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

Here is an older article by Roy Clouser that neatly summarizes some of what
I've been trying to express:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1991/PSCF3-91Clouser.html

I don't know if Clouser is "right," but it seems like a profitable line of
thought.

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. 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://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 17:41:29 2007