Romans 5:12

[gluadys]

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.

I disagree with this. If 'Adam' is 'natural humanity' then Adam is not one person, but each and every one of us. That does not deny original sin. It reinforces it. All of us create the fall all the time.

 

[Ave Maria]

I disagree with this. If 'Adam' is 'natural humanity' then Adam is not one person, but each and every one of us. That does not deny original sin. It reinforces it. All of us create the fall all the time.

Hmm, that makes sense. So maybe the "fall" happens in each and everyone of us?

 

[PaladinValer]

I disagree with this. If 'Adam' is 'natural humanity' then Adam is not one person, but each and every one of us. That does not deny original sin. It reinforces it. All of us create the fall all the time.

We are all Adam in the sense that we are all human beings; I agree with you here.

In addition, I would say that we recreate the likeness of the Fall each time we sin, instead of an actual creation (as the actual Fall happened only once). If you mean it that may, then I can see how those who do view Adam and Eve (as actual "Adam and Eve" or those they represent) as fictional or legendary are still orthodoxx (and do seem to fit St. Paul's wording).

In the end, we both agree that humanity's souls were broken due to Original Sin and we have inherited this broken nature throughout all history (not to mention a belief in the reality of theistic evolution!), so the Adam-Eve thing really is a minor point about the issue that none of us should worry about Stran Manning each other on.

 

[Ave Maria]

We are all Adam in the sense that we are all human beings; I agree with you here.

In addition, I would say that we recreate the likeness of the Fall each time we sin, instead of an actual creation (as the actual Fall happened only once). If you mean it that may, then I can see how those who do view Adam and Eve (as actual "Adam and Eve" or those they represent) as fictional or legendary are still orthodoxx (and do seem to fit St. Paul's wording).

In the end, we both agree that humanity's souls were broken due to Original Sin and we have inherited this broken nature throughout all history (not to mention a belief in the reality of theistic evolution!), so the Adam-Eve thing really is a minor point about the issue that none of us should worry about Stran Manning each other on.

Ok, so if Theistic Evolution is true then how did the original fall occur? Please explain in basic terms. I'm having a hard time understand all this.

 

[PaladinValer]

It's very simple:

-God's role in evolution ends with humanity becomes spiritually-inclined.
-God begins his relationship with humanity. Adam and Eve (or "Adam and Eve") are (represent) the first man and woman (humans) that have a relationship with God
-They are tempted to not follow God's rules by a snake (their own cunning) and they break God's rule due to a conscious decision. This means that Adam and Eve (humanity) no longer have a pure, perfect relationship with God. Their disobediance breaks their souls, as they are now no longer able to follow His rules and will without help.
-God sees [and knew beforehand] that Adam and Eve (humanity) break His rules, but fairly tries them. He then must help them and their descendents (all the rest of humanity; here the literal Adam and Eve/non-literal Adam and Eve merge) do what is truly right. He tries at first to give them a strict law to follow (Torah) but this doesn't work, despite prophets, sybil, and various other sages.
-Eventually, God the Son incarnates as Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior, to redeem us in Him. Jesus, being 100% God and 100% Human yet having one cooperative will without any one side dominating the other or being submissive or subtracting of itself to/for the other, makes the perfect sacrifice as He is God whose bridged humanity with Him. He lived a mortal life, being tempted constantly but never giving in. Upon the cross, He died for all our sins, so that in Him, we too can be saved.
-Upon baptism, we confess that He is Lord and we are therefore joined in Him in both death and in life. Baptism begins the regeneration of our broken souls; slowly "repairing" them. This "repair" is completed upon the Judgment; those who accept God's Grace and are therefore found to be righteous have their souls fully restored because with Him, they too were raised out of death into new life.

 

[Ave Maria]

It's very simple:

-God's role in evolution ends with humanity becomes spiritually-inclined.
-God begins his relationship with humanity. Adam and Eve (or "Adam and Eve") are (represent) the first man and woman (humans) that have a relationship with God
-They are tempted to not follow God's rules by a snake (their own cunning) and they break God's rule due to a conscious decision. This means that Adam and Eve (humanity) no longer have a pure, perfect relationship with God. Their disobediance breaks their souls, as they are now no longer able to follow His rules and will without help.
-God sees [and knew beforehand] that Adam and Eve (humanity) break His rules, but fairly tries them. He then must help them and their descendents (all the rest of humanity; here the literal Adam and Eve/non-literal Adam and Eve merge) do what is truly right. He tries at first to give them a strict law to follow (Torah) but this doesn't work, despite prophets, sybil, and various other sages.
-Eventually, God the Son incarnates as Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior, to redeem us in Him. Jesus, being 100% God and 100% Human yet having one cooperative will without any one side dominating the other or being submissive or subtracting of itself to/for the other, makes the perfect sacrifice as He is God whose bridged humanity with Him. He lived a mortal life, being tempted constantly but never giving in. Upon the cross, He died for all our sins, so that in Him, we too can be saved.
-Upon baptism, we confess that He is Lord and we are therefore joined in Him in both death and in life. Baptism begins the regeneration of our broken souls; slowly "repairing" them. This "repair" is completed upon the Judgment; those who accept God's Grace and are therefore found to be righteous have their souls fully restored because with Him, they too were raised out of death into new life.

