Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall - response to Keith Miller

Re: "bearing the image of Adam" vs. "bearing the image of Christ." I think
we need to be a little more careful with this language. Everyone, Christian
or not, bears the image of God. Before regeneration, everyone also bears a
sin nature. The Bible seems to depict this as an intrusion, not a natural
state. I'm not sure it's accurate to call this the "image of Adam."

Rather, the sin nature, whatever exactly it is, was introduced into the
human constitution by Adam. Adam, in effect, opened the Pandora's Box of
sin.

Upon conversion, Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit. Conversion
involves accepting the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The atonement in effect
closes the Pandora's Box opened by Adam, though that box will not be fully
and finally closed until Christ returns. So, we bear the image of God, we
are redeemed by Christ and we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

This notion of Adam opening the door to sin, IMHO, makes it very difficult
theologically to posit a non-literal Adam and a non-literal fall, or a fall
that occurs over multiple generations of growing God-awareness. Scripture
seems to present sin as a radical intrusion into the created order institued
by the "one man" Adam and remedied by the "one man" Christ.

OTOH, if we're going to take the scientific / historical record seriously,
it seems to me we have to acknowledge that we don't know exactly what it
meant for the "one man" Adam to introduce sin into the created order. Who
was he, when could he have lived, what were his and his ancestors'
relationship to other hominids and other hominids' relationship to God,
where, if anywhere is his presence reflected in the human genome or in the
paleontological record, to what extent exactly are the Biblical accounts of
him accommodated myth, what about the apparent prior presence of sin in the
cosmos as represented by the serpent? We don't know enough to say, and we
probably never will, and so therefore IMHO we need to just hold these
questions open.

