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

Indeed, everyone living today likely has a common ancestor that lived only a
few thousand years ago (see Rhode & Chang study mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor). But of course
that person wasn't the only person alive at the time, nor was he the only
person from that time who contributed genes to the human population.

There are some concerns re: interpretation of specific passages,
particularly Paul's aeropagus speech in Acts, but I do want to set those
aside for now. You're right that my primary concern derives from systematic
theology. The tradition does assume that both the transmission of original
sin and the transmission of the imago dei imply or require monogenism. Both
the Catholic and Reformed traditions have emphasized this. In Roman
Catholicism, it is still close to dogma, though some Catholics seem to find
leeway (I don't fully understand what in Catholic tradition is truly binding
and what isn't). The Westminster Confession's emphasis on "ordinary
generation" seems to make it important in the Reformed tradition.

Bernard Ramm in "Offense to Reason" suggests that Adam was both a real
person and a "generic" person, by which I think he means a type. Ramm also
emphasizes the ancient world's focus on corporate identity rather than
individualism. If Adam had not fallen, the entire race would have
participated in that blessing; since he fell, the entire race participates
in his fall. So this is one effort, but it's tough to wrap the mind around,
and reworks the tradition in some interesting but unsettling ways. All
kinds of questions arise -- what was the status of the other "people" before
Adam's fall? When would they have been brought into the "garden?" What
sort of theodicy of human suffering does this imply?

So, I'm looking for more like Ramm that helps to narrate the Christian story
in a coherent fashion without monogenism -- or to see if that is possible.

On Nov 23, 2007 2:04 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

> 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://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>
> !
>

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 15:58:56 2007