Re: [asa] sin or Sin?

Hi George,

Ok. Maybe something is finally clicking. I must admit, I read your PSCF
article when it came out a year and a half ago – several times in fact. But
I can't say it brought me any closer to closure on the most difficult
implication of human evolution: the origin of sin. (I know you have
indicated that this is a "research program that is work in progress").

There is a palindromic progression here (I'm capitalizing the whole second
instance of sin for clarity – if only my own): Humanity's sin at one
point became SIN. Ie. sin came first -> SIN came later. Then, through the
death & resurrection of Christ, God incarnate, SIN is addressed, but as Paul
indicated we still struggle with sin. Ie. God dealt/deals with sin/SIN in
the reverse order of its appearance - with our SIN first (ie. brought
creation back into a right relationship with God) and then through the Holy
Spirit, helps us "work out our salvation" and works towards the eradication
of sin.

Historically, it would look like this:

   - Initial Creation
   - sin and then SIN enter Creation
   - The Cross
   - SIN and then sin is dealt with because of the Cross
   - Eschatology: All things become new (sin & SIN are eradicated)

Does this make sense? Or am I still missing the point?

thanks,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> I have spoken in the past - & fairly recently here - about the need
> for creatures to have become "moral agents" before it's possible to speak
> about them "sinning." I.e., our primate ancestors would to some extent
> have deceived, stolen from, been sexually promiscuous with, and killed other
> members of their same species but we would not say that in so doing they
> would have "sinned." It is only when they had a sense of right & wrong that
> that term would be appropriate.
>
> I've realized that that kind of language is inadequate. The first
> criterion for a creature to be able to sin is for it to be aware in some way
> of God and God's will, so that that creature can intentionally give
> something other than God 1st place in its life. I.e., it has to be able
> to violate the substance of the 1st Commandment. That is the fundamental
> sin, as Paul argues in Romans 1. There "worshipping the creature rather
> than the creator" is Sin with a capital S, & all the consequences that Paul
> lists - sexual immorality &c - are sins with a small s. Those are the
> things we usually describe as "moral failings."
>
> I actually made this point in the 2006 PSCF that I referenced in my
> post to Moorad yesterday, but by continuing the "moral agents" language may
> have clouded the issue. The point is not simply "morality" in the usual
> sense of the term but "religion" as "ultimate concern. This means that in
> order for some group of hominids to be capable of sin, they would somehow
> have to have become aware of God and God's will for them, however murkily
> that may have been.
>
> This has a number of consequences. E.g., there has been a good deal
> of discussion of the evolution of morality, some of which has been used to
> discredit claims that the existence of a moral sense in humans is an
> argument for religion. (Dawkins, e.g.) How the evolution of morality is
> connected with the emergence of religious awareness is something that needs
> to be explored, but the distinction is significant.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>

-- 
-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.