4. Rejection of the Old Testament is probably not the best way to describe gnostic views… It certainly should not be equated to the idea that they don’t think the Old Testament is accurate.

I like this paragraph …

1 Like

Christy,
Yes! I agree with this, and I think you have caught what I was trying to say. I would only add that I don’t think the ability to be agents of righteousness was always a possibility… it became a possibility, and all the rest followed.

1 Like

GJDS,
I would gently dispute that by talking about love I am ignoring His commandments! And the reason is because of what Jesus says in Matthew 22:36-40:
“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’”

Love is the heart and hook of every other commandment, so by talking about love, I am talking short-hand of every other command God gives.

@Bethany.Sollereder

We agree that keeping God’s commandments are synonymous with responding to God’s love for humanity. I added my comment within the context of Christy’s comment regarding the biological makeup of Christ. An evolutionary view that seeks to invoke a genetic/biological basis, or event, that caused us to be come morally conscious would contradict the birth and life of Christ, as He was made up of the same physical entities that make us, yet He was without sin. Thus human agency and intent are outside of evolutionary considerations, and Christ as the Son of Man, is the clear example of this (outside evolutionary considerations re human agency). Keeping God’s commandments is, as your Gospel reference states, related to our heart, soul, will and intent - which means the entire human being (must choose good and avoid evil).

@Bethany.Sollereder

Bethany, you wrote that Darwinian evolution does not conflict with love and Christianity. That is not true.

Darwinian evolution is based on conflict as the natural condition of nature and humans, not love. While this is false, and the primary reason Darwinism is false. That is the reason why I reject his theory, because it goes against Jesus as the Logos of the universe and the very nature of Reality.

Please do not misrepresent Darwinism as true when it is false.

Dear Roger,

I agree that evolution is based on conflict. It that is a hard thing to reconcile with Christianity, but I think it can be done. I think the best book about this is Christopher Southgate’s The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil (2008). He wrestles with exactly what you point out: that evolution is a pretty disturbing process! I would encourage you to read it if you are interested in this subject.

I also had some of my own tries to reconcile these back in 2010 here on BioLogos. These are not as good as Southgate’s treatment, but they are asking the same question: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/how-could-god-create-through-evolution-part-1

1 Like

I think readers should think very hard on an important choice:

1) That sin was “born” when some first human became a MORAL AGENT.

vs.

2) That sin was “born” even BEFORE humans became a moral agent … but apprehended in their mind GOD.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t give much thought to the second option. I don’t find it very compelling. But the more I examine the hypothetical state of mind of Adam and Eve in Eden … the more I conclude that they really were (as the saying goes) “as innocent as babes” !!! - - even as they bit into the forbidden fruit.

If we believe that toddlers know enough to hide their guilt (“Where do I put all these candy wrappers!”) … but not enough to be morally responsible for TAKING someone’s candy … we are describing a separation between:

a) VOLITIONAL STANDING and
b) MORAL STANDING.

As I have said a few times in other threads … it makes no theological sense to punish Adam and Eve for an immoral transgression BEFORE they have eaten from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. According to the Genesis scenario, they LITERALLY don’t know good from evil !!!

I would agree that Adam and Eve had VOLITION ! … but I don’t see how anyone can agree that they were guilty of immorality - - they didn’t KNOW about that stuff yet!

But before I close this post, I want to place another vote for the far more sensible notion that SIN came into the world when the first human became a MORAL AGENT - - prior to that … they were just warm-blooded humanoids on the evolutionary path - - doing the very best they knew how (which wasn’t very much).

@Bethany.Sollereder

Sadly most people think that extinction and natural selection is caused by predation, when it is not. The dinosaur extinction, which is the most important and best known, was caused by climate4 change and the disappearance of habitant. Look at the current extinctions, which are not cause by human over-hunting, and you will find the same.

Evolutionary change is not driven by conflict with members of the same species for scarce resources, but changing ecological niches driving species to adapt or lose out. The Darwinian Survival of the Fittest based on conflict is a myth, not a fact. Suffering, pain, and death are a part of life, because we are mortal beings. Inflicting suffering, pain, and death because of our “selfish genes” is not.

The problems with the science of evolution as we currently know it is that genes are not selfish, so the science is wrong. Bad science, makes terrible theology.

Are you back at this? Making pronouncements of what IS and IS NOT involved in natural selection?

Roger … it’s ALL in the mix… you really don’t have a case when you try to insist that a certain kind of factor is OFF LIMITS…

I don’t think the perfect=divine and vice versa…

I would agree with you on this.

Adam and Eve did not “do wrong” so much as they chose to reject God. It was a relational rejection, not a moral rebellion.

The focus of the task is to extract SOME meaning from the parable of the Adam and the first sin.

Like rotating a large gemstone, there are several perspectives one can use to extract the symbolic or figurative meaning.

The parable can portray man as SINNER … whether morality is being accurately presented… or it can be a story about the inevitability of matter and imperfection.

