Re: [asa] Historical Theology and Current Theology re: Original Sin & Monogenism

David,

I haven't done the kind of reading you've done so I need to ask a clarifying question.? Is it important to theologies of the Fall that Adam be the _exclusive_ universal forebear, or is it OK that he simply be _one_ of the universal forebears?? If the former, then why is that important theologically?? Is that just unquestioned baggage, or is it really central to theology for some reason?

Second, is it important that the mate of an "Adam" be the _exculsive_ universal female forebear, or is it OK that the male branch alone converge to a single individual?? Again, why??

I'm not asking for answers in regard to Biblical theology, but rather to systematic theology.? Your concern seems to be the latter since Accomodationism could deal with the former. (Right?)? The slippery slope is in the systematics related to the Atonement and to Paul's view of Adam and how that affects our understanding of inspiration.? (Right?)

We know statistically that there were?a number of people living as recently as just?a few thousand years ago from whom all living people are descended.? There are many such people even further back in time.? Every living human today can trace back to those particular forebears on at least one branch of our own family trees, and thus all of those forebears are universal.? However, we cannot trace them back to _every_ branch of our own family trees, so they are not exclusively universal.? Why couldn't any one of them be Adam?? (Answer:? because the Fall is believed to be transmitted through the fathers and thus "Adam" cannot be found in any branch that goes only through a female in any generation, right?)?

Further, there were probably one or more males far enough back in time such that we can trace _all_ of our male branches of our family trees to that one male individual within that one generation.? Would that one male not qualify for the theological role of Adam, according to what you've read??

I am sure that it was assumed by the theologians that there would be no other males living at the time of Adam, but as long as there was universal genetic convergence to one and only one male in a given generation, then why would that not satisfy the theological demands of monogenism?? What more needs to be added to monogenism for it to function in the theological role assumed by these authors?

Suppose a generation of humans fell into sin, rather than just one individual falling into sin.? Then, suppose we are all descended from just one of them.? Would that not qualify?

For the record, I don't favor any of these kinds of answers because they seem too ad hoc.? However, I want to understand the bounds of your concern so that I will know what an acceptable answer might look like.

God bless,

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:27 pm
Subject: [asa] Historical Theology and Current Theology re: Original Sin & Monogenism

I'm trying to understand more deeply the development of monogenism in the Christian tradition, the link between monogenism and original sin, and contemporary and other efforts to understand original sin without monogenism.? To me, this is the most difficult theological obstacle to a consistent evolutionary creation perspective. I'm struggling because I have to admit the evidence for human evolution seems more compelling than alternative explanations, and yet theologically this seems to me like a steep slide away from orthodox faith.? The willingness to consider polygenism feels to me like denying something fundamental about the faith.

?

I have George Murphy's recent PSCF article; Robin Collins' essay in "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation"; Bernard Ramm's "Offense to Reason" (excellent, BTW); John Stott's Commentary on Romans; Derek Kidner's Commentary on Genesis; and a talk by David Livingstone at Regent College titled "Adam's Ancestors:? Five Centuries of Christian Thinking About Human Origins" (really interesting stuff:? http://tinyurl.com/2rudhc)?

?

I also have Henri Blocher's "Original Sin:? Illuminating the Riddle," which presupposes monogenism but doesn't seem overly wedded to it; and various commentaries and systematic theology volumes that either presuppose or seem to require monogenism.? Finally, I have a number of Roman Catholic documents, including Humani Generis (requiring monogenism:? http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html ), John Paul II's Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html); a good Wiki on Catholicism and monogenism suggesting some flexibility in current views?( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Polygenism); and a blog post from a Catholic apologist discussing different understandings of the Church's position with various apologetic possibilities:? http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html

?

Any other references to books, articles, etc. would be much appreciated.

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 14:04:55 2007