Scriptural problems with Darwinism

[Apollo Rhetor]

Hi, I had an earlier thread, but it has quickly filled up, and I want to keep this clean and fresh. If possible, please don't have 5 replies to each of my posts. I want to be able to deal with everything. So, if you are a theistic evolutionist and someone else has already made your point, please don't add more to it - it's hard enough finding time for responses as it is. Thanks.

This discussion, if it goes well, will involve me asking a lot of questions - because I literally do not know how you marry Darwinism with the Scriptures. I have guesses, and assumptions - and my biggest assumption is that most of you simply haven't thought it through properly. However, that's why I'm creating this thread, to find out if my biggest assumption is correct or not.

I want to take this carefully, step by step, but I will combine two steps into one here:
1. Was there an original sin?
2. Who committed this original sin? (was it committed by the very first life that was formed, or was it done by humans?
3. When was this sin committed? (tied in with two - was it done 'recently' by humans, or far, far, earlier by a shared common ancestor of humans and other animals?)

I think that's more than enough questions to start off the discussion. If there is disagreement on the answers to these questions in the theistic evolution world, then I'd appreciate knowing that. If you provide outside links, please don't provide long articles for the same reason I asked for not having lots of people responding. One man can only do so much

 

[Vance]

My short answers would be:

1. Yes

2. Don't know, doesn't really matter to me.

3. See 2.

And I am not just being glib. I believe God is clearly telling us that Man is in a Fallen condition and is in need of redemption. He tells us this using a powerful and evocotive story. How much of the story happened as it is told, and how much of the message is given in "types" and using metaphors, I really don't know. And, very honestly, it does not make any difference to me on a spiritual level. God has made it VERY clear through these passages that Man, through its own selfish desires and hubris, lost its perfect communion with God and is now in need of redemption. This simple and powerful Truth is not weakened in the least if the first two chapters of Genesis are not true history. In fact, if the only way they could be read was as an attempt to tell true history, I would have a MUCH more difficult time with my Faith, since I could not reconcile such a literal interpretation with the very clear evidence of God's natural world. As it is, my Faith is deep and abiding and my trust is Scriptural Truth is solid as a rock. I honestly have not even tried to reach a final decision on what likely happened historically because for my Faith, it doesn't really matter.

Having said that, there have been many ideas posited:

1. Adam (which means Mankind) is a "type" for all of mankind and Eve for all women. The use of "types" is incredibly common in ancient writing. In fact, in almost every ancient writing that mirrors these types of stories outside the Bible, types are used. It would be odd, actually, if the ancient writings of the Israelites DIDN'T use this literary convention. This would mean that, at some point, God "breathed" his Spirit into Mankind as a whole (and no, I could not say exactly when this would have taken place) and they became fully aware of God and took on a special role and relationship with God, which was part of God's plan from the beginning (of course). But Mankind as a whole failed to follow God's laws and, through selfishness and hubris, and with the aid of Satan's work, Fell.

2. Another concept is that, at some point, God selected out a single representative Man and Woman, and set them in a Garden, etc, etc. This is supported somewhat by Scripture when it says that *after* Adam was created, he was placed *into* the Garden. This means he was created OUTSIDE the Garden (via evolutionary processes?) and moved into it. This idea would also provide an obvious answer to those pesky "who did Cain marry, who was he afraid of when he was exiled, who lived in his "city", questions, since there would have been others living outside the Garden. (and I think that if you want to go with a plain reading, it would be clear that there were others in the area besides Adam and Eve and their children, but that is another subject).


Again, these are just a couple of possibilities, I am sure there are others. And again, these are mere speculations, not dogmatic conclusions, since it is a matter that is not essential to Christian theology (don't gasp!). What IS essential is that Man DID fall, and does need redemption. Exactly how that happened is not, in the grand scheme of things, all that important. I mean, look at me, I am a solid Christian at peace with God and heading to Heaven, and I have no clue exactly what happened!!!! :0)

How could that be if knowing that it was historical was essential for Faith?

Also, whatever happened, we also have that nagging issue that God KNEW that Man would Fall before He created anything. He knew that Man would turn to sin and need redemption. Yet, He went to all the trouble of setting up the opportunity to have perfect communion even though he knew it would not work. He knew how it would all play out from the beginning and still . . .

Why He would do this a much greater mystery to me than the details of exactly HOW it played out. Still, God's ways are His ways, and not ours, and all will be known soon enough. All we must do is have Faith, trust Him, and accept His Grace and His gift of salvation.

