Phil said: *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.
*
Yes, I guess I'm thinking along those lines. However, I don't think I want
to say the imago dei is something that develops by ordinary evolution. I'm
extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the image of God and/or the sin
nature simply evolved. To me, that seems contrary to scripture, and further
seems to concede the field to sociobiology.
My feeling from scripture is that it is something imparted by God. Perhaps
we can think of it this way -- as other "people" would come into contact
with Adam as head of the race, the imago dei would be imparted to them. Had
Adam kept the covenant in the garden, part of the completion of Adam's task
regarding creation might have involved this process. However, upon failing
in this task, the imago dei and sin nature were conferred when Adam was
expelled from the garden. It isn't really an original thought. See
Kidner's Commentary on Genesis and Stott's Commentary on Romans. I would
consider it something like a thought experiment, not a proposal. Can we say
there is an element of mystery here?
Think of this as well: how were people saved before Christ's incarnation?
A traditional answer is that those who accepted God's promises by faith, e.g.,
Abraham, had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them in some sense even
before Christ's atoning death. Nevertheless, like anyone else who is saved,
they were saved only through the atonement. Could the imago dei and the sin
nature be conferred atemporally as well?
Phil said: *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.*
I don't agree. I think Paul is interpreting Gen. 2 in a new way that was
not known to the original audience of Gen. 2. In fact, to this day there is
no doctrine of original sin in Judaism. Therefore, I think the details of
what it means to be "in Adam" are only really known by the further
revelation through Paul in Rom. 5.
Phil said: *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.*
If we are "in Christ" by something other than physical descent, and Romans 5
is the interpretive gloss Gen. 2 that tells us what it means to be "in
Adam," then why can't we be "in Adam" by something other than physical
descent?
PHil said: *(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.) *
Some have suggested that the problem of CAin's wife and Cain's fear of the
city-dwellers after killing Abel is suggestive of a contemporaneous
population. There are also the descendants of the nephilim.
Phil said: * 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.*
Again, I don't think that is obvious at all. Paul is offering an apostolic
interpretation of Gen. 2 that was not assumed by the original readers. In
any event, is what the Romans text says:
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all
men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that
brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one
man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man
the many will be made righteous.
The text says nothing here about the means by which the "one trespass was
condemnation for all men." Where in this passage or elsewhere in Romans 5
is it stated or assumed that the trespass transmitted condemnation through
biological generation? And, if we call this a syllogism (I'm not sure it's
properly a syllogism -- I think it's an analogy), we should ask how it is
that "through the obedience of the one man the many will be made
righteous." Clearly, that is not accomplished through biological
generation. It is accomplished through the spiritual mystery of faith. If
we really want to be consistent, doesn't this suggest that the transmission
of condemnation from Adam may be a spiritual process?
On top of all this, we have to consider exactly in what way Adam's trespass
resulted in condemnation. Henri Blocher in "Original Sin: Illuminating the
Riddle" suggests that Romans 5 is primarily about a judicial sentence. As
Adam was sentenced to death for his disobedience, so we are all sentenced to
death for our own disobedience.
Phil said: *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.*
The first place it is revealed seems to be in Romans, and as mentioned
above, it doesn't seem clear to me that ordinary generation is implied
there.
At the end of the day, what alternative can you offer? Your notion that
everyone was metaphysically present in Adam doesn't seem to be materially
different than what I'm saying here. Either way, it isn't "ordinary
generation."
It seems to me there are two broad options: the tradition notion of
"ordinary generation" is required by scripture and therefore we must reject
most ideas about human evolution on that basis (which I am prepared to do if
necessary); or, there are possibly ways to think about the imago dei and
original sin apart from ordinary generation that are theologically and
Biblically consistent even if not expressly discussed in scripture.
On Nov 25, 2007 12:39 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
> 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. 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://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 Sun Nov 25 15:50:55 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 25 2007 - 15:50:55 EST