OK, that makes sense but I just take issue with the idea that spirituality started with only two people. I would think that it would have been an idea that at least started up among a small community.

 

[gluadys]

OK, that makes sense but I just take issue with the idea that spirituality started with only two people. I would think that it would have been an idea that at least started up among a small community.

Yes, I agree with that. But that simply means they are all "Adam & Eve".

The other point I would raise is exactly how do we inherit original sin? Traditionally, following Augustine, the Church has treated original sin as something that is biologically inherited through the sexuality of our parents.

There are two things wrong with this. Given our current understanding of genetics it makes absolutely no biological sense whatsoever. And it has the unfortunate legacy of making us suspicious of sexuality per se, which amounts to a suspicious fear of one of God's good gifts to us. I needn't elaborate on how that feeds into the shameful legacy of Christian mysogyny.

To me, it makes much more sense to see original sin as a social legacy which we inherit through socialization. Just as we inherit our mother tongue by being immersed in language, we inherit sin by being immersed in sin socially, beginning with the family and extending to all our social institutions: school, church, business, politics, etc.

So whether it was one or two people in that first truly human community, or the community as a whole, that first broke the trusting relationship between humanity and God really makes no difference. It began with and/or spread through the community till the whole community was infected and we are all inheritors of that community.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, I agree with that. But that simply means they are all "Adam & Eve".

The other point I would raise is exactly how do we inherit original sin? Traditionally, following Augustine, the Church has treated original sin as something that is biologically inherited through the sexuality of our parents.

There are two things wrong with this. Given our current understanding of genetics it makes absolutely no biological sense whatsoever. And it has the unfortunate legacy of making us suspicious of sexuality per se, which amounts to a suspicious fear of one of God's good gifts to us. I needn't elaborate on how that feeds into the shameful legacy of Christian mysogyny.

To me, it makes much more sense to see original sin as a social legacy which we inherit through socialization. Just as we inherit our mother tongue by being immersed in language, we inherit sin by being immersed in sin socially, beginning with the family and extending to all our social institutions: school, church, business, politics, etc.

So whether it was one or two people in that first truly human community, or the community as a whole, that first broke the trusting relationship between humanity and God really makes no difference. It began with and/or spread through the community till the whole community was infected and we are all inheritors of that community.

I definitely agree with the thing about original sin being inherited through socialization. But how could the acts of just a few people condemn the whole human race??

 

[PaladinValer]

Because it created in the human race the disobediance towards God. This is our broken soul; we can no longer by our own efforts follow God without fault. We need help. Thus, at first, God sent prophets, wisefolk, and other sages. When that didn't work, Jesus came.

 

[gluadys]

I definitely agree with the thing about original sin being inherited through socialization. But how could the acts of just a few people condemn the whole human race??

In one sense, they didn't. Paul makes it quite clear that each person dies for their own sin, not the sin of Adam.

But I also agree with PaladinValer. The first sin, introduced a brokenness into our relationship with God, which is the essence of a "broken soul". Once that is there, once a right relationship is no longer possible, it is impossible to grow up with an unbroken soul.

Sin--estrangement from God--is what is normal. And that is what we learn. We don't want to be abnormal now, do we? In fact, it takes revelation and conversion to even realize that what is normal is not what ought to be.

 

[Ave Maria]

In one sense, they didn't. Paul makes it quite clear that each person dies for their own sin, not the sin of Adam.

But I also agree with PaladinValer. The first sin, introduced a brokenness into our relationship with God, which is the essence of a "broken soul". Once that is there, once a right relationship is no longer possible, it is impossible to grow up with an unbroken soul.

Sin--estrangement from God--is what is normal. And that is what we learn. We don't want to be abnormal now, do we? In fact, it takes revelation and conversion to even realize that what is normal is not what ought to be.

Ok, so everyone experiences their own "fall" but Adam was the first to experience such a thing?

 

[gluadys]

Ok, so everyone experiences their own "fall" but Adam was the first to experience such a thing?

If you see him as an individual person, yes. Or saying that "Adam" brought sin into the world is just another way of saying that "All have sinned", for we are all Adam.