 

[gluadys]

I want to take this carefully, step by step, but I will combine two steps into one here:

1. Was there an original sin?

Yes

2. Who committed this original sin? (was it committed by the very first life that was formed, or was it done by humans?

Each and every one of us. (By humans. One has to have the capacity for moral agency before sin is possible.)


3. When was this sin committed? (tied in with two - was it done 'recently' by humans, or far, far, earlier by a shared common ancestor of humans and other animals?)

Every day.



Those may seem like strange answers, but what I am doing is taking Vance's discussion of Adam as "type" a step further. I consider that Adam is not an historical individual, but "Everyman", a pictorial representation of every human being. And the Fall occurs in each of our lives as we succumb to temptation and sin.

So I see the story of Adam and Eve as my story and yours. And everyone else's too.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Well...this is going to be more difficult than I thought. I suppose it was too much to hope that there would be a united answer. Still, I shouldn't be surprised.

Actually, I'm rather disappointed, to put it bluntly. I cannot hope to have my concerns answered if none of you actually know what it is you believe. Should I reply to your understanding, Vance, or should I reply to gluadys'? Maybe gluadys, because she gave more definite answers about what she believes.

The problem is though, if my problems are genuinely problems that need answering, you will simply reject one theistic evolution model and embrace another. And we will repeat the process.

Maybe I should be searching around for a proper theistic evolution position. I'm sure someone's thought one out - I just assumed that some TE's here would have one.

Vance, whether you see it or not, your theology will be influenced by your answer to 2 & 3. If you pick which is your preferred answer, I will demonstrate, as best I can, why your theology will be modified by it. You can even say, "I don't adhere to this, but please demonstrate why you think this is answer will modify my theology" - though for this to work it will require you to defend that point which you pick. Bear in mind that I am NOT at any point questioning your salvation. I do consider both you and gluadys brothers and sisters in Christ, so long as you have faith by grace alone.

gluadys,

1. Was there an original sin?

Yes

2. Who committed this original sin? (was it committed by the very first life that was formed, or was it done by humans?

Each and every one of us. (By humans. One has to have the capacity for moral agency before sin is possible.)


3. When was this sin committed? (tied in with two - was it done 'recently' by humans, or far, far, earlier by a shared common ancestor of humans and other animals?)

Every day.

'Original sin' is not just two words I chose as a best fit explanation. It refers to an actual doctrine. It means something when we talk about it that doesn't need to be defined, because people usually already know what the teaching is it refers to. You've just redefined the words as if they weren't referring to something else.

The definition of original sin I was using is saying that through a common ancestor of humans, sin entered the world. This was the original sin - the first sin. As a result of this sin, none of the descendants of this ancestor live lives free from sin. Though we are all responsible when we do sin, we all undoubtedly do sin.

Now, what you've said is something else, unrelated. Do you believe in original sin? Basically, please don't redefine words. Explain exactly what it is you believe.

If I understand your last paragraph correctly, you are saying that the world did not change at all after the first sin. You are also saying that we do not inherit any of our evil nature from our parents - that we are as free to live with or without sin as our ancestors before the first sin were.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Tyreth - TE is not a set theological position with answers to all questions of faith. It is simply the assertion that:

1) Biodiversity was created by God
2) He did so by means of evolution from a common ancestor.

Nothing more.

Vance has one set of beliefs, Gluadys another. Wouldn't I be correct in stating that your beliefs are not exactly the same as say Potluck's? So also it is with us.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The problem I have is that I cannot conceive of a single possible explanation to reconcile Christianity with evolution without seriously jeopardizing core theology. That's why I want to know what explanations theistic evolutionists have provided to resolve these problems.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, you now have two possible resolutions to your first point.

Do you have reasons that they are inadequate, or do you want to move on to your next problem?

 

[herev]

Vance has one set of beliefs, Gluadys another.

and I have another, and so on and so on--we respect each others' differences,

 

[herev]

The problem I have is that I cannot conceive of a single possible explanation to reconcile Christianity with evolution without seriously jeopardizing core theology. That's why I want to know what explanations theistic evolutionists have provided to resolve these problems.

