Romans 5:12

[Ave Maria]

(NIV) Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

*Emphasis mine.

Ok, how do Theistic Evolutionists explain this verse? I'm really confused.

 

[Dark_Lite]

(NIV) Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

*Emphasis mine.

Ok, how do Theistic Evolutionists explain this verse? I'm really confused.

There was one man that sin entered through.

Simple enough.

You'll get varied answers from different people though.

 

[PaladinValer]

1) Read Dark_lite's post.
2) There is nothing to suggest that a literal Adam and Eve isn't possible when conjunctioned with the scientific theory of evolution. Adam and Eve could very well had been the first spiritually conscious modern human beings, and through them, spirituality spread.

 

[Ave Maria]

1) Read Dark_lite's post.
2) There is nothing to suggest that a literal Adam and Eve isn't possible when conjunctioned with the scientific theory of evolution. Adam and Eve could very well had been the first spiritually conscious modern human beings, and through them, spirituality spread.

Ok, but I was under the impression that the fall was basically the fall of mankind. You know, that pretty much all of mankind reached a point of knowledge about spirituality and that's when the fall happened. I don't know. I'm so confused now!

 

[gluadys]

Ok, but I was under the impression that the fall was basically the fall of mankind. You know, that pretty much all of mankind reached a point of knowledge about spirituality and that's when the fall happened. I don't know. I'm so confused now!

As Dark-Lite and PaladinValer suggest, TE does not necessarily discount a literal Adam and Eve.

But from the perspective that they are types of humanity, then this verse is also interpreted as one (type) of human. Paul sometimes contrasts Adam and Christ. In other passages he contrasts the natural person or person of flesh with the spiritual person.

I consider that all of these are the same contrast. Adam is the natural person or person of flesh. Christ is the spiritual person.

Death has come into the world through one person (Adam/natural person/person of flesh) and been conquered by the other person(Christ/spiritual person).

We are all by nature Adam--bringers of sin and death into the world. We may all become Christ--spiritual human beings, redeemed brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, conquerers of sin and death.

 

[Ave Maria]

As Dark-Lite and PaladinValer suggest, TE does not necessarily discount a literal Adam and Eve.

But from the perspective that they are types of humanity, then this verse is also interpreted as one (type) of human. Paul sometimes contrasts Adam and Christ. In other passages he contrasts the natural person or person of flesh with the spiritual person.

I consider that all of these are the same contrast. Adam is the natural person or person of flesh. Christ is the spiritual person.

Death has come into the world through one person (Adam/natural person/person of flesh) and been conquered by the other person(Christ/spiritual person).

We are all by nature Adam--bringers of sin and death into the world. We may all become Christ--spiritual human beings, redeemed brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, conquerers of sin and death.

So is Adam in this case representative of a bunch of spiritually aware humans or something?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

(NIV) Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

*Emphasis mine.

Ok, how do Theistic Evolutionists explain this verse? I'm really confused.

it is the doctrine of federal headship.
it does not absolutely require an historical Adam, but the arguments are easier.

Glenn Morton has a nice set of essays of his view at:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm

will get you into his writings.

Dick Fisher has a nice book on the topic, several chapters are at: www.orisol.com although there is currently DNS troubles with the site.

BB.Warfield is probably the greatest theologian of the late 19thc/early 20thc to be TE, you can consult his books.

Howard Van Till has written several good books on the topic as well.

so there is lots of information on the situation, you just need to look around and study it.

...

 

[PaladinValer]

Adam was the first spiritually-conscious man. Eve was the first spiritually-conscious woman. This isn't to suggest that homo sapien sapiens began with them; it just means that they reached such a development that God knew that they could interact with them.

From Adam and Eve, spiritual-consciousness spread. That I believe is the whole reason for the geneologies; mythical accounts of the spread.

 

[Ave Maria]

Adam was the first spiritually-conscious man. Eve was the first spiritually-conscious woman. This isn't to suggest that homo sapien sapiens began with them; it just means that they reached such a development that God knew that they could interact with them.

From Adam and Eve, spiritual-consciousness spread. That I believe is the whole reason for the geneologies; mythical accounts of the spread.

Ok, but how can we know that there was a guy named Adam who was actually the first spiritually-conscious man? I mean, who's to say that the Bible isn't referring to a culture of people or something that caused the fall?

 

[PaladinValer]

How do we know there is a God in Heaven?

 

[Ave Maria]

How do we know there is a God in Heaven?