 

[Ave Maria]

If you see him as an individual person, yes. Or saying that "Adam" brought sin into the world is just another way of saying that "All have sinned", for we are all Adam.

Ah Ok. That makes sense. I honestly think I take the position that we are all "Adam" and that we all experience our own individual fall. But then again, that doesn't account for the fact that the Bible says everything was created as good. So I guess I do accept Adam as an individual person in history as well. Although it was actually Eve who ate the fruit first.

 

[gluadys]

Ah Ok. That makes sense. I honestly think I take the position that we are all "Adam" and that we all experience our own individual fall. But then again, that doesn't account for the fact that the Bible says everything was created as good. So I guess I do accept Adam as an individual person in history as well. Although it was actually Eve who ate the fruit first.

Yes, you can go either way or both as you suggested.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, you can go either way or both as you suggested.

Awesome! I think the whole Theistic Evolutionist viewpoint makes much more sense than the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint does. Not only that but it's pretty much compatible with science. I mean, evolution does not say that there is a god. It leaves that decision/belief up to the individual.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I, too, see very little use for literal human beings. Paul's "by one man, so by one man" was great rhetoric, true whether the first man was literal or not. As we often say around here (or I do, anyway), Paul's analogy would be just as true if he had said, "Just as from one box (Pandora's), death and sin entered the world, so from one box (the tomb) sprang life and redemption from sin." Illuminating a truth by setting it along side (Gk. parabole) a non-historical story is precisely what Jesus' parables do.

 

[JohnJones]

(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.

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.

This explanation could explain the part that says "sin entered the world through one man" because that one man could be the result of evolution, right? Well, no, because this would not explain the next part "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin" -- If you believe in evolution, you believe that death pre-dated man - how else could natural selection have worked? Natural Selection requires death, and Natural Selection in another sense IS death. So, essentially, if man was created by Natural Selection, man was created by death. The Bible say the opposite, however, essentially that man created death by his sin. So, evolution says death created man, but God says man created death. That's a big contradiction! Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:21, the Bible also says "Since death came into the world by man, the resurrection had to also come into the world by man." So, just as Adam's sin created death, Christ's obedience created the resurrection. Hence, if you deny that Adam created death by his sin, you are also denying that Christ created the resurrection by his righteousness.

 

[Vance]

Spiritual death.

 

[JohnJones]

Spiritual death.

But he is speaking of physical death, since He says in 1 Cor 15:21 that just as death entered by Adam so also the resurrection entered by Christ. Christ was physically resurrected, so we must in this context understand the death that came from Adam, the death which is antithetical to resurrection, as physcial death.

 

[Vance]

But he is speaking of physical death, since He says in 1 Cor 15:21 that just as death entered by Adam so also the resurrection entered by Christ. Christ was physically resurrected, so we must in this context understand the death that came from Adam, the death which is antithetical to resurrection, as physcial death.

So, you are saying that you can not, in such an instance, correlate physical and spiritual death? I see no problem there.

The problem with the Fall bringing physical death is that it would make the work of Jesus' death on the cross ineffective. Jesus' sacrifice was to undo the damage done by the Fall, to provide that bridge. Now, we know that we still die, physically, even after accepting the redemptive gift of that sacrifice. So, if Jesus came to overcome a physical death that initiated at the Fall, then that redemptive work has failed. And we know that is not right, since Jesus can not fail. And it is not a matter of giving us eternal life after that physical death, since EVERYONE gets that, whether they accept the redemptive gift of Jesus' sacrifice or not. Life in Hell is just as eternal as life in heaven. The acceptance of the redemptive gift of Jesus' sacrifice just determines WHERE you are going to spend that eternal life.

It makes much more sense to see the Fall in terms of spiritual death. First of all, we make the distinction between spiritual life and death. Spiritual life is full communion with God. Spiritual death is the loss of that communion. Now, isn't that really what happened at the Fall? They had been in full communion with God, but after the Fall they weren't. This also makes sense of the "on that day you shall surely die" Scripture. They did not die physically, so what happened "on that day"? Sure, you can force some other interpretations such as "they began to physically die" or "day meant a thousand years", etc. But it just makes more sense to accept that something DID happen on that very day: they lost communion with God. They spiritually died.

And this makes more sense soterologically and eschatologically as well. What happens when we accept the redemptive gift of Jesus' sacrifice, the "undoing" of the Fall? Isn't it that we regain full communion with God? Isn't it that we regain spiritual life? And what about that eternal life we are to be granted with our salvation? Is that not the eternal communion with God in Heaven, which is spiritual life, rather that separation from Him (Hell), which is spiritual death?