Howard R. Meyer, Jr. wrote:
........................................
> Am I right in assuming that _in your opinion_ mankind was always in need of redemption -- i.e.
> there was no fall?
No, if by this is meant that sin has always been an intrinsic part of humanity.
I do not think that humanity was created in a state of perfection, including perfect
communion with God, and then had an abrupt fall. A much better picture is that
suggested by some of the Greek fathers, with humanity created in an immature state, at
the beginning of a "road" to final communion with God. The entrance of sin into the
world was more a matter of getting off the right road, and getting farther & farther
from it, rather than a sudden fall. While it is hard to see in practice how a humanity
evolved through processes of natural selection & with the type of ancestry we can infer
could have avoided sin, sin is not necessary to being human.
> If so, how do you harmonize this with the rest of the Bible-- which tells our
> sins are an inherited part of our nature through "Adam's" fall?
Though this is a traditional western way of speaking, it overstates what the
Bible says. Though the last few words of Rom.5:12 in the Greek are difficult, the Latin
translation which Augustine followed, _in quo omnes peccaverunt_, "in whom all sinned",
is certainly not correct. One cannot argue from this that all people were "infected" by
Adam's sin because they were literally "in him." & to make Ps.51:5 a general statement
about s connection between sin & conception ignores the specific self-deprecating
character of this penitential psalm.
What Scripture does speak about very clearly is the universal character of sin:
All people are in a sinful state. We come to life in an atmosphere of sin & therefore
choose to sin. It would be better to use the metaphor of an environmentally induced
birth defect rather than a genetic one for original sin.
It should perhaps be noted that some Evangelicals who place a heavy emphasis on
original sin as a reason for questioning evolution are either inconsistent or have
watered down the doctrine. The classical idea of original sin in the Augustinian
tradition holds that original sin _itself_ really is sin before any "actual sins" are
committed. That is one reason that the doctrine was tied - from Augustine on - with the
issue of infant baptism. Those who claim to believe in original sin but who reject
infant baptism & argue that in some way original sin in an infant "doesn't count" until
it eventuates in knowingly sinful acts are holding a relatively weak version of the
doctrine.
(I was taken to task on this list a few weeks ago for pursuing the topic of
baptism but I make no apologies for introducing it here. The idea that in serious
science-theology discussions we can rope off some areas of theology & exclude them from
discussion because some denominations are sensitive about them is silly. The point that
I make in the previous paragraph shows that issues related to baptism are related to the
topic of evolution - without prejudice to the question of what views are right or
wrong.)
..................
> Either "Adam" was at one time in
> communion with God and through some act of disobedience (continuing in vein of partial allegory)
> fell, thus needing redemption, or God created (through TE?) Adam in an unregenerate state from
> the beginning with a sin nature.
I've responded to this above. I'll add here that the term "sin nature" is very
problematic. Human nature created by God which was not destroyed or replaced by some
other nature, else God would not be the creator of unregenerate humans. The idea that
original sin is the "substance" of fallen human nature was rejected in Article I of the
Formula of Concord.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 11:12:33 EST