By faith of course. My point is that I don't feel that one has to accept a historical Adam to believe in the fall of mankind.

 

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps, but if "by one man" sin entered the world, then it was by somebody. Thus, if not Adam, then a man whom Adam Traditionally represents. If not, then there's a denial of Original Sin. This is unacceptable as this is the heresy of pelagianism.

 

[Ave Maria]

Perhaps, but if "by one man" sin entered the world, then it was by somebody. Thus, if not Adam, then a man whom Adam Traditionally represents. If not, then there's a denial of Original Sin. This is unacceptable as this is the heresy of pelagianism.

How do we know that Paul simply wasn't mistaken when he wrote this? Besides, he was a fallible man. And although he was supposedly a well educated Jew before his conversion, he still could have been mistaken and was just following tradition or something like that.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith.

Original Sin is a doctrine; an extremely important one. It was caused by the Fall of Adam and Eve. Thus, it is by one man that we all have broken souls (though we are not guilty of it; they were, we weren't).

As I said in a previous thread to you, you should research the Christian faith before you pick up the Bible. Anyone can pick it up and say "X is true because Y says so" or "A cannot be true because how do we know B even existed?" With a understanding of important theology, one can then apply that when reading the Bible and understand it better.

In this case, St. Paul is not mistaken. And I should note that, while Jews do not hold to the idea of Original Sin, they do believe that the Fall did occur, just differently; they believe that upon eating of the Tree, they were given the ability to choose and make decisions, thus the Jewish belief of the yetzer, or conscience. The problem is, while we may have now the capability to make decisions based on our conscience, our relationship with God has been disturbed. Our souls were broken by this one act of Adam and Eve rejecting God's direction.

 

[Ave Maria]

The Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith.

Original Sin is a doctrine; an extremely important one. It was caused by the Fall of Adam and Eve. Thus, it is by one man that we all have broken souls (though we are not guilty of it; they were, we weren't).

As I said in a previous thread to you, you should research the Christian faith before you pick up the Bible. Anyone can pick it up and say "X is true because Y says so" or "A cannot be true because how do we know B even existed?" With a understanding of important theology, one can then apply that when reading the Bible and understand it better.

In this case, St. Paul is not mistaken. And I should note that, while Jews do not hold to the idea of Original Sin, they do believe that the Fall did occur, just differently; they believe that upon eating of the Tree, they were given the ability to choose and make decisions, thus the Jewish belief of the yetzer, or conscience. The problem is, while we may have now the capability to make decisions based on our conscience, our relationship with God has been disturbed. Our souls were broken by this one act of Adam and Eve rejecting God's direction.

Ok, so the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. I can accept that for the most part. I also accept the doctrine of original sin. I am just questioning the way it came about. Also, I have serious doubts about much of Pauline Christianity anyway.

 

[PaladinValer]

There is no such thing as "Pauline Christianity;" that's a term used by those turned-off by Christianity by those who seem to make it their lifestyle to turn people off from Christianity.

Any research on St. Paul will yield the facts that St. Paul wasn't some faith-only, woman-persecuting idiot. There's a reason, after all, why he was one of the first bishops of the Christian Church and why he was canonized...

 

[Ave Maria]

There is no such thing as "Pauline Christianity;" that's a term used by those turned-off by Christianity by those who seem to make it their lifestyle to turn people off from Christianity.

Any research on St. Paul will yield the facts that St. Paul wasn't some faith-only, woman-persecuting idiot. There's a reason, after all, why he was one of the first bishops of the Christian Church and why he was canonized...

I'd have to disagree. I feel that there is definitely such a thing as Pauline Christianity. Also, do you have any sources about how he was one of the first bishops and how he was canonized?

 

[PaladinValer]

Church Tradition as taught by the Fathers
Factual history
The Holy Spirit

 

[Ave Maria]

Church Tradition as taught by the Fathers
Factual history
The Holy Spirit

Ok, but just because he was endorsed by a bunch of people doesn't mean he was always right. Also, I don't reject all of Pauline Christianity. I just reject the literal interpretations of Pauline Christianity.

 

[gluadys]

So is Adam in this case representative of a bunch of spiritually aware humans or something?

Well, conscious, self-aware persons, yes. People capable of a relationship with God.

In his fallen state, he is representative of the natural human being we know. One reason Christ had to incarnate as a human is to show us the truly spiritual human we have forgotten how to be.