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

Except that we have a clear example of this with Abraham, who was to become a "great and powerful nation" and through whom all the nations of the world would be blessed (Gen. 18).  Neither all of early Israel nor the new Israel were / are Abraham's direct biological descendants.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Jack drsyme@verizon.net> wrote:

Even if he is speaking of ensoulment and not a material special creation, we still have the problem of how this "communion with God" is "irremediably forfeited by sin" by one man who is not related to all men through "normal generation" (WCF).

 

My point entails two assumptions.  First that Adam was neolithic.  I suppose that if Adam was pushed back 100 k years or more, like the RTB hypothesis, you might find a common ancestor.

 

It also assumes the federal headship view of the fall.  I cant understand this view without Adam as the head of all mankind, unless they were his descendants.  I just cant accept that Adam's fall would curse other contemporaries and their descendants.  (Bloesch seems to dismiss this too with his point that other "pre-Adamites" would make not contribution to the human race.)

Nov 13, 2008 06:09:29 PM, dopderbeck@gmail.com wrote:

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