Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

The idea of Adam's "federal headship" and the imputation of Adam's sin to others is used by many people who want to accept both human evolution and something like a traditional picture of Adam and Eve. On closer examination though it runs into a serious problem. If I may give a preview of my comments that will be up soon on Steve's blog:

This idea of the imputation of Adam's sin to others is questionable. The oft-noted theological parallel between it and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to sinners encounters a serious problem. God's creative word does what it says, and in declaring sinners righteous it makes sinners righteous: Sanctification follows justification. (This is not the Roman Catholic concept of "infused" righteousness on account of which God then declares the sinner righteous.) If God imputes Adam's sin to others then God makes people into sinners. To say that God is the immediate cause of the general sinful condition of humanity may be acceptable for some but it poses a serious challenge to the goodness of creation. Cf. Article 19 of the Augsburg Confession.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Steve Martin
  Cc: Bethany Sollereder ; George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

  I'd go further, and with due respect to my friend Beth, I'd argue that this kind of "certainty" could only be hubris. What sort of evidence could you even begin to offer that would provide certainty that there was never a "federal head" Adam? Given the mists of history that ancient, it would be like trying to demonstrate definitively that there was never a guy named Zerubunapal who stubbed his toe in Ur in 4000 B.C. Now, you might argue that the "federal head" Adam seems extremely unlikely and strained, and you might then have a fair point. But as "certain" as something we can directly observe today ("there is no solid firmament") -- uh uh.

  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

  On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Bethany,

        I think that one can be as certain that an Adam didn't exist as one can be sure that there is no firmament...

    Wow, that is pretty certain :-)

    I guess, it is this certainty that I'm questioning. There are many biblical minimalists that state with the same certainty that Abraham, Moses, and even David and Solomon never existed. I agree that there is a world of difference between Gen 1-11 and what follows in the OT, but to state categorically that there is no historical basis for any of the characters involved seems too strong. I can accept that one would say it is theologically unnecessary for an Adam to have existed, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he didn't. (Of course, the set of those who a) believe Adam existed but that b) it is theologically unnecessary for him to have done so, is probably pretty small).

    thanks,

    On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com> wrote:

      Steve,

      The Adam you are talking about (the one that first had a covenantal relationship with God) is exactly the Adam that Denis rejects. He holds to gradual punctiliar polygenism, which means the image of God and "real humanity" was manifested gradually amongst many humans.

      I think that one can be as certain that an Adam didn't exist as one can be sure that there is no firmament...

      David,
      I can appreciate you wanting to bring in Paul and his beliefs as attesting to the historicity of some sort of Adam. But it is not necessary, any more than it is to ascribe to Paul's 3-tier universe presented in Phil 2. He also held to ancient beliefs of science and cosmology, and Adam was part of that package.
      Nor do we need the doctrine of original sin being passed down through Adam's sperm to hold to the idea that all people are sinners. Sin, as it were, is empirically verifiable. Just look around.

      Always,
      Bethayn

    --
    Steve Martin (CSCA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 08:02:47 2008