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Keith,
>
> I wanted to respond earlier, but have just found time to finish this. I've
> read your book, but thanks for the reminder and the further extension of
> these thoughts on Adam and sin. A lot to chew on, and I find the
> suggestions you gave very helpful. If I could summarize the thoughts that
> you have suggested:
>
> 1. Our likeness with Adam or our being in the image of God (or of Christ)
> are spiritual statements, not necessarily physiological realities;
> therefore
> being in the image of Adam doesn't necessarily mean for us biological
> ancestry with him.
>
> 2. The "image of God" could have been imparted to mankind at some point in
> the continuous, biological development of the human race, as an act of
> grace, and bestowing authority and the ability to apprehend spiritual
> fellowship with Him.
>
> 3. There could have been a literal, historical Adam who was selected by God
> from a group of "pre-Adamites" to impart a spiritually conscious soul, or a
> revelation of Himself for a covenant of personal fellowship. Whether he
> truly had the potential to live immortally without sin or not is irrelevant
> to this particular argument.
>
> 4. The "image of God" (& implying the capability of receiving spiritual
> fellowship), was imparted to humanity in the course of their development
> (the focus of Gen. 1), while the origin of sin through Adam (could I
> insert,
> the first one to be made accountable for sin?) is the focus of Gen. 2.
>
> 5. All mankind can be said to have sinned "in Adam", because all of us at
> the first opportunity have chosen to sin against the "image of God"
> resident
> within us, in the same way as Adam did. Thus, sin and the "curse" are not
> transmitted (genetically or by example) exclusively through direct descent
> of a single ancestor, Adam, but is inherent in mankind's nature to rebel
> against spiritual things.
>
>
> I would like to ask a couple of questions about some statements you made
> below, to help me flesh out a few ideas that came to mind.
>
> You wrote: "We bear the image of Christ in the same way that we formerly
> bore the image of Adam." I agree with you that it makes sense to consider
> both these statements as spiritual rather than physical conditions.
>
> One thought that comes to mind that causes me to probe deeper: What does it
> really mean for us to bear the image of Christ? My understanding is that I
> have a physical body and a spiritual soul (I guess this is referred to as
> dualism?) But once I accept Christ, I now have the Spirit of Christ within
> me as well. What does that mean in reality? It is certainly not a
> physical
> condition, but even in spiritual terms I can only think to describe it as
> my
> nature and Christ's nature both having direct influence and residence
> within
> my life. The two are often at odds, hopefully with Christ's nature winning
> out more and more often. And what is the difference between the "image of
> God" supposedly imparted to mankind at the beginning, and the "image of
> Christ" that is received by believers?
>
> So when it comes down to it, it's difficult for me to completely pin down
> what exactly does it mean to "bear the image of Christ" in this life, but
> certainly it must be spiritual. So then, what does it really mean to "bear
> the image of Adam"? I would suggest that this too may not be as easy to
> define as many of us used to think, but I believe your description below
> gives a lot of useful thought toward that end. It must be fundamentally
> different from the image of Christ, because in a literal sense I am not
> inhabited by the spirit of the historical Adam in the same way as I am now
> inhabited by the Spirit of Christ.
>
> You also wrote that God at some point in history could have given something
> special (spirit, relationship?) to one historic man, Adam, even though
> other
> humans existed elsewhere who had by grace been given the capacity to begin
> to receive such relationship. These are similar to thoughts I've had
> recently. I've tried to pursue a more causal relationship between Adam's
> race as the first to be made accountable for sin, and the spread of "sin"
> as
> being traceable to the dispersal of Adam's race throughout the world, where
> sin is defined in terms of James 4:17 - "Therefore to him that knoweth to
> do
> good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Pre-Adamites or even
> post-Adamites who didn't have the law could be judged only in a limited way
> according to their limited consciousness of sin (Rom 2:14-15), but once a
> knowledge of the law was dispersed to all people throughout the world by
> Adam's descendents, "sin revived and [they] died" (Rom 7:6-11). However, I
> know this concept won't set well with all. Your argument is a different
> way
> of handling the same question of how all could sin "in Adam".
>
> I do wonder about the suggestion that God at one point in history imparted
> something to mankind that they didn't have before, whether it started with
> one man or many. Would this sort of thing have any evidence in the
> historical or anthropological record? I know Glenn has pointed out
> evidence
> of religious practice going back millions of years, but this doesn't prove
> that they had yet been made knowledgeable of God's law or accountable for
> sin in a covenant with God. It does seem to me evident that something
> changed back about the beginning of recorded history, when mankind seems to
> have initiated more of an organized society, organized institutional
> religions, nation-building (with all its consequent large-scale warfare,
> tyranny, slavery, etc.). Could this be evidence that mankind had started
> becoming made by God accountable for sin, and Satan was thus given more
> free
> opportunity to corrupt and to tempt mankind in these destructive ways? I'm
> sure any answer would be speculative.
>
> That's enough for now, but thanks again for the stimulating thoughts.
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Keith Miller
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:36 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey
>
>
> Here are some thoughts that I wrote several years ago that are
> relevant to this thread.
> The primary issue I was addressing was the "image of God," however
> some of it is relevant
> to the Fall.
>
> Our physical and genetic continuity with the rest of the creation in no way
> excludes an historical Adam (This issue should be
> resolved by
> other critieria). However, since there is a continuity of physical
> form from modern
> humans to our common ancestors with the other great apes, there are
> no physical
> criteria by which the appearance of the "image of God" could be
> identified in the
> fossil record.
>
> With regard to the implications of human evolution for the "image of
> God" I
> will quote from an article that I wrote several years ago.
>
> "We are the image of God in creation - that is why the command against
> making graven images is so powerful. We stand in a unique position
> within
> creation - as God's representative, as His viceroy over the Earth. I
> believe that the basis for that unique position is our dual nature. We
> have
> at once a kinship with the rest of creation and with the Creator. Genesis
> describes the origin of humankind in precisely the same
> manner as
> that of all other living things (Gen 2:7,9,19). The origin of our
> physical
> nature is not different from that of other creatures -- we are made
> of the
> same stuff. If God used and providentially controlled evolutionary
