Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3

Phil, a quick thought: how would this theory of sin tie into theories of
the atonement? Any theory of sin has to relate to theories of the
atonement. It seems to me that if sin is a type of knowledge, then the
atonement would be an act of removing that knowledge -- a strange result
that doesn't seem consistent with any theory of atonement (substitution,
Christus Victor, moral example, etc.). Alternatively, if sin is a type of
knowledge, the atonement could be the impartation of a different, better
knowledge -- a type of gnosticism.

On Dec 9, 2007 1:35 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

> Hi Christine,
>
> you touched on several of the ideas I was considering, too. I am
> especially intrigued by the analogy of infants and the mentally disabled
> going to heaven with other species perhaps also having some role in the
> hereafter. (C.S. Lewis speculated on this idea in _The Problem of Pain_.)
>
> Regarding God's warning not to eat of the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge
> of...), He said the reason was "for in the day that you eat of it you shall
> die." God did not give us a merely arbitrary command in order to test us.
> It was instead an actual consequence that would occur if we ate of that
> tree. God "did not want" us to eat of it so that we would not suffer the
> consequence. To draw this out a bit, if humans were inherently selfish, as
> all species fit for survival are, then once we become able to judge our
> selfishness as wrong then we will find ourselves powerless to be rightly
> related to God, and so we will spiritually die in the manner described by
> Paul in Romans 7. We will discover that there is no way to heaven unless
> God is profoundly gracious toward us and comes into our lives to make us new
> (as He does in Christ), a process that can be started in this life by faith
> but will not be finished until the resurrection. Many of us will not enter
> in to be made new and as a result will be ultimately and finally lost, a
> horrible tragedy. So the issue is that man as a biological creature could
> be unknowing of good & evil and thus remain innocent like infants or other
> species, OR we could know good & evil and be redeemable through the process
> of rebirth and growing in Christ, BUT we could never know this good & evil
> as a biological creature in spacetime without inexorably becoming
> desperately lost.
>
> So this statement from God is (within the norms of this type of
> literature) a declaration of the consequences that would ensue. It does not
> tell all the nuances of God's foreknowledge or His plan in Christ. But
> within this type of literature this is the statement that sets the stage for
> the main action.
>
> By the way, I am seeing this as another indication that the text was never
> intended to be taken literally, but was intended by its author to be read as
> a parable of theological relationships. The idea that there could be such a
> rational being that he has language and names animals based on their
> characteristics, who nevertheless has not risen to the ability to make
> distinctions of right from wrong, is not feasible when taken literally (as
> far as I can see). And so I think we have to see that the account was not
> intended to be taken literally, but instead was simply using the norms of a
> common type of literature to teach theology. I think it is elegant and very
> successful. Unfortunately, it seems that later readers forgot about the
> norms of that type of literature and then tried to make Adam and Eve into
> literal persons (as indeed the Adam of the Seth geneology probably was, the
> Adam who was reflected back to play the role of un iversal progenitor in the
> account of the garden). But when people wanted to see the Adam & Eve as
> literal people in the garden, then the weight of the infeasibility of such
> creatures drove them to water down the meaning of the TKGE. The couldn't
> see Adam & Eve as being creatures without moral sense and also literal. And
> so in the process we lost the main point of the account. The main point was
> that mankind at one point was like the animals in not knowing good & evil,
> and then later we became different by gaining that capacity.
>
> I am still wondering if there is more to the Fall of man than what
> occurred within spacetime. By comparision, angels either fell or remained
> holy, and they have no redemption (apparently). Their fall seems to have
> been beyond spacetime and beyond our ability to comprehend. Maybe we, too,
> are creatures whose spiritual essence cannot be fully comprehended from
> within spacetime. So maybe our biological lives are a projection of the
> spiritual drama into Time so that our fall did not stand as an infinite
> singularity -- as it does for the angels' -- and thus may be redeemable.
> Who knows?
>
> Regarding baptism, I have not studied it too much, but in my own
> denomination it is considered to be the replacement of circumcision, the
> initiation rite into the covenant family. It is said that circumcision had
> to be replaced because we have no more bloody rites now that the blood of
> Christ has fulfilled those rites and done away with them. In keeping with
> the expansion of God's grace from OT to NT, Baptism is a better rite than
> circumcision because it extends to all people, not just to the males.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 7:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I'm in agreement with what you write in your posting
> below, specifically where you ask: "Could it be that
> early man, like all
> > animals, was inherently selfish, and that the
> > essence of the Fall was simply that he began to know
> > good from evil?? In other words, early man might
> > never have been unselfish prior to the Fall, but
> > only sinless.? And it was only in the addition of
> > _knowing_ good & evil that man became a sinner by
> > being able to judge his own inherent selfishness and
> > its outcomes."
>
> I've mentioned this idea in previous posts discussing
> animal souls, and what specifically sets us apart from
> animals--that being the knowledge of good and evil.
