David O. wrote,
they would at this time (200KYA or so) have been spiritually akin to other non-"human" hominids.? They would not have had the image of God.? In a way that scripture doesn't specify, they would participate "in Adam" -- perhaps by reaping the covenant blessings and the benefits of the "tree of life" (whatever that symbolizes or is) had Adam fullfilled his mandate, but ultimately by participating in the curse of the fall.??
Thanks for the clarification.? You are saying that as Federal Head, this Mesopotamian Adam not only imparted the Fall upon all his contemporaries, but also imparted the imago dei upon them as well.? This impartation of the?imago dei?occurred when Adam ate from one of the two Trees in the garden (regardless which Tree he chose).? So when Adam chose either "Life" or "The Knowledge of Good and Evil," all his contemporaries down in Africa suddenly became "made" in God's image and were simultaneously either under a blessing or under a curse from that moment onward.?
I can see some Scriptural justification for this claim, because Adam's and Eve's eyes were both opened when Adam ate, if the text is taken literally.? It does not say that Eve's eyes opened when she ate, which was first.? So one could say that the opening of contemporaries' eyes (Eve's plus any others') occurred only when Adam ate.? This could be the Scriptural basis for a transmission that is not by ordinary generation to Eve and presumably to any other contemporaries.
A problem with this view is that Scripturally both Adam and Eve were given the imago dei before they fell, from the moment of their creation.? "Let us create man in our image...In the image of God He created him.? Male and female he created them."? So this Mesopotamian Federal Adam view necessitates the ad hoc idea that imago dei?was not inherent in the contemporaries of Adam from their creation,?Eve being the sole exception, and was later infused into them apart from ordinary generation simultaneous with original sin being infused into them.
I guess this can be rectified by saying that neither the imago dei nor original sin were infused into the contemporaries of Adam exactly at the time when he fell.? Rather, the imago dei was achieved through ordinary evolutionary means throughout the species across the Earth over the following thousands of years.? Perhaps Adam was simply the first member of the first genetic line to arrive at the imago dei, with other genetic lines following later.? So the infusion of original sin to those who were not descended from Adam may have occurred whenever their own family line reached the imago dei, and at that time then their eyes were opened and they were infused with original sin due to the Federal Headship of Adam and not by ordinary generation.? So this variant view generalizes the idea of Adam's "contemporaries" to include those who came thousands of years after him but were yet outside of the line of ordinary generation from him.?
I could see this view as being sensitive to Scripture because the imago dei is not tied to Adam's fall, but is rather an inherent part of these individual's creation (albeit by evolution over thousands of years), while the infusion of original sin would only come to those who were already in the imago dei, although it came to them long after Adam and apart from ordinary generation, which is the same way it came to Eve.
Is this a correct description of the view you are considering?
I don't know why this would place Paul's syllogism in doubt.? Regardless of how we undestand Adam, we only know that we are "in Adam" because that is revealed in scripture.
My point is that it is nowhere revealed in Scripture unless we take Genesis 2 &c to be that revelation.? It would not do to say that Romans 5 reveals it to us, because in Romans 5 Paul is assuming that it has _already_ been revealed to his audience.? But if Paul assumes it has already been revealed, then we must ask?_where_ in the earlier portions of Scripture was it revealed?? Answer:? only in Genesis 2 &c.?
But here's the rub:? we cannot understand Genesis 2 &c to be revealing that we are "in Adam" unless we understand it to be saying that we are descended from him.? (In fact, that is?strongly implied in Genesis 2 &c because both the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain, who invented cities, metallurgy, and all other cultural achievements, are descended from Adam.? I see no basis for there being any non-Adamites discussed in Scripture.)? But if we aren't descended from Adam, then nothing in Genesis 2 &c or in any other part of the Scriptures prior to Paul writing Romans says anything about us being "in" him.? So obviously, Paul was assuming that Genesis 2 &c does teach that we are descended from Adam, and in fact the structure of his syllogism demands that it must be true or else there is no basis for his minor premise.? Whereas his use of the word "one" for Adam is not a structural necessity to the syllogism, the assumption that Scripture has _already_ revealed that
we are in Adam _is_ a structural necessity to his syllogism.? So here is the challenge:? find a place in Scripture prior to Romans that reveals that we are in Adam, and explain how it reveals this apart from implying ordinary generation.? It can't be a revelation that is barely tweaked out by comparison with 21st century science.? It has to be revealed clearly enough that Paul's audience already saw it and knew it to be true.? Can you find any such place in Scripture prior to Paul writing Romans?
Phil
________________________________________________________________________
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 Sun Nov 25 12:41:19 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 25 2007 - 12:41:19 EST