Adam's Comtemporaries

[dknoonan]

Theistic Human Evolution maintains that Adam was physically and mentally similar to other contemporary Homo Sapiens, but God gave him a human soul, that is, a non-material essence that would exist for eternity.

Question: When did Adam's contemporaries obtain human souls?

 

[gluadys]

I think a soul is what one is, not something one obtains.

 

[Mikecpking]

Theistic Human Evolution maintains that Adam was physically and mentally similar to other contemporary Homo Sapiens, but God gave him a human soul, that is, a non-material essence that would exist for eternity.

Question: When did Adam's contemporaries obtain human souls?

As the bible calls all humans and animals 'souls', the idea of a non - material essence called a 'soul' is a biblical nonsense! Biblically, all souls die at death.

Numbers 23:10
Judges 16:30 for starters..

The idea of a human 'obtaining' a soul is absurd, because he is a soul.

 

[dknoonan]

Would your answer be the same if I had written "human spirit" instead of "human soul" ? If yes, then does that mean you don't believe we live on consciously after death?

 

[dknoonan]

Then in your view does the soul survive death, as a self-conscious entity, distinct from God?

 

[Mikecpking]

Would your answer be the same if I had written "human spirit" instead of "human soul" ? If yes, then does that mean you don't believe we live on consciously after death?

'Spirit' is God's breath (Job 27:3) (Ecclesiates 3:18-21) and is the breath of life (Gen 2:7). The spirit is not 'us'.

The bible does not teach we are concious after death (psalm 146:4, ecclesiates 9:5). What the bible does teach is we will be resurrected one day (the last day), but until then, we are asleep in the grave. (John 5:28-29, Dan 12:2, 1 cor 15 whole chapter) so the idea of a soul floating off somewhere is not biblical.

Of course, we are set apart from animals, but it is this special inbreathing from God. Resurrection to eternal life is a gift (romans 6:23), not automatic!

 

[dknoonan]

Of course, we are set apart from animals, but it is this special inbreathing from God. Resurrection to eternal life is a gift (romans 6:23), not automatic!

In your view then, will Homo sapiens prior to, and contemporary with Adam, be resurrected? Will certain of Homo habilis be resurrected?

 

[callmeMurph]

Theistic Human Evolution maintains that Adam was physically and mentally similar to other contemporary Homo Sapiens, but God gave him a human soul, that is, a non-material essence that would exist for eternity.

Question: When did Adam's contemporaries obtain human souls?

Is this assuming that Adam was an actual person and that God chose a couple out of a large group of Homo Sapiens to give souls? This seems to only apply to one of many Theistic Evolution theories.

 

[Mikecpking]

In your view then, will Homo sapiens prior to, and contemporary with Adam, be resurrected? Will certain of Homo habilis be resurrected?

I have no idea. That is upto God since mankind has evolved from a common ancestor with apes. At what point would a distiction be made in prehistory? Was Adam and Eve a 'select couple' whom God imparted something of himself so that we have God's image?

The resurrection is promised to man. If Homo habilis was considered man or homo erectus well, who knows?

 

[dknoonan]

Is this assuming that Adam was an actual person and that God chose a couple out of a large group of Homo Sapiens to give souls? This seems to only apply to one of many Theistic Evolution theories.

I don't think the question demands a literal Adam. Suppose for a moment that Adam's fall symbolizes the defection from God of a whole class of people.
1. Did that whole class of people have eternal, immortal souls at the time of that defection?
2. Were there contemporary Homo sapiens outside that whole class of 'Adam' people? If so, did they already have immortal souls? Did they receive a soul after the defection?

For MikecpKing, perhaps instead of the the phrase "immortal soul", one could substitute the phrase "one with the potential to obtain a future human resurrection."

 

[gluadys]

Would your answer be the same if I had written "human spirit" instead of "human soul" ?

yes

If yes, then does that mean you don't believe we live on consciously after death?

We live again in the resurrection. I do not believe that resurrection is a form of reincarnation i.e. the transference of a soul from one body to another.

Then in your view does the soul survive death, as a self-conscious entity, distinct from God?

No, the human person, as a complete person of body and spirit, is resurrected to eternal life. That is why the Apostles' Creed says "I believe . . . in the resurrection of the body."

In your view then, will Homo sapiens prior to, and contemporary with Adam, be resurrected? Will certain of Homo habilis be resurrected?

That is in God's hands. I have no idea. I don't even know if Adam was Homo sapiens. Maybe he was Homo erectus.

 

[gluadys]

For MikecpKing, perhaps instead of the the phrase "immortal soul", one could substitute the phrase "one with the potential to obtain a future human resurrection."

No, that won't do. No one "has the potential" to obtain resurrection. It is received as a gift of God's grace. It is based solely on the redeeming work of Christ, not on anything in us.