> However, I'm still working out the implications for
> what this means...one implication which I am firmly
> committed to is the idea that animals, infants, and
> the severely handicapped (i.e. anyone who lacks the
> ability to judge between right and wrong, and
> therefore are sinless) go to heaven because they are
> in no need of redemption.
>
> Others I'm still working through--for example, what
> does this mean for baptism, particularly as it relates
> to infants? In my ponderings, I've come to the
> tentative conclusion that baptism is, in the tradition
> of John, primarily to "prepare the way for the Lord"--
> that is to say it is a spiritual rite that, while it
> cleanses the soul of existing sin (which for
> infants/severely handicapped, would not apply), it
> more primarily is a spiritual anticipation (would
> "anointment" be an appropriate term?) of the receipt
> of the Gospel into one's life (which would apply for
> all who partake in the sacrament). It becomes less
> about the past, and more about the future, which I
> believe is consistent with the fact that John the
> Baptist's original "function" if you will was to point
> towards the future--Christ. It also still accords
> with the practice that this is the "formal" means of
> entrance into the church. As an aside, I think its
> also worthwhile to point out that, to my recollection,
> I don't believe that there is an analogous practice to
> Baptism in the OT. (correct me if I'm wrong?) The
> closest I suppose would be circumcision, but I don't
> remember that having anything to do with atonement for
> "original sin"...so one has to ask, if "original sin"
> demanded some type of cleansing following birth, why
> would God not establish this for the Israelites in the
> OT?
>
> Other questions I have regarding this interpretation--
> 1) why would God not want us to have the knowledge of
> good & evil--was this His means of trying to keep us
> from sinning? Were we "growing up" (evolving?) too
> fast so to speak? Is the possession of the moral code
> a curse rather than an intended gift from God? 2) The
> knowledge of good and evil is represented as coming
> from a tree, a natural object--could this be taken to
> mean that morality does have its roots in natural
> processes, such as evolution? (hey, we even represent
> evolution as a "tree", right?) Or is this stretching
> the interpretation too much?
>
> Anyway, I best be off!
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
>
> --- philtill@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I suspect there that?the?Catholic and Protestant
> > theological tradition?has misinterpreted the Genesis
> > account of the Fall, because we are operating with
> > pre-conceived notions rather than listening to the
> > text.? Genesis 3 says the tree is named the "Tree of
> > the Knowledge of Good and Evil."? The focus is?on
> > "knowledge" of good & evil, rather than "doing"
> > evil.? After they sin, God says, "now they have
> > become like Us, knowing good and evil."? So
> > "knowing" evil?was intended to mean something that
> > God Himself does, and therefore it couldn't have
> > been a reference to something sinful.? It can't mean
> > experiential knowing of sin that comes through doing
> > sin.? Also, it is not the tree of the knowledge of
> > evil alone.? It is knowledge of both good AND evil.
> >
> > It seems the idea in this is that man was like the
> > other animals and like infants and little children,
> > not having a moral code?prior to eating of this
> > tree.? Yet it seems that the traditional
> > interpretation always under-emphasize this and try
> > to make it out that Adam and Eve were already moral
> > beings prior to the Fall.? To reconcile this
> > pre-conception with the text, the tradition claims
> > that the essense of the "knowing" was to assert
> > independence from God, as though Adam and Eve
> > already?recognized good from evil but were
> > submissive to God's determination of good & evil.?
> > The the tradition says that?after the Fall Adam and
> > Eve were asserting their will to determine good and
> > evil for themselves.? But really this idea is
> > foreign to the text.? There is no distinction
> > between different codes?of good & evil in the text.?
> > When God says they have become like Him in knowing
> > good & evil, it is not saying that there are
> > multiple codes of good & evil, or that the humans
> > were now?able to
> > invent a different moral code, but rather it says
> > that they are able to know the moral code that God
> > Himself already knew.? There is no hint of any idea
> > about different codes of good & evil.
> >
> > I think that if we carry this idea through, then it
> > puts a different spin on the Fall of Man.? It also
> > raises a different way of thinking about non-human
> > animals and infants.? Plants, animals, and infants
> > are all inherently selfish.? This is not sin for
> > them, but when an infant grows up and recognizes
> > that selfishness is wrong, then that child begins to
> > see himself as a sinner because of his inherent
> > selfishness.? Could it be that early man, like all
> > animals, was inherently selfish, and that the
> > essence of the Fall was simply that he began to know
> > good from evil?? In other words, early man might
> > never have been unselfish prior to the Fall, but
> > only sinless.? And it was only in the addition of
> > _knowing_ good & evil that man became a sinner by
> > being able to judge his own inherent selfishness and
> > its outcomes.
> >
> > It seems Paul was reflecting this idea in Rom 7:9
> > where he says, "I was once alive apart from the Law;
> > but when the commandment came, sin became alive and
> > I died."? There is much more to be said about Paul's
> > discussion in Romans 7, but much of what he said was
> > speaking about modern man, not pre-Fall humanity.
> >
> > Has anybody thought about this, and does anybody
> > have any resource that discusses it?
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL
> > Mail ! -
> >http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> ------------------------------
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 9 16:35:38 2007