The Theological Significance of Descent From Adam

He’