 

[dknoonan]

I am puzzled that the people who responded to my poll seem very interested in the mortality of the soul. Is there some connection between this doctrinal stance and theistic evolution?

I was hoping to understand how God could have dealt with a special couple who were is some way alive to God in a way that other contemporary humans were not. Did the couple's fall affect their contemporaries? We probably don't have enough data to say one way or the other. But if at least a plausible scenario could be offered, explaining what might have happened to Adam's contemporaries, then I think it speaks well for theistic evolution.

Since starting this thread I did find an article that seems to touch on these issues. It is a paper by Denis Alexander at the Biologos web site.

 

[gluadys]

I am puzzled that the people who responded to my poll seem very interested in the mortality of the soul. Is there some connection between this doctrinal stance and theistic evolution?

I don't think so. A good many theistic evolutionists are Catholic and Catholic dogma requires belief in the immortality of the soul. Perhaps we need someone of that perspective to answer your question.

I have just never found the idea of an immortal soul to be well supported either biblically or logically. And not being Catholic, I have no reason to support it on a dogmatic basis either (though many Protestants do).

 

[mark kennedy]

I have just never found the idea of an immortal soul to be well supported either biblically or logically. And not being Catholic, I have no reason to support it on a dogmatic basis either (though many Protestants do).

Ahem, please pardon the intrusion but I was staggered by this statement. How could God make good on the promise of eternal life if the soul is not immortal?

Feel free to answer as you see fit and I'll be looking forward to your response that I will read without comment in here. BTW, papias could address the question being considered and expect he will when he becomes aware of the discussion.

Now, back to the previously scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Ahem, please pardon the intrusion but I was staggered by this statement. How could God make good on the promise of eternal life if the soul is not immortal?

Through resurrection of course. Resurrection is what the New Testament presents as the gateway to eternal life.

Another reason I don't buy into the notion of the immortality of the soul is that eternal life is presented in the New Testament as a gift of God's grace. If the soul were immortal, God would not need to grant it eternal life. So there would be no generosity or grace on God's part in giving the soul life it already has.

But the New Testament does not speak of eternal life as something we already have. Rather it is granted us through Christ and it is into eternal life that we will be resurrected. Resurrection implies previous death, not previous immortality.

 

[Papias]

dknoonan wrote:

Theistic Human Evolution maintains that Adam was physically and mentally similar to other contemporary Homo Sapiens, but God gave him a human soul, that is, a non-material essence that would exist for eternity.

First, many TE's see Adam as a symbol of humanity, not necessarily as a literal individual. Many other TE's see a literal Adam as you describe, which is a prominent position in the Catholic church, which is larger than all other Christian churches combined. So your question seems to be from the view common in the RCC, (and being in the RCC myself), I'll answer from that position.

Question: When did Adam's contemporaries obtain human souls?

Other than his children and grandchildren, they didn't. Getting a soul seems to be based on descent, and so the descendants of Adam got souls before birth. Since lines of descent expand, within a few thousand years (very quickly compared to the time, at least hundreds of thousands of years ago this was happening), everyone was a descendant of Adam, and hence got a soul. Was this at Homo habilis, H. erectus, or H. sapiens? I don't know, but I would guess well after habilis due to the gradually increasing brain size (still small at habilis), but probably before H. sapiens.

mark wrote:

BTW, papias could address the question being considered and expect he will when he becomes aware of the discussion

Hi mark! Yep, just didn't see it. Answer above.


Gluadys wrote:

I have just never found the idea of an immortal soul to be well supported either biblically or logically. And not being Catholic, I have no reason to support it on a dogmatic basis either (though many Protestants do).

While I don't hold the same view Gluadys does, I think that is a point where reasonable Christians can disagree, and is only sorta on topic anyway.

Have a fun day everyone-

Papias

 

[shernren]

Other than his children and grandchildren, they didn't. Getting a soul seems to be based on descent, and so the descendants of Adam got souls before birth. Since lines of descent expand, within a few thousand years (very quickly compared to the time, at least hundreds of thousands of years ago this was happening), everyone was a descendant of Adam, and hence got a soul. Was this at Homo habilis, H. erectus, or H. sapiens? I don't know, but I would guess well after habilis due to the gradually increasing brain size (still small at habilis), but probably before H. sapiens.

There is another view floating around which appears to be more restricted to the older evangelicals, I haven't seen a lot of it lately:

What then about those pre-Adamic hominids which had survived natural calamity and disaster (as large numbers did not), had dispersed to other continents, and were now Adam’s contemporaries? How did Adam’s special creation and subsequent fall relate to them? Derek Kidner suggests that, once it became clear that there was ‘no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s “federal” headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.’​

Stott, J. R. W. (2001, c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (164). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. (emphasis added)
​

(by the way, RIP John Stott.)