Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

 George,

can you explain a little more what you mean by "not compelled to sin"?  Do you mean that even the unregenerate have the power within themselves to actually avoid all sins, even though practically it is a matter of time and statistics that people will eventually sin?  Or do you mean something weaker or stronger than this?

 
It seems to me that Paul's discussion of sin and law in Romans 7 is that we cannot help but sin unless (a la Romans 8) we have God's Spirit graciously working in us.  My reading of the symbolism of the two trees in Genesis 3 is that mankind became knowledgeable of God's law before become partakers of God's life (in the sense of having God's Spirit working graciously in us) and thus it was henceforth inevitable that we would fail to keep the law we now knew, and in that sense mankind died.

I had thought that this view of Genesis 3 was compatible with your own view, but now I'm not sure, because in my view we are indeed all compelled to sin apart from regeneration.  I see sin as not being a positive "thing" but rather the absence of a "thing".  The true "thing" is obeying God's law because we love him and people, and that only comes when we have his life in us.  Anything else is "sin" by virtue of falling short.  So in that view the unregenerate are indeed compelled to sin in the sense that they are unable to do the positive thing, a thing that is uniquely characteristic of the life they don't have
until God comes into them.

I didn't think this view is Pelagian because it agrees that we are all dead until regenerate, so I don't know why the need to say sinners aren't strictly compelled to sin.  If sin isn't a "thing" but only the absence of a "thing", then why the need for this distinction?

thanks,
Phil

Original Message-----
From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 9:13 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

David -

That's the point of my emphasis on "sin of origin"
as a claim about the universality of sin from the beginning of life.  The
basic problem with Pelagianism isn't what it says about Adam but what it
says about us.  Quoting from my 2006 article:

Neither
strict Augustinians nor determined Pelagians will be satisfied with this
formulation.  Unregenerate people
are not compelled to sin but all people are sinners and would need grace even if
they could theoretically avoid “actual sins.” This approach does preserve the essence of what the western
church has insisted upon without theories about human history and the
transmission of sin which are now seen to be untenable. 

Shalom
George

http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

  
----- Original Message -----

  
From:
  David
  O
pderbeck

  
To: George Murphy

  
Cc: Steve Martin ; Bethany
  Sollereder ; asa@calvin.edu

  
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:17
  AM

  
Subject: 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" righteou
sness 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=2
0
        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 presented20in 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.