Here's one--I believe the first man and woman who evolved to the point where they could conceive of God--that was Adam and Eve--God took them and placed them in a Garden he created--so--I believe that the first 2 chapters of Genesis are not factual--doesn't affect my theological veiw of God one bit. Doesn't affect my salvation one bit.
If you'd like to know more--ask
sorry we're hard to pin down--we don't mean to be difficult, it's just that most creationists make so many assumptions about us that they really have no idea that we are a diverse group
perhaps you should try to ask broader questions and narrow from there--ie: do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
anyway--just my thoughts

 

[Vance]

Tyreth, the problem you are having is that you TE as a theology in and of itself, when really it is simply a belief about God's creation process. This belief about God's creative process is held by a variety of Christians who may have different theological approaches to the questions you are asking. Just as YEC's hold a variety of beliefs (a full spectrum, in fact), TE's do as well. If you are asking whether there are ways of reconciling the TE belief about God's creation process with Scripture, then we have provided you with some models that different TE's accept.

As far as me personally, you can't say "Vance, you must choose so that I can analyze your position" because I don't have to know the answer to this question in order to be spiritually solid and at peace, which is all that really matters to me. In Christianity, there are simply a lot of "I don't knows". That is why there are thousands of different Christian denominations who believe different things regarding non-salvation issues.

Again, the bottom line is that it CAN'T be important to be theologically if the result right now is that I am fully at peace and my Faith is solid. What more can you ask from a theology?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Vance, there is no way I could believe evolution and retain my faith. Every solution you have all offered I see serious, irreconcilable problems. Now my dilemna in showing you why: Do I spread myself thin and present all problems with all models? Or do I give specific problems with one TE solution, and in doing so give you reason to think, "Well, maybe that answer was bad, but others offer a better answer"? I think I will do the latter.

Again, the bottom line is that it CAN'T be important to be theologically if the result right now is that I am fully at peace and my Faith is solid. What more can you ask from a theology?

This can make sense if you don't bother to think about the theological ramifications of marrying evolution with Christianity, and if you don't remain intellectualy honest. You've expressed yourself, as I understand it, that you really haven't thought too in depth for an answer. You simply content yourself that there is an answer. However, that's not sufficient for me - I must know if there is one _conceivable_ explanation that allows both evolution and Christianity to be true. It doesn't have to be the truth, it just needs to be an example of how it could be explained. So far, I have not seen one.

I might just focus in on the solution herev gives. But for now, bed.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

perhaps you should try to ask broader questions and narrow from there--ie: do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
anyway--just my thoughts

More on what else you said later, but....my questions were broad I thought. They did ask whether you believe in a literal Adam and Eve or not.

 

[Vance]

This can make sense if you don't bother to think about the theological ramifications of marrying evolution with Christianity, and if you don't remain intellectualy honest. You've expressed yourself, as I understand it, that you really haven't thought too in depth for an answer. You simply content yourself that there is an answer. However, that's not sufficient for me - I must know if there is one _conceivable_ explanation that allows both evolution and Christianity to be true. It doesn't have to be the truth, it just needs to be an example of how it could be explained. So far, I have not seen one.

But you are still missing my point. There ARE no theological ramifications of believing in both evolution and Christianity which in ANY way threaten my Faith. Yes, believing in both may threaten some traditionally understood theological concepts, but none that effect my Faith in the least, so why would it matter to me. My Christian Faith is not based on the idea that every single one of all the doctrines and concepts that have built up over the years in the Church must be true. That would be impossible since there are thousands of denominations preaching DIFFERENT doctrines, and yet they are all redeemed and going to heaven.

Think about it this way: if different denominations can have divergent (even conflicting) doctrines on the trinity, baptism, predestination, Papal infallibility, the role of saints, faith v. works, etc, etc, ad infinitum, and yet all be wholly Christian and bound for the same heaven, how is this different than a divergence on the beliefs of origins and any "theological ramifications" which arise therefrom. I doubt seriously if these ramifications can be greater than a dispute over some of the issues I mention above. Yet, you would not say that you find it impossible to reconcile with Christianity a belief on predesitination which differs than yours.

As for being intellectually honest, the irony coming from one who accepts YEC explanations of the natural world is immeasurable.

Herev and Gluadys seem to each hold, in basic concept, the two possibilities I had originally set out. That is only two for you to deal with. Not too onerous, if you entered into this to show that whatever we believe must be incorrect. As for which is true, you don't seem to be interested in knowing which is ACTUALLY true, only that one is "conceivably" true. That makes it much easier, since I do believe either of these, with some refinement, can be true. Thus, I am fully at peace with evolution as a Christian.

 

[herev]

1. Was there an original sin?
2. Who committed this original sin? (was it committed by the very first life that was formed, or was it done by humans?
3. When was this sin committed? (tied in with two - was it done 'recently' by humans, or far, far, earlier by a shared common ancestor of humans and other animals?)