Or … it can be about humanity as a moral agent.

If Jonah and the whale is a FIGURATIVE story (rather than a literal one) … what is it a figurative story for? The most common theory to extract from Jonah is that being in the fish for 3 days is like being in the waters of chaos and death … for 3 days… but to what end?

There is any number of interpretations to accept … and I would suggest that any number of them are satisfactory …

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:33, topic:4493, full:true”]
The focus of the task is to extract SOME meaning from the parable of the Adam and the first sin.

Like rotating a large gemstone, there are several perspectives one can use to extract the symbolic or figurative meaning.

The parable can portray man as SINNER … whether morality is being accurately presented… or it can be a story about the inevitability of matter and imperfection.

Or … it can be about humanity as a moral agent.[/quote]

I see it as the breaking of relationship between mankind and God (mankind having been set up as the steward of Creation) setting up the rest of the story, which is God enacting his purpose to restore that relationship and restore Creation through mankind (ultimately through the Messiah himself).

That’s the most common theory? I thought it was to establish that God is not just the God of Israel but of all people, and he will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy (in this case, the Ninevites). Jonah represents the overemphasis on national election over against God’s rule of all Creation.

Why is that my interpretation? It almost explicitly says that…

@Bethany.Sollereder, kudos. Speculative but rich, I appreciated it. Side note, I thought this (from the blog post) was a good observation of the not tense tension:

2 Likes

@fmiddel

That’s the outward meaning … what’s the significance of contriving a story of being in seclusion for 3 days? … in the chaos of water ?

If you are going to insist the story of Jonah means only what the plain meaning of the words mean … there’s not much reason for you and I to be discussing these narratives…

Thanks Bethany. This is a helpful direction. We need, for the sake of credibility, to be discussing these matters of sin, fall, death, etc. It’s crucial, as we stated in our new book From Evolution to Eden. Making Sense of Early Genesis, to have the freedom to explore new possibilities and fresh explanations that are the result of putting theology and science in dialogue. So glad you’re doing what many resist: looking carefully at the implications of what we call “the natural world informer” when doing theology.

@gbrooks9

No one says that predation or death is off limits. The problem is that: you say that we need to define our terms, such as random and then you reject my efforts to define them.

Without defining and understanding what natural selection is and how it works, we have no science or any kind of thinking. Natural selection is about death, which precedes sin and evil, so natural selection is not sinful and is not evil.
However the Survival of the Fittest portrays natural selection as evil or selfish, meaning that the Survival of the Fittest is right and Nature including humans must be evil and selfish from the beginning or Survival of the Fittest is not good science. The evidence indicates that it is not good science.

Sin and death are two very different things. They are related, but they are not the same. When we confuse them, we fail to understand them and ourselves. Death come from the fact that the Creation is limited. Sin comes from human rebellion against God and God’s Love.

Metaphysically, SIN comes with nature and matter.

It is only the SPIRITUAL that can be without Sin - - which speaks to the Unique Nature of Jesus - - who was the ONLY perfect human of flesh and matter.

@gbrooks9, this is exactly the Gnostic understanding of Reality that I am arguing against. Sin does not come from nature and matter, which is from God and is good. Human are sinful, not because we have a body, but because we have a spirit which is hostile to God.

Jesus did not have a unique nature. He was human just like you and I. Jesus was the Messiah, the unique Son of God, because He was in complete harmony with His and our Father, YHWH, through the Holy Spirit.

When we are born again, when our sin is washed away by the sacrifice of Jesus, we too are free of sin, even though we are still body, mind, and spirit.

@fmiddel is right. We will live in heaven with a glorified spiritual body, which speaks of the fact that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings.

@fmiddel Adam and Eve did not “do wrong” so much as they chose to reject God. It was a relational rejection, not a moral rebellion.

There is no real difference between relational rejection and moral rebellion. Cain killed Abel because he was angry with God for rejecting his offering. The original couple disobeyed God because they were convinced that God was withholding knowledge from them. Relational rejection results in moral rebellion.

@Bethany.Sollereder, humans were created in right relationship with God. They became sinful, which means separated from God and in rebellion against God when they rejected that relationship of faith, followed the suggestion of the serpent, and ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is what the story in Genesis says. Whether it is true or not, that is a different story.

But, as @gbrooks9 says, what is a “wrong” choice (morally) prior to the knowledge of good and evil?

1 Like

@fmiddel

Thank you for the question.

The truth is, as I have said previously in other conversations, the original couple knew what was wrong, which was to eat of the fruit, and they know the consequences, which was (spiritual) death.

The knowledge they received from rejecting the counsel of God, listening to the wisdom of the serpent, and eating the fruit of the tree was existential knowledge. Before they knew what was wrong, because God told them. After they knew what was evil because they experienced the power of sin in their lives.

It is the difference between Mom telling us not to touch the oven because you will get burned, and touching the oven and getting burned. We usually learn the second way, but we pay a price for this wisdom.