[asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")

Donald Bloesch is a moderate evangelical theologian whose work I greatly
admire. His view of scripture and epistemology resonate with me deeply. In
his "Essentials of Evangelical Theology," in the chapter on "Total
Depravity," Bloesch discusses the doctrine of the Fall. He states that

"[w]ith Reinhold Niebuhr we affirm not an ontological or transcendent fall
but a historical fall. Yet this does not mean that the story of Adam and
Eve as presented in Genesis is itself exact, literal history. Not on
Neibuhr but also Jacques Ellul, Paul Althaus, Karl Barth, Raymond Abba, C.S.
Lewis and many other evangelically oriented scholars would concur. . . . It
seems, however, that the story of the fall does assume that mankind has a
common ancestor or ancestors who forfeited earthly happiness by falling into
sin. . . . The lost paradise is not simply a state of dreaming innocence
before the act of sin (as in Hegel or Tillich) nor a utopia in the past (as
in some strands of the older orthodoxy) but an unrealized possibility that
was removed from man by sin. It represents not an idyllic age at the dawn
of history but a state of blessedness or communion with God which has been
given to the first man and all men at their creation but which is
irremediably forfeited by sin."

Concerning Adam, he says "We also maintain that if the symbolism of both
Genesis 2 and 3 is to be taken seriously, the emergence of man is to be
attributed to a special divine act of creation and not to blind, cosmic
evolution." In a footnote to that statement, he says the following: "We
are open to the view of Karl Rahner that the first authentic hominisation
(coming into being of man) happened only once -- in a single couple. Yet it
would not contradict Christian faith 'to assume several hominisations
[pre-Adamites] which quickly perished in the struggle for existence and made
no contribution to the one real saving history of mankind . . . .' [citing
Rahner]".

It's unclear to me what Bloesch means by his statements about Adam. I'm
assuming by "special divine act of creation" he's referring primarily to
something like ensoulment, not material creation. I'm also assuming that
his emphasis on the non-literalness of the Gen. 2 and 3 stories, to "a
common ancestor or ancestors," and the footnote reference to "pre-Adamites,"
means he's open to some degree of polygenism (Rahner, a Roman Catholic
theologian whom Bloesch cites, moved away from requiring monogenism later in
his career).

Does anyone know if Bloesch ever published any more detailed thoughts on
this? (He's retired now and apparently isn't reachable by email).

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.
Received on Thu Nov 13 13:09:45 2008