Suarez and Swamidass on Original Sin

Conversation
27

Joshua, I have searched for reasons in your posts and found the following two statements:

A. “we can imagine an Adamic fall that reshapes the entire world of men by bringing God-Imaged Fallenness to all across the globe in a single instant. … In this case, all in Era 2 would have the same status.”

B. Maybe … Adam’s line grown not just by biology but also by the willful choice of non-Adamites to enter and join the world that Adam creates.

Regarding A:

You imagine a situation where the consequences of Adam’s sin become transmitted to people who are NOT genealogical descendants from Adam.

So you seem to admit that transmission of original sin can happen WITHOUT any genealogical connection.

This is also my position, although I would like to stress that in my explanation there is no transmission of the “state of original sin” from sinners to other moral responsible humans who already exist and are innocent.

Regarding B:

I also share a similar idea. However, according to my explanation non-Adamites at the moment of entering and joining “Adam’s world” would acquire moral accountability and with it the consequence of Adam’s sin (the state of “original sin”). This means: There is transmission without any genealogical connection. Certainly, the offspring of Adamites and non-Adamites come to existence sharing “Adam’s sin” (the state of “original sin”) as well, but not because of genealogical descent.

So in view of the Statements A and B above I am no longer sure about what you are endorsing.

So I consider the following GA model:

  1. At the time of Adam’s sin there were on earth non-Adamite people who were morally responsible but did not share the consequences of Adam’s sin.

  2. These non-Adamite people went into marriage and lived with the genetic descendants of Adam, nonetheless the non-Adamites did not acquire the state of original sin.

  3. The offspring of marriages of Adamites with non-Adamites come into existence in the state of original sin.

I would be thankful to know whether or not you endorse this GA model.

In any case, for me this model is theologically incoherent:

If it is possible that moral responsible people without “original sin” live together with people in state of “original sin” (as Point 2 assumes), there is no reason why “their offspring has to be in state of original sin” (as Point 3 claims).

If you claim you can provide a reason, it would be nice you post it here so we can discuss it. Otherwise I would abandon this conversation in all respect.

1 Like