Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Ok, George, but how then do you avoid Pelagianism?

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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> 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 <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com> ; George Murphy<GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>;
> 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 08:17:22 2008