Ok, maybe this will help you Tyreth, but remember that not all TE's think like me, ok?
1. Yes
2. Adam and Eve
3. When they disobeyed God
That's my belief
Tommy

 

[Vance]

Here is one person's summary of some of the approaches. One partof this I will quote right here on top separately, since it echoes what I said above:

"This author believes that it is not crucial to figure out which viewpoint is the "correct one" from a scientific perspective. The fundamental Christian doctrine here is that all mankind is in a Fallen state, in need of God's saving grace. All the viewpoints described here affirm the central truth of that doctrine. It is less important for a Christian to know exactly how and when we got into that state. There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the fact of our disobedience and our fallen state, even if the book of Genesis were to disappear tomorrow without a trace."

Here is all of it:
I favor the view that Adam and Eve were historical individuals and the biological ancestors of all modern humans. Paul's comments in Romans 5:12-14 ("sin entered the world through one man") and 1 Corinthians 15:45 ("The first man Adam became a living being") support the idea of an individual Adam. The scientific theories of Punctuated Equilibrium and mitochondrial DNA also support the idea of a small group of ancestral individuals. I think there were other bipedal primates at the time of Adam (able to walk on two legs), which gives us a good explanation for who Cain was afraid of in Genesis 4:13-14: "Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from Your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me!'" Those other threatening primates either died out, or were eventually assimilated into Adam and Eve's line through intermarriage.

The historical ancestral viewpoint is not without problems. Every viewpoint that seeks to deal realistically with Genesis and natural history has problems. Hank Hanegraaff and the rest of the young-earth creationists may try to ignore the fossils of ape-men, but those fossils won't go away just by clicking on the Home button. I do not believe that the Bible calls me to bear false witness about God's creation. Nor can I believe that Jesus Christ and the Apostles have left us with such a vulnerable and shallow faith that it will collapse just because Louis and Mary Leakey dug up an old skull at Olduvai Gorge.

The problem with the historical ancestral viewpoint is in choosing an approximate date for Adam. We need to choose a time when the human race passed through a narrow point in our population. It is thought that the Australian Aborigines arrived in Australia roughly 50,000 years ago. If Adam is to be their ancestor, then Adam must be placed before 50,000 BC, perhaps even earlier. It is unacceptable for Aborigines to be considered in any way not human.

Bishop Ussher's biblical chronology puts the date of Creation at 4004 BC. I do not believe that Ussher's methodology is accurate enough to fix the date of Adam to within a few years. Nevertheless, the historical ancestral viewpoint would have us believe that Ussher's system is off by a factor of 10! We can address this problem to some extent by observing that Jesus is known as the "Son of Mary" and also as the "Son of David." Ussher's methodology would produce a difference of 1,000 years between those two terms! Are there similar gaps in the genealogies that the good bishop used? Maybe. But the feel one gets from the first chapters of Genesis is that these events occur across generations, not tens of generations.

A second possibility is that Adam and Eve are historical individuals, but are not necessarily the biological ancestors of all mankind. This view gives us the freedom to date them somewhere near the customary timeframe of Ussher's system. Then Adam and Eve are not the biological ancestors of the Aborigines, although they are the ancestors of most Middle Eastern peoples. So how is it that the Aborigines, and perhaps other racial groups, take part in the story related in Genesis 1-3?

The second viewpoint asserts that Adam is the God-appointed head of the human race. I will call this the historical representative viewpoint. When Adam sinned, the consequences of his sin fell upon all humans throughout the world. There are analogous situations in the Bible, such as the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:8-10 "Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, 'Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of [King] Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.' Then the Philistine said, 'This day I defy the ranks of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.'" Each side was to choose a champion, and the fate of the entire nation depended on the success or failure of the individual champion.

In the historical representative viewpoint, Eve is the spiritual "mother of all the living" (Genesis 3:20) in the same way that Abraham is the spiritual father of all who worship the God of Abraham. Everyone who has the human spirit is a daughter or son of Eve. That's all modern humans. St. Paul declares to the Galatians that they are now children of Sarah in 4:31: "Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman [Hagar], but of the free woman [Sarah]." Paul knew perfectly well that the Gentile Galatians were not descended biologically through Sarah. Likewise Matthew 1 and Luke 3 draw Jesus' lineage through Joseph, although they are both emphatic that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. The Bible uses language of family relationships without confining itself to biological descent.