> mechanisms in the creation of plants and animals, I see no reason to
> reject
> an evolutionary origin for humankind. In fact, the testimony of both
> scripture and nature is that we share a oneness with the rest of
> creation.
> Our physical natures are inseparably connected to the rest of life on
> Earth."
>
> "While Genesis roots our physical origin in the stuff of the Earth,
> it also
> places us firmly in a unique position before God and creation. The
> error
> is to attribute unique status to our physical nature, as though our
> exalted
> position is founded on something other than God's grace. I believe
> that it
> is our relationship to God more than anything else which
> distinguishes us.
> >From the dust of the Earth God had raised up a creature and
> imparted to it
> a spiritually conscious soul. By this act of grace God elevated
> humanity
> to a special position of conscious and willing fellowship with Himself."
>
> "An inseparable part of being created as images of God in the world
> is the
> authority delegated to us by God. We have been chosen out of
> creation as
> God's representatives, His stewards. God commissioned us to "Be
> fruitful
> and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the
> fish
> of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that
> moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Adam was placed in the garden "to
> work
> it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15). Our ability to exercise
> this
> divine commission to rule and care for creation is, I believe, based
> on our
> dual nature. Our physical unity with the natural world is as vital
> to our
> appointed role as image bearers as is our spiritual apprehension of the
> divine." (Keith B. Miller, 1993, Theological implications of an evolving
> creation: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 45, p.
> 150-160)
>
> Paul's comparison of Christ (the second Adam) with the first Adam is, I
> believe quite helpful in sorting through the issues. Sin and spiritual
> death "entered the world" through Adam, but life and righteousness through
> Jesus Christ. It seems that both Adam and
> Christ are
> being presented as respresentative heads of the human race. We bear the
> image of Christ in the same way that we formerly bore the image of Adam. We
> are dealing here, I believe, not with physical realities but with
> with
> spiritual realities. Adam thus need not be the physical ancestor of all
> humans, anymore than Jesus is the physical ancestor of all those who
> believe
> in Him.
>
> How was God's "image" imparted to humanity? I think that there are a
> couple
> of options here. One common position is that God selected a particular
> individual into whom God imparted a spiritually conscious
> soul.
> A more monist (as opposed to dualist) view might be that God revealed
> himself to Adam thus bringing Adam into personal fellowship in a
> state of
> moral innocence. I am sure there are other approaches to this.
>
> If Adam is not the genealogical ancestor of all humanity, then how
> can we
> understand the "image" to have been communicated to all humanity?
> Firstly,
> this is essentially the problem of the "pre-Adamites" which is hardly a
> consequence of an evolutionary view of human origins. A straightforward
> reading of the Biblical text itself seems to imply that Adam and his
> immediate
> descendants lived in an already populated world (Gen, 4:13-26).
> Thus, these
> questions have to be answered regardless of whether an evolutionary
> origin
> is accepted.
>
> There are a number of issues here and I won't do justice to any of them.
>
> One consideration is that the origin of the "Image of God" which is
> associated with the creation of humankind in Genesis 1, is not the
> focus of
> the account of Adam in chapter 2 and following. The issue with Adam
> is not
> the origin of God-likeness but rather the origin of sin. In other words
> the
> two accounts are dealing with different issues. The representative
> headship
> of Adam has to do with sin and its consequence - spiritual
> death.
>
> I think that scripture allows us to view the "Image of God" as an act of
> grace poured out on God's chosen creatures when those creatures had in
> effect "come of age." Here the evolutionary origin of humanity provides
> some helpful metaphors. Here's one way to think about it : God
> providentially directed the evolutionary development of humans to the
> point
> at which they possessed the mental and emmotional capacity for conscious
> fellowship with Him. At that point, God revealed Himself and
> established a
> covenant relationship, making them divine representatives to the rest of
> creation.
>
> I believe that Adam could have been selected out from the rest of
> humanity
> for a special covenant relationship. This would be entirely consistent
> with
> the pattern of God's interaction with the human race revealed throughout
> scripture. God selects a particular individual through
> whom to
> accomplish His redemptive will. There is first Adam, then Noah, Abram,
> Joseph, Moses, and Jesus. God seems to repeatedly focus the entire
> future
> of His will for His chosen on the obedience of a single individual.
>
> How is the sin condition (original sin) passed on? This question is
> related
> to the question: How is Christ's righteousness imputed to us?
> - By
> grace through faith.
> There is some act of the will on my part involved. I must willingly
> accept
> that offer of grace. What if we make a parallel with the
> transmission of
> sin? When I am born I am innocent (I do not mean righteous).
> However, at
> the first opportunity I choose to be disobedient - I sin and come
> under the
> curse of Adam which is spiritual death. Thus, Adam's curse is
> imputed to
> me by my sharing in his sin, just as Christ's righteousness is
> imputed to
> me by faith. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
> and
> death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because
> all
> sinned" (Rom 5:12). My reading is that there are none who are
> without sin
> except Christ, thus there are none who are morally righteous yet still
> condemned by Adam's sin. We are condemned because we sin. Therefore
> I do
> not understand that sin itself is something that is passed on thru
> direct
> descent.
>
> As suggested by the above, I do not think that the "death" resulting
> from
> disobedience is fundamentally a physical death. In his book on
> Genesis "In The
> Beginning," Henri Blocher states: "In the bible, death is the reverse
> of life -- it is not
> the reverse of existence. To die does not mean to cease to be, but
> in biblical terms
> it means 'cut off from the land of the living,' henceforth unable
> to act, and to enter
> another condition" (p. 171). However, Blocher does believes that
> Adam would not have
> died physically if he had not sinned. I am not sure that I agree.
> Jesus' references to
> "death' in his ministry rarely referred to physical death. But,
> even if Adam was not
> destined to die, there is no reason to presume that his physical
> predecessors were
> not subject to death. Whatever act of God was involved in making
> Adam a fully spiritual
> being capable of fellowship with Him, the new covenant relationship
> may have provided
> an eternal immortal existence for Adam had he not disobeyed.
>
> I would also recommend the chapter in my edited volume "Perspectives
> on an Evolving Creation" written by Robin Collins from Messiah
> College. It is entitled "Evolution and Original Sin" and directly
> addresses these issues.
>
> All the best,
>
> Keith
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.