Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3

Phil said: *But I think as creatures of time, bound in biological vessels
and subject to the weaknesses and temptations of the body, and having the
genetics common to other primates adapted to survival, then it would be
impossible for mankind to remain innocent once he knows good & evil.*

I think this gets too close to making God the author of evil. It also
doesn't resonate with the Eden narrative (even if not taken literally).
Before sin, Adam had fellowship with God of a sort that could have allowed
him to avoid sin. Whatever else sin was, it was also a willful turning away
from that fellowship with God. Man was not made to be separated from God;
he chose that separation.

I've yet to see any effort to account for "Eden" and sin from an purely
evolutionary perspective that makes any sense. However, wherever, and
whenever it may have happened, and whatever it may or may not have meant for
other contemporaries of Adam -- all things we may nver know -- personally I
think Christian theology requires something more behind the Eden / fall
narrative than the standard evolutionary story.
On Dec 9, 2007 6:39 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

> David: I don't know! I'm struggling with the same larger issues that you
> are.
>
> David O wrote:
> >>It seems to me that if sin is a type of knowledge, then the atonement
> would be an act of removing that knowledge
> (end quote)<<
>
> The knowledge of good & evil was definitely not sin. God says, "man has
> become like Us, knowing good & evil." So this knowledge is something that
> God has, too, and hence cannot be sin.
>
> But I think as creatures of time, bound in biological vessels and subject
> to the weaknesses and temptations of the body, and having the genetics
> common to other primates adapted to survival, then it would be impossible
> for mankind to remain innocent once he knows good & evil. (Footnote: I do
> not think that genetics or any kind of weakness is ultimately to blame, even
> they very well may have been present in early man. It is not the existence
> of some characteristic of mankind that made us become sinners. It was the
> absence of a positive thing, which I will explain below. But for now,
> suffice it to say that mankind could not possibly avoid becoming sinful once
> he could discern good from evil.)
>
> So to quote Paul,
>
> "I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin
> became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life,
> proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the
> commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy,
> and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that
> which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was
> sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through
> that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly
> sinful." (Romans 7:9-13, NASB)
>
> To apply what Paul wrote we have to remember that he is speaking about
> post-Fall humanity, and so Romans 7 may not directly apply to Genesis 3.
> But there are some ideas in common, I believe. The knowledge of good & evil
> is like the Law, and it is not sin; it is "holy and righteous and good."
> God didn't forbid the TKGE because it was bad (it was not!), but because we
> could not bear it in our original state and it would cause our death.
>
> David O. wrote:
> >>how would this theory of sin tie into theories of the atonement? Any
> theory of sin has to relate to theories of the atonement. (end quote)<<
>
> David,
> I am thinking along these lines: What we gain in Christ is more than what
> we had before the Fall. What we gain is the life of God through His Spirit
> in our hearts. The Holy Spirit in our hearts gives us the power to obey
> God. That infused life of God is not just something we get for the
> here-and-now to help us overcome temptation. It is the very essence of what
> we are gaining for eternity. Our sinless perfection in heaven will never be
> intrinsic to ourselves, but will always be essentially the life of God
> within us.
>
> So what about prior to the Fall? Well, at that time, mankind was not
> living in God's power at all. He was living in his own intrinsic power, and
> was innocent and sinless because he did not know good from evil. But upon
> learning the distinction of good & evil, and yet not having God's life
> infused in his being, mankind inexorably (and instantly???) became sinful.
>
> So the Atonement is to pay for our sins that we have committed wilfully
> now that we know good from evil, and to open the door for us to come into
> the life of God. But in the garden, mankind could have chosen the life of
> God first (Tree of Life), rather than choosing the knowledge of good & evil
> first. If John the Baptist could be filled with the Spirit while yet in his
> mother's womb, then we can see that knowledge of good & evil and rational
> thought are not requirements to having God's infused life. If mankind had
> grown to know God first, prior to knowing good & evil, then perpaps they
> could have remained holy through God's power once they eventually came to
> know about good & evil.
>
> 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.
Received on Sun Dec 9 20:02:08 2007