Everyone worldwide shares in the Fall, but also in the blessing of the Second Adam, who is Jesus Christ, the life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45-47). Jesus Christ Himself uses the language of biological relationships to describe a spiritual relationship in Mark 3:35 "Whoever does God's will is My brother and sister and mother." Jesus Christ left no biological descendants, but we know that Salvation transcends biology. The mechanisms of inherited guilt and atonement for sin are not biological, but spiritual. We do not need every human to be descended directly from Adam for the Gospel message to be true!

At least one puzzle remains with the historical representative view: When did the Aborigines get their spirits? Did they wake up one morning at the time of Adam feeling different, somehow more spiritual? If this scenario sounds strange, consider this: Every human on earth in 29 AD woke up on that first Easter morning with the potential for Salvation through the risen Jesus Christ. Did they feel some unexplained tingle of joy on that morning, some hint that the world had changed forever? History does not record such a feeling. I don't know. (Before delving too deeply into this puzzle, ask yourself how much it matters.)

A third possibility is that Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 are symbolic of the Fall of Every Man and Woman throughout history - past, present, and future. Adam and Eve are not literal, but are prophetic of the inevitable, certain, and original sin of every human. The symbolic view notes that the Hebrew word Adam used in Genesis 1:26,27 means "man" in the collective sense (see also "persons" in Numbers 31:28,30,35,40).

As noted earlier, I do not favor the symbolic view because St. Paul's discussion in Romans 5:12-21 talks about "one man" and "one sin". A possible response to this objection is that Paul is simply referring to the one Adam in the conventional story, using terminology that his Roman readers would certainly understand. Adam is still a symbol of all mankind, just as the single Good Samaritan in Jesus' story represents every person who does a good deed despite the cost. I can allude to the Good Samaritan without supporting the historicity of a single Good Samaritan on the road to Jericho.



Genesis 3 contains numerous suggestions in the text that the story is symbolic, and all the objections of Biblical literalists won't change that. Here are some examples:
1. The serpent speaks to the couple without arousing suspicion over the only animal that can talk. The text does not mention satan by name, but most readers assume that the serpent either represents satan or is possessed by satan.
2. The two Trees in the Garden of Eden are heavy with deeper spiritual meaning.
3. God curses the man, the woman, and the snake. These punishments fall on all members of those three figures.
4. Consider Genesis 3:14 "He [the man] will bruise your head, and you [the snake] will bruise his heel." A plain reading of this verse might describe a simple but unfortunate incident out in the fields: A farmer disturbs a snake, which strikes at the farmer's feet because they are within range. The farmer winces in pain, grabs a handy rock, and bashes the snake to death. End of story. Most Christians would object to such a limited interpretation of this verse. I believe that Genesis 3:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' physical death on the cross, and His victory over satan on Easter morning.
5. Genesis 3 does not contain the incidental historical details that we start to pick up in chapter 4. 4:20 notes that some people lived in tents, 4:21 mentions the first musical instruments, 4:22 identifies the first blacksmith, and 4:23 describes the second historical killing of another human.


The symbolic view has parallels elsewhere in the Bible. The prophet Nathan tells King David a story in 2 Samuel 12:1-14 to convict him of his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite. The Song of Solomon is sometimes taken to represent Christ's love for His church. Certain prophecies are related by means of a story or a simpler illustration. The book of Revelation contains many symbolic prophecies of things to come. God is indeed in the habit of using symbolic stories to convey His Truth! Just because the story of the Good Samaritan "didn't really happen" does not make the message any less true. Jesus' words still cut like a knife to the heart of the man who sought to justify himself (see Luke 10:37).

One may wonder where the symbology of Genesis leaves off and where the literal history begins. That transition point could reasonably be as early as between Genesis 3 and 4, after their departure from the garden. Or it could be after the murder of Abel, and Cain's departure from God's presence. It would be nice if Cain didn't "really" murder his brother Abel! In any case, whether symbolic or literal, the horrible story of Cain and Abel is all too familiar from the evening news.

Note that a historical story can also be symbolic. St. Paul derives a symbolic meaning from the tale of Hagar and Sarah, without denying the historicity of that part of Genesis. In Galatians 4:24-26 he writes "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: this is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother [Sarah]. (NIV)" So if you like the view that the story of Adam and Eve is historical and symbolic, you're in good company.

