Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Phil -

Thank you for bringing this to the fore. As I noted in another post, too much of the comment & criticism of my paper has focused on the "historical Adam" and too little on the deeper issue of just what our sin of origin does to human capabilities.

I should say to begin with that my 2006 paper is part of an ongoing project, a work in progress. I hope that doesn't sound like a cop-out but I'm not completely satisfied myself with where I ended up there, even though I think I'm going in the right direction. Some of the unease that I feel is for reasons very similar to those you suggest. My Lutheran confessional tradition has a very strong view of original sin, to some extent stronger even than what you suggest. I want as much as possible to be faithful to that while at the same time avoiding its aspects that stemmed from an unrealistic understanding of the world - & all that without weaseling!

The traditional Augustinian view is that humans before the fall could avoid sin (but also could sin), while after the fall it is not possible not to sin (non posse non peccare).
When I said that the unregenerate are not "compelled" to sin I meant that it is possible for them to avoid any particular sin on a given occasion. No one is forced against her/his will to commit a given sin. But it's precisely the will that's the deeper problem.

It's tempting to say that we don't sin because we have to, we sin because we want to. But what Luther referred to as the bondage of the will means that it goes deeper than that. "We sin because we have to want to" would be a way of putting it. We have to remember than sin doesn't involve just specific acts. We begin our lives in a sinful condition - as I quoted Tillich in the article, "Before sin is an act it is a state." That state of alienation from God involves a will that is not in accord with God's will and thus eventuates in sinful thoughts and deeds.

There's probably a tendency to think that a corruption that is somehow inherited biologically, a la Augustine, has got to be stronger than one produced by a social environment - nature is stronger than nurture. That would imply that the Augustinian model expresses better the "not possible not to sin" condition. But I question the basic assumption. It may be true for physical performance - whether or not someone can play in the NBA is more a matter of biology than education, though the latter is not irrelevant. But we're not talking here about physical abilities - or really even mental ones.

You'll note that I've spoken about what "we" do, and that points to one of the ways in which I think the sin of origin is an even more serious problem than you suggest. The regenerate also sin - cf. Luther's characterization of the Christian as "at the same time justified and sinner." He would say even stronger things - even the good works of the saints are not without sin, &c. & that really gets into other controversial issues between Lutherans & Calvinists on the one hand and Roman Catholics on the other, that present tricky problems for my approach - & I think any other that takes evolution seriously. But I think at this point that I'll restrain myself from any further thinking out loud.

Again, thanks for the challenge. My response here may not seem completely satisfactory but continuing to think through these matters is halpful for me.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: philtill@aol.com
  To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com ; dopderbeck@gmail.com
  Cc: steven.dale.martin@gmail.com ; bsollereder@gmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:39 PM
  Subject: 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 w e 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 Opderbeck
    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: Sanctificatio n 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 probably20pretty 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 =2 0 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)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download Now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 14 11:11:45 2008