Re: [asa] Saving Darwin -- On the "Fall"

David Opderbeck wrote:

> I got my copy of Karl Giberson's "Saving Darwin" today and read
> through the Introduction, in which Karl briefly discusses the
> problem of the "Fall." The book, BTW, is a delightful read, and
> its discussion of the contours of the problem are very valuable,
> even if one doesn't agree with every conclusion.
>
> As we've discussed a bit already, Karl finds unconvincing and
> contrived any effort to "save" the fall through some kind of
> federal representative view of "Adam". Here is what I think is the
> key passage of his positive statement of the fall, on page 13:
>
> If nature, in all its many processes, is 'free' to explore pathways
> of possibility, then the evolutionary process would predictably
> lead to creatures with pathological levels of selfishness.
> Creatures inattentive to their own needs would not have made it.
> By these lights, God did not 'build' sin into the natural order.
> Rather, God endowed the natural order with the freedom to 'become,'
> and the result was an interesting, morally complex, spiritually
> rich, but ultimately selfish species we call Homo sapiens. This is
> an entirely reasonable theologcal speculation, at least by my
> amateur standards. It brings the Christian doctrine of the fall
> into the larger picture of an extended creation. Humankind did not
> appear all at once, and neither did sin.

I am somewhat uncertain by what is properly meant by Adam as a
federal representative of humanity. My perhaps poorly thought out
view is below. Is this what others mean by federal headship, and why
is this not an acceptable theological view?

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.

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.

Keith

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 12 13:19:29 2008