Marva Dawn on Original Sin

[shernren]

Recently bought Walking the Talk: Letting Christian Language Live Again, a book about rehabilitating Christian vocabulary. (For the doubters, she explicitly distances herself from liberal theology at many points in the book.) She has insightful comments about original sin:

Perhaps, rather than arguing about whether there really was an Adam and Eve and whether we are all guilty because of those persons, we should recognize that we do not come into life with a clean slate. We bear the imprint of the sins of our forebears.

... Garry Wills remarks,

We are hostages to each other in a deadly interrelatedness. There is no "clean slate" of nature unscribbled on by all one's forebears ... At one time a woman of unsavory enough experience was delicately but cruelly referred to as "having a past." The doctrine of original sin states that humankind, in exactly that sense, "has a past."
​

... We cannot discover the fullness of life (and what a gift it is) unless we know how dead we are. The doctrine of original sin reminds us that we were dead before we were even born, lest we think we can somehow get the chance to fix things.

 

[Assyrian]

It certainly fits better with God's great self revelation in the Ten Commandments
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

 

[juvenissun]

Adam and Eve and the Original Sin are anchors of Christian theology. With this anchor, we may elaborate the original sin anyway we like to. But without Gen 1-11, the Christian theology would be totally re-written in a few hundred years or short.

 

[shernren]

The doctrine of original sin is not found in Genesis 1-11. The sins of Cain, Lamech, Noah's neighbours and Babel's builders are never specifically or explicitly connected to Adam's sin in Genesis. Instead the doctrine of universal sin is found in Romans 1-3, and the doctrine of Adam's federal headship in Romans 5. But I personally think the doctrine of original sin as most creationists believe it probably has as much Augustine mixed into it as it has the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Well given that Augustine came up with the idea of Original Sin I don't think it is possible to avoid having an awful lot of Augustine mixed in unless you go completely back to the drawing board. I would question the idea that federal headship is found in Romans 5, it is certainly not mentioned explicitly.

Does anyone know the history of the Federal Headship doctrine? It sounds to me like it was an attempt to keep Augustine's idea of Original Sin being passed down from Adam, but trying to find a more biblical reason for it than us being in Adam's loins and sharing the guilt of his transgression. But it is still starting with the conclusion and trying to find scriptural support. Which is not the best approach, and it still runs into problems with Exodus 20.

Marva Dawn seems to be holding onto the term Original Sin but going back to scripture to see what it tells us.

Adam and Eve and the Original Sin are anchors of Christian theology. With this anchor, we may elaborate the original sin anyway we like to. But without Gen 1-11, the Christian theology would be totally re-written in a few hundred years or short.

Sounds like the slippery slope argument to me. The doctrine may not be biblical but if we abandon it who knows where we might end up? I would have thought our anchor is Christ and his death and resurrection for our sins. Then as shernren says, we have the biblical doctrine of the universality of our sin that means we need this wonderful saviour. Now it is true people have built great systems of theology explaining how all this came to be, starting from Augustine's we were all in Adam's loins and shared in his Original Sin. But it isn't what the bible actually says. Augustine's views come from a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin that said that we all sinned in Adam, '...in whom all sinned'. Isn't it really about time we cleared up the theology built on a 1600 year old mistranslation?

 

[artybloke]

But it is still starting with the conclusion and trying to find scriptural support. Which is not the best approach

Though an incredibly common approach, as any reading of church history shows...

 

[shernren]

'Tis interesting that in that same article Marva Dawn pointed out that Irenaeus battled the Gnostic heresy, and thus expounded at length on the innate and still-present goodness of creation; while Augustine battled the Pelagian heresy, and was thus compelled to emphasize the sheer hopeless sinfulness of man.

Well given that Augustine came up with the idea of Original Sin I don't think it is possible to avoid having an awful lot of Augustine mixed in unless you go completely back to the drawing board. I would question the idea that federal headship is found in Romans 5, it is certainly not mentioned explicitly.

Does anyone know the history of the Federal Headship doctrine? It sounds to me like it was an attempt to keep Augustine's idea of Original Sin being passed down from Adam, but trying to find a more biblical reason for it than us being in Adam's loins and sharing the guilt of his transgression. But it is still starting with the conclusion and trying to find scriptural support. Which is not the best approach, and it still runs into problems with Exodus 20.

... But it isn't what the bible actually says. Augustine's views come from a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin that said that we all sinned in Adam, '...in whom all sinned'. Isn't it really about time we cleared up the theology built on a 1600 year old mistranslation?

I think there's more to it than a simple mistranslation. The traditional argument I learned regarding original sin in Romans 5 is that if Adam's role in the spread of sin was merely an inspirational role (that we can choose not to sin but instead are inspired by Adam's choice to sin) then would not the direct comparison between Adam and Jesus belittle Jesus' salvific work? After all, Jesus did not merely inspire us to be righteous; His righteousness was imputed onto us. Therefore (the argument goes) in order to enforce the comparison, our condemnation before God must be by virtue of the imputation of Adam's sin, just as our justification before God is by virtue of the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

I don't see enough in that view to hold it personally but I do think it is nevertheless a strong and responsible position for those inclined to disagree with me. What do you guys think?

