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

Hi Jack:
 
That's a good question, but my answer just works for me. If it doesn't
work for you then maybe somebody else's answer would work, but you can't
do what Hugh Ross does, for one example. He has established a
theological construct based upon how he has interpreted Scripture.
Then, ignoring history, he gives science a modicum of attention and
sticks his Adam at some point in time where theoretically he possibly
could have lived and have been the progenitor of the entire human race.
 
Adam can't be slid around to fit someone's theological opinion. What I
have done is amassed an enormous amount of evidence that this man lived
in the Neolithic period, in Mesopotamia around 7,000 years ago. Now the
theological ramifications have to fit the facts of history. That said
I'll give you my opinion.
 
At the time of Adam's introduction mankind all over the globe was not
held to account for their actions, and whatever knowledge or beliefs
they might have had about a higher power or powers were tied to
astrological considerations (movement of the stars and planets) or large
animals (bear cult), etc. At some point the God of the universe decided
to make man aware and with this knowledge he would also be accountable
for his actions. The man God chosen to be His representative to mankind
was this man Adam. Through Adam men would have been introduced to God
or even the Trinity. They would have been shown through Adam's good
example that obedience had benefits and disobedience had consequences.
 
Had Adam resisted temptation and stayed the course the way to salvation
would have been simply: worship God, be obedient, be saved. Adam failed
to be that good example God needed him to be. This ushered in another
course: worship God, try to be obedient, offer blood sacrifices as
atonement when you slip up, be saved. Christ, of course, brought a new
covenant that no longer required animal sacrifice.
 
Man has a sin nature and so far as I can tell has always had it. If a
child of two picks up a gun and shoots someone the courts would never
punish the child because at age two he would not be capable of knowing
the consequences of his actions. Cave men, for example, would fall into
that category. Not tasked, unaware, no accountability. So the era of
accountability began about 7,000 years ago.
 
This scenario suggests that one is not condemned or saved until one
hears and rejects or accepts the message, but again, theological
considerations have to fit the facts. We don't ignore the facts of
science and history or consider them to be malleable and beat them into
a shape that fits how we interpret the Bible.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:10 PM
To: dickfischer@verizon.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
 
How about this, you tell me how Adam's sin is transmitted to all
humankind.
 
The truth of the matter is, it is not just that we are declared to be
sinful, we actually ARE sinful. George wants at least part of that to
be evolved behaviors. So, this sin at least in part is passed down from
generation to generation. In the case of Adam alone as a federal head,
he represents us in the specific sense that we are all his descendants,
and that clearly cannot be the case.
 
So since we cannot all be Adam's descendants this view of original sin
being passed down through normal generation cannot be correct. But,
your idea that Adam represents us like George Washington represents
Americans, cannot be true because there is something more innate,
fundamental, and biological about being human and being a sinner than
being a member of a nation or any other group. Adam somehow made us
all actual sinners, I have no idea how. And Christ redeems us. They
are both mysteries to me.

Nov 13, 2008 08:18:45 PM, dickfischer@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jack:
George Washington was the father of our country. I live outside
Washington named for him. How many of us do you think are related to
George? But by all means, pick a date for Adam that would allow
everyone in the entire human race to be related to him. As Adlai
Stevenson said, "I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes
over."
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:23 PM
To: dopderbeck@gmail.com
Cc: drsyme@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
I dont have any problem with Abraham's blessing being distributed to all
nations via means other than through "normal generation". In the case
of Abraham, the blessing could very well be to those that are not his
descendants.
 
I dont think this is the case with Adam however.

Nov 13, 2008 06:47:18 PM, dopderbeck@gmail.com wrote:
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
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 15 12:02:53 2008