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

I just realized after looking through some posts in the listserve
archives that Jon Tandy has responded to my post on Adam and the Fall
and I somehow completely missed it.

My apologies.

Jon wrote:

> 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.

Firstly, the summary that Jon gave above is a good restatement of my
main points. Thanks you for making the effort to understand my
argument.

>
> 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?

How one understands this would be influenced by whether a person
holds a dualistic or monistic view of human nature. However, I still
think that the fundamental aspect of the the "image of God" is
relational and covenantal, and transcends the monist/dualist debate.
In that way the "image of God" is corrupted or distorted by sin
because of the resulting damage to those relationships. However, the
"image" is not destroyed because God remains faithful and has
provided for our restoration. The "image of Christ" is the
revelation in the flesh of that image into which we are to be
conformed. It was an image that the ancients could only see dimly.

> 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.

To bear the "image of Adam' as you put it, would in my understanding
refer to the broken and distorted image that results from
disobedience and our rejection of the covenantal relationship offered
by God. To seek to be conformed to the "image of Christ" is to
actively image Christ through our lives with the power of the Holy
Spirit. That imaging is not a passive spiritual state but an active
outworking of the Christian life. It is the practical visible
expression of our faith (see James).

> 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".

Yes, that is one way of approaching the question. This is a part of
my current position that is not very well worked out. I do agree
that the knowledge of sin and God's law is necessary for sin. That
is why I prefer "original innocence" rather than "original
righteousness" as a description of the preFall state. However, it is
also clear from scripture and our own experience that "All have
sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

> 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.

I don't really see how any archeological or anthropological evidence
could resolve the question of the time of God's self revelation in
human history. Does evidence for burial, or art, or social structure
indicate a spiritual knowledge of God's moral will, or a capacity to
receive God's self revelation at a time of God's choosing? I just
don't see how one can make that judgement.

I do want to again emphasize that I am not a theologian and these are
just my own current views that are continually in flux.

All the best,

Keith

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 23 20:44:11 2008