As I always remind Josh, original sin is only half of what is passed on, the rest being the status (to be studied) which Adam achieved. Man’s sin is the flip-side of his glory.
2 Likes
The chiasmus of 2:4 is most definitely a link, but may also be joining two stories significantly separated in time.
3 Likes
Sure, but I’ve been arguing that Gods Image was outside the garden. We did not get that from Adam so it does not make sense as the flip side to the a
Fall. Rather, his fall is connected to taking new knowledge, perhaps before his time of it was ultimately meant for him. Perhaps it was never meant for him, but just for Eve, or to only be a choice between independent knowledge and a wise guide.
Regardless, the fall spread froms him, but so does a powerful knowledge. That is the true two sides of the coin. We are fallen because of Adam, but we also grow in knowledge because of him. Perhaps they are linked too, because it is the power of knowledge that amplifies the severity and extent and longevity of our sin.
2 Likes
Sure - I agree we bracket of the “image” from Adam, and take the powerful knowledge (for good) as the flip side of the Fall (powerful knowledge for ill). But there may still be work to do to decide exactly “what Adam is” - even before the eating of the tree, he wasn’t just an ordinary bloke.
1 Like
Possessing the “knowledge of good and evil” definitely has its (short-term, at least) survival benefits. Being morally naive is not “adaptive” to those with this newfound capacity. I do think that Adam was an “ordinary bloke” with an extraordinary calling.
Exactly. That is what keeps leading me back to de novo creation, untouched by sin, in a sinless Garden. I also like your take that the serpent is not fallen at the beginning, but the story actually depicits his fall.
Okay, so engage the “deficiencies” in seeing him as I do then, please. He becomes paradigmatically unique through illegitimate action.
Not deficiencies. Questions. Answers may be possible.
To be clear here @Guy_Coe, you are closer to the majority view. I’m easily the outlier here. Most people making peace with science gave up on de novo creation a long time ago. So much so that the mere mention of it seems as hoc.
As I’ve said, yours is a type of refurbishment proposal, one that is buitl around illegitimate action. That makes a statement about what God intended. He did not intend this to happen this way to Adam. So then why was the tree there? Why was it so unnaturally potential as to transform not just Adam, but all his progeny?
There can be answers, but we need answers mapped out to make sense of it.
Yes, that does tie in with the classical formulation. Try this for size: for an "adopted man (outside garden type) to be endowed with original righteousness as a preparation for greater responsibility would, alone, constitute an act of creation, for it takes Adam out of the natural and into the spiritual.
It need not be biological even as (to recycle my old analogy) the Christian’s baptism in the Spirit is a new creation yet not biologically evident… here’s a rider for scholars to consider: is the New Birth an act of special creation or not? If it is, why should it be implausible for Adam to be specially created.
And here’s a point for you, Josh, to clarify for me: do you take the special creation of Adam to be entirely de novo (poof!) or did Adam have parents? My suggestion above is that creation need not be “total” - Israel was created as a nation supernaturally, but from an existing tribal group.
The only question of relevance is whether the Hebrew requires Adam to be “de novo” in the sense you propose. I say that it doesn’t. But, maybe I’m misunderstandimg something here?
Jon’s scenario overcomes the issue that Adam was actually formed outside the Garden (before it existed if the flow of the text is chronological) and then placed in it.
3 Likes
Yeah you are. I agree the Hebrew does not require it.
Instead i am pointing to three other lines of evidence.
-
Traditional readings usually take this view, and I’d rather keep it for this reason with infallibility in mind.
-
It adds theological coherence to the story, as Ive explained, especially in light of Jesus being the second Adam.
-
Ecclesially, with infallibility in mind, we see in the church a resistance to moving from this view, even knowing other options are available.
Those are my three reasons and I understand not everyone will equally value these lines of evidence.
1 Like
Adam was certainly the first to be given a prohibition overtly by God, the first of mention to be closely discipled by the Malak YHWH “in Person,” the first to question God’s character as good and bearing his best interests at heart, and when he thereby resorted to disobience, despite thoroughgoing prior personal experience which Eve did not enjoy to the same extent, the fall took place. So, yes, there is a lot of uniqueness that is not biological.
2 Likes
I agree with these pastoral concerns, though I am with @Guy_Coe that de novo is not necessary. But it’s great to be able say, “It’s even possible that…” It takes down a hurdle for MANY who would not even consider the GA (or other) model that takes the historical and scientific data seriously. It’s like a Calvinist using the Free Will Defense with an interlocutor, even if the Calvinist doesn’t actually believe the premise of the Defense.
2 Likes
I value infallibility too, of the Scriptures, but not necessarily of a particular interpretation, which is a matter of ongoing discernment.
Adam need only to be “the first” of these non biological circumstances to satisfy the NT theological requirements.
I hold to the same idea as Jon, that the garden is not where Adam was “formed,” just that he was put there by God.
2 Likes
I understand your point.
But the dual scenario benchmarks of Peaceful Science doesn’t have to PROVE how the two scenarios unfolded.
It only has to accommodate the most likely versions of the two scenarios. Most evangelicals are inclined towards interpreting Special Creation of Adam/Eve as “poof, voila” events… even with Eve requiring a rib!
1 Like
I mean something different by infallibility. It is a theologically informed bias towards the traditional understanding of the Church.
In my view, Scripture is not inert. It is a vessel through which the Holy Spirit has been revealing God’s message for thousands of years. That divine work is evident in the constancy of some interpretation over long periods of time. I trust that constancy.
This is why also I’m very uncomfortable with narrarives like: well everyone thought this verse for 1800 years, but now we jus know better. There might be times this true, but usually a closer read makes it seem that the traditional view is not being accurately received.
In this sense I am an odd duck. I might be a Protestant who is a small “c” catholic traditionalist, not tightly bound to any specific denominational tradition. The reason why is this understanding of infallibility to which Ive come.
Most certainly not saddling GA with the burden of establishing only one viable scenario. We are in dialogue to merely weigh the plusses and minuses of the various ones at discussion. GA is “big tent.”
2 Likes
Just wary of the “rejection” of a scenario because it’s “not traditional enough.” I attended a Jesuit High School, and am only inclined to take on those traditions that interfere with God’s intended purposes. Whether the traditional interpretation does or not, is a different question. I’m just very aware of its evidentiary inadequacies and questionable linguistic warrant.
1 Like
We are a big tent. You know this. At no point have I been telling you to change to be more traditional.