 

[Assyrian]

'Tis interesting that in that same article Marva Dawn pointed out that Irenaeus battled the Gnostic heresy, and thus expounded at length on the innate and still-present goodness of creation; while Augustine battled the Pelagian heresy, and was thus compelled to emphasize the sheer hopeless sinfulness of man.

Pity the church didn't stick with the Irenaean view of creation. I think it is always worth seeing where doctrines came from and what they were reacting against. Augustine would have been better of sticking with the biblical description of man's sinfulness, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, rather than building a whole doctrinal edifice on how that sinfulness came about, from a dodgy translation. But he wasn't to know.

I think there's more to it than a simple mistranslation. The traditional argument I learned regarding original sin in Romans 5 is that if Adam's role in the spread of sin was merely an inspirational role (that we can choose not to sin but instead are inspired by Adam's choice to sin)

Does anybody ever claim to be inspired by Adam I raided a few orchards in my youth, but I was inspired by thoughts of apple dumpling, not Adam and Eve. I smell a straw man there. Not your straw man, I realise shernren, but I will have a rummage in the stuffing anyway.

then would not the direct comparison between Adam and Jesus belittle Jesus' salvific work?

The bible is full of comparisons with Jesus. Do any of them involve members of the Trinity? If you compare something with Jesus and it isn't divine does that belittle Jesus' salvitic work? The pascal lamb needed to be without spot. Did it also need to be born of a virgin and rise from the dead after being eaten? It strikes me, a lot of the comparisons the bible makes with Jesus and his accomplished work, it emphasises how inadequate the comparison is, "how much more...".

After all, Jesus did not merely inspire us to be righteous; His righteousness was imputed onto us. Therefore (the argument goes) in order to enforce the comparison, our condemnation before God must be by virtue of the imputation of Adam's sin, just as our justification before God is by virtue of the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

I don't see that the fullness of what Christ accomplished has to be matched point by point, depth by depth, by all that Adam achieved. Jesus is God the Son, of course he did accomplished more than a mere human being did. To make the comparison there only has to be some point of similarity. I do not think Paul is saying Adam's sin actually made us sinners, turned us into sinners. The Greek word is wrong, and it contradicts what Paul says in verse 12 about Adam's death spreading to all men because all sinned. It think it mean that Adam's sin and condemnation declares all men sinners and condemned, just as Christ's death declares us righteous (yes Christ's death does more than just declare us righteous but Paul was looking at comparisons). How does Adam's sin declare us sinners? I can think of two ways, if Adam if a figure of the human race, his sin is a picture of our sin and rebellion. When we read of Adam's fall we are reading God's judgement on all of us. Or if you take Adam as the first human being to sin, or the representative sinner from the beginning of the human race, then his sin and condemnation become the test case for the human race. We all disobey God as Adam did, and come under the same condemnation. Adam's sin and judgement declares all of us guilty.

I don't see enough in that view to hold it personally but I do think it is nevertheless a strong and responsible position for those inclined to disagree with me. What do you guys think?

Afraid I am going to have to cut down on my internet access for a while though.

 

[shernren]

Was checking through the commentaries, notably Hodge's; there's a lot that he speaks of as supporting the idea that Romans 5:12 communicates federal headship and imputed sin. I guess the sticking point for me right now is him mentioning that the verse uses the aorist tense - that is, Paul says "death came unto all men because all had sinned" instead of using the tense "death came unto all men because all sin" - using the present tense to denote man's actions (i.e. sinning) that began at Adam and continued, persisting until today. In other words the "all sinned" must refer to a specific past event that does not have an indefinite duration in time. Thoughts?

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't had sinned pluperfect? I am always dubious about reading too much into the aorist which is the bog standard Greek past tense. OK, say Paul is talking about us all committing a sin in the past, does the aorist plural mean everybody committed the same specific sin at the same time. Or that all of us have at some stage in our past committed a sin? If we insist the aorist plural must refer to a single historic event, then a favourite verse showing the sinfulness of the entire human race loses it punch. Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, no longer means we have all sinned, but simply that all share in Adam guilt. Was Adam and Idolater and Eve a lesbian? We find the same aorist plurals in Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile [Aorist Passive]in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened [Aorist Passive]. 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them [Aorist single] up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. Surely this cannot refer to a single event in the past where every lesbian in the world switched from heterosexuality at the same time?

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Did all the gentiles in the history of the world sin in a single past event, and every Jew beak the law in one go? No Paul is simply saying every Gentile and every Jew has sinned at some time.

If you want to understand what Paul is talking about in Rom 5:12, look at chapter 7 where shows how this happened to him. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death spread to Paul because he sinned, he broke the commandment do not covet. Notice though how the aorist is appropriate. It was that single sin that brought spiritual death to him. The suggestion Paul could have used the present, to say death spread to all men because mankind continues to sin, that would also suggest we are only dead because we each continue to sin and we could become spiritually alive if we simply stopped sinning? But that is not what Paul trying to tell us here, each of us has sinned, and one sin was enough, we sinned and we died.