This author believes that it is not crucial to figure out which viewpoint is the "correct one" from a scientific perspective. The fundamental Christian doctrine here is that all mankind is in a Fallen state, in need of God's saving grace. All the viewpoints described here affirm the central truth of that doctrine. It is less important for a Christian to know exactly how and when we got into that state. There is plenty of Scriptural evidence for the fact of our disobedience and our fallen state, even if the book of Genesis were to disappear tomorrow without a trace. Sadly enough, there is plenty of observational evidence for our fallen state as well. All people have sinned (Romans 3:23). All people need Jesus Christ to make them right with God again (Acts 4:12).

The symbolic view actually has some theological advantages over the two historical views. One might reasonably infer from those two that our Fallen state is dependent upon the careless whim of our ancestor thousands of years ago. If only Adam had been a little more responsible, a little more thoughtful, a little more obedient; we would all be sitting pretty right now! The symbolic viewpoint says that you sinned! You have disobeyed God's command. You are causing your own pain and misery. With every sin you are crucifying Jesus Christ. Suddenly the ancient story is aimed straight at our own heart and soul. It's deadly serious.

It is common for Biblical literalists to deride the symbolic view as "treating the story of Adam and Eve as nothing more than a fairy tale!" Yet Nathan's little fairy-tale story told to King David had teeth to it! For those people who are willing to take the Bible seriously and personally, the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is no fairy tale either. Because that's not just Adam there in Genesis. That's me. That's Carl with the apple in my hand, doing what I know is wrong. That's me trying to blame it on my wife, on the world, on God, or on anyone else other than myself. That's me afterwards grieving over my sin, trying to make amends, and hoping to be forgiven.

That's all of us, hoping and praying that the Messiah will come to make things right again.

I have good news. He has come. And He died on the cross to make things right again.

Carl Drews
Good Friday, 2002

It can be found here:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

At the bottom.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is though, if my problems are genuinely problems that need answering, you will simply reject one theistic evolution model and embrace another. And we will repeat the process.

Maybe I should be searching around for a proper theistic evolution position. I'm sure someone's thought one out - I just assumed that some TE's here would have one.

No, except for our common acceptance of evolution TEs are all over the map theologically.

'Original sin' is not just two words I chose as a best fit explanation. It refers to an actual doctrine. It means something when we talk about it that doesn't need to be defined, because people usually already know what the teaching is it refers to.

Yes, I know that.

You've just redefined the words as if they weren't referring to something else.

Not really, though I have made a refinement. See below.

The definition of original sin I was using is saying that through a common ancestor of humans, sin entered the world. This was the original sin - the first sin. As a result of this sin, none of the descendants of this ancestor live lives free from sin. Though we are all responsible when we do sin, we all undoubtedly do sin.

This is not the classical doctrine of orginal sin as set out by Augustine and re-affirmed by Calvin. Original sin is not the first sin. Original sin is that in us which makes us sinful by nature. It is the inherent sinfulness of human nature which we are all born with as heirs of Adam. It is not a sin in itself, but that quality of human nature which leads us into sin. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something along these lines. We do not become sinful by sinning; we become sinners because we are sinful.

Calvin referred to this sinful nature as "depravity". In Catholic tradition, one of the graces of baptism is cleansing from original sin.

Now, what you've said is something else, unrelated. Do you believe in original sin? Basically, please don't redefine words. Explain exactly what it is you believe.

As defined in classical orthodox (Augustinian, Calvinistic) tradition, I definitely believe in original sin---but with a comment on what it means to be heirs of a sinful nature.

If I understand your last paragraph correctly, you are saying that the world did not change at all after the first sin.

Yes, I agree with that. I don't think the nature of the garden of Eden was any different from that of nature today. What changed was humanity and our all our relationships: to God, to each other and to the created world. We no longer live in harmony with nature because of our sinfulness. Not because the world has changed, but because we have. And as we still retain dominion over the world, the world has not fared well under our dominion, because we have exercised it improperly.

You are also saying that we do not inherit any of our evil nature from our parents - that we are as free to live with or without sin as our ancestors before the first sin were.

I don't believe we are free to live without sin. But here is where I introduce my refinement.

As he developed the classical doctrine of original sin, Augustine connected the inheritance of original sin with sexuality. Perhaps his own struggles in this area led him to perceive sexuality as inherently tainted to the point that even between husband and wife it was never pure, and therefore sex was the means by which original sin is passed from one generation to the next.

Now, to me, and I think to anyone who has a modicum of biological knowledge, it must be obvious that this simply cannot be the case. There is no gene for a sinful nature. A biological process cannot be the fount of original sin in us. Now, this is plainly true even if one believes in a literal Adam and Eve.

It does raise the question though: if not through biological, genetic inheritance, how is original sin passed from generation to generation?

There is another mode of transmission just as powerful and just as binding as biology, and that is familial and societal tradition. Consider the analogy of language. We are born with the capacity to use language, and barring a defect such as congenital deafness or severe retardation, we all learn language. What is not pre-programmed is which language we will learn. Yet whatever language we learn has a powerful impact on our whole ability to learn anything else. Language shapes our very thoughts---try thinking of something you have no word for. Through its grammatical structures it shapes how we perceive relationships. European languages have fairly precise verb tenses, and we discriminate between past, present and future, perfect and imperfect. Japanese has only rudimentary tenses, but a complex system of politeness levels, something we have totally lost in English with the disappearance of "thou" from daily language. These deep impacts on how we relate to the world through our native language do not leave us as we learn other languages.

Similarly, we are born with the capacity to sin (as were Adam and Eve). Unlike Adam and Eve, who faced a pristine world and began their life in harmony with God, creation and each other---we do not. We are born with a capacity to sin in a world so riddled with sin that we necessarily exercise that capacity. We absorb the sinfulness of our surroundings just as we absorb the language of our parents, the way they walk, their prevailing attitudes on right and wrong, and a thousand other things.

Have you ever seen the text "Children learn what they live"? Well, as children we live sin. We cannot avoid it. And we cannot avoid learning sin.

Long before we have the capacity to understand what sin means, we have absorbed it into our attitudes and behaviour and habitual way of life. It is part of our heritage we cannot evade.

So, given that original sin has never been defined in classical theology as the first sin, but rather as the inherent sinfulness of human nature to which we are all heir, and given that sin must be transmitted from generation to generation socially, not biologically, I come to the conclusion that the fall is not only what happened in the garden of Eden, but what happens to each and every one of us as we pass from the innocence of infancy to the age of reason. So it is not one person who commits the first sin, but each and every one of us, and somewhere, every day, the fall is re-enacted in somebody's life. And it is inevitable and unavoidable.

I would like to stress that this view does not require that Adam and Eve not be historical individuals. I think it is true whether or not they were actual persons as well as mythical types.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

My Christian Faith is not based on the idea that every single one of all the doctrines and concepts that have built up over the years in the Church must be true.

Neither is mine. I have not yet described to you the problems I see with all the solutions. I will get to this soon. So for now you are only guessing at what my objections are. I don't consider them the same as the difference between full immersion or sprinkling baptism. I see them as more fundamental ramifications. As for you, I consider that you are a brother in Christ as I said before. Either way, you will (probably) see my reasons for saying what I do once I actually get into my objections. Until then I'm not sure how you can say so certainly that I don't have any legitimate, fundamental, objections. Perhaps I don't - but until you hear them how can you know?

As for being intellectually honest, the irony coming from one who accepts YEC explanations of the natural world is immeasurable.

Two points
1. We disagree on this, and it's not the subject of this thread. Saying what you just said does nothing to persuade me I'm wrong. In fact, the only benefit the above claim has is to score you points in the eyes of those who agree with you and to try to raise my ire
2. I believe that the YEC is most probably the correct one. I am not 100% bound to it, but I believe it likely

vance, from your quoted article, here is the crux of the argument:

The fundamental Christian doctrine here is that all mankind is in a Fallen state, in need of God's saving grace. All the viewpoints described here affirm the central truth of that doctrine. It is less important for a Christian to know exactly how and when we got into that state.

The question is whether God has justly dealt with us - whether He has been made into a liar. More on this later though when I list my problems.

I take issue with all the references to stories elsewhere in Scripture. In all those cases - Nathan's story to King David, Revelation, Jesus parables, etc - it is all keenly obvious from those that they were just stories and examples, and not meant as literal history. Genesis, on the other hand, is describing the historical beginnings of the world and is right at the start of a book of history. Why not tell us that it is just a story to explain things rather than pretend it's truth? That is done everywhere else in the Bible. It's plainly obvious elsewhere. So why not Genesis? But this is a side point. I want to deal with the problems.

Now, onto the meat. I think I'll focus on herev's, for no particular reason at all. On to more questions. For herev's beliefs, the following questions/clarifications:
* At some point God chose out an evolved creature (human ancestor), and chose them to be the parents.
* These two people were imbued with a spirit and put into the garden.
* They sinned, were cast out, and through them the world was cursed and all their descendants sinned
* Were the children of these two the sole inheritors of a spirit - and thus subject to salvation or torment, or were other people (such as Australian Aboriginees as mentioned in the article) separate from them but chosen also by God? What is your view, herev?

Vance, as much as you like to say that I should just cover all the views, it's really not that easy. Debates can get bogged down in the smallest of things, so if I try to touch everything at once I won't have anything answered. I'd rather come up with a very specific model, see if that solves the problems, and if not *then* move on to another, until we can find out if one solution fits or if none do. So please don't complain as I try to get more specific details.

 

[Vance]

"I take issue with all the references to stories elsewhere in Scripture. In all those cases - Nathan's story to King David, Revelation, Jesus parables, etc - it is all keenly obvious from those that they were just stories and examples, and not meant as literal history. Genesis, on the other hand, is describing the historical beginnings of the world and is right at the start of a book of history. Why not tell us that it is just a story to explain things rather than pretend it's truth? That is done everywhere else in the Bible. It's plainly obvious elsewhere. So why not Genesis? But this is a side point."

Well disagree with this point completely. The reason why there has been a battle between literalism and non-literalism throughout the history of the Church is precisely because people disagree over whether a passage should be taken literally or not. There is no statement at the beginning of any passage which says "what follows is not to be taken literally". Some are more obvious than others. Jesus' parables are easily taken as figurative. But what of Job, or Jonah, or the Tower of Babel? These are not nearly so obvious. And Song of Solomon is an obvious example. There is not a single indication anywhere that this text should be taken allegorically, or in any other way than a celebration of physical desire and love. And yet some have insisted on reading it allegorically (most likely because they just can't stand the idea of an almost erotic love story being part of God's Holy Word). The simple fact is that there are many more indications in the style and content of the text of the Creation passages that it should be read non-literally than we find in SoS (which has none).

The very form and literary style, not to mention the content itself proclaims the story to be one which is meant to be read non-literally. So much so, that even Augustine believed that it should not be read literally.


And, as for my comment that raised you ire, remember it is you that questioned my intellectual honesty.

And, regarding achieving a single model for you to argue against, well that makes no sense. If we don't all believe the same thing on this specific point, we don't. Do you think that we will magically all come to some consensus of "TE believe on the nature of Adam and Original Sin" during this discussion? No, we each have our own beliefs on this subject, just as there are a wide variety of Creationist beliefs and that will not change.

On the point of the relative importance of the issue, I will be very surprised if you can show that it is of greater impact on salvation issues than the concept of the Trinity, whether one must be baptised to be saved, whether there is an "elect" which has been predestined to go to Heaven, whether the Pope speaks for God directly, and a myriad of other heavy duty doctrinal disputes between Christian denominations.

 

[herev]

In all those cases - Nathan's story to King David, Revelation, Jesus parables, etc - it is all keenly obvious from those that they were just stories and examples, and not meant as literal history. Genesis, on the other hand, is describing the historical beginnings of the world and is right at the start of a book of history.

just have to comment on this. Amazing, isn't it--that without studying the context--and only by looking at the English translation of stories that were written THOUSANDS of years ago in a different time, different culture, different language--we can see it obviosly says anything?
The very nature of the text and its history from oral tradition to English translation REQUIRES that it cannot be OBVIOUSLY anything. Textual criticism, source criticism, etc, aren't bad practices--they help us understand the meaning by taking us into the context of the writers as closely as possible. Isn't the INTENT of the writer what is most crucial to understanding it?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

And, regarding achieving a single model for you to argue against, well that makes no sense. If we don't all believe the same thing on this specific point, we don't. Do you think that we will magically all come to some consensus of "TE believe on the nature of Adam and Original Sin" during this discussion? No, we each have our own beliefs on this subject, just as there are a wide variety of Creationist beliefs and that will not change.

I have no problem with there being multiple TE positions. It's just that that fact makes it difficult for me to explain my problems with TE, because I'm not able to direct my objectsion at any single thing. That is why I am saying that I will focus on one possible interpretation at a time. I am not saying that you must all agree on one model. Kind of like someone saying, "Christianity is wrong because of the Crusades", to which some Christians will say, "That was the Catholics who did it". Nothing wrong with that - it just makes it difficult since you need to have an answer for every answer given to a problem.

Now, I want to make the attempt to ask you all what you beleive. I then want to focus in on those, one at a time, and look at it. I'm not asking you to unite.

Have any of you had someone ask what you believe so that you or they can test to see if it has any deep ramifications? Or have you had people assume what you believe then answer those assumptions?