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

David, FYI I did use that phrase "image of Adam" tentatively, and suggested
it was something fundamentally different from the Christian bearing the
"image of Christ" after conversion. But the use of the phrase, or at least
the imagery, comes from 1Cor 15 in perhaps the same (or maybe not the same)
way in which I was using the term.

[1 Cor 15:44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

[1 Cor 15:45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

[1 Cor 15:46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which
is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

[1 Cor 15:47] The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the
Lord from heaven.

[1 Cor 15:48] As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as
is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

[1 Cor 15:49] And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly.

Jon Tandy

From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:48 AM
To: Jon Tandy
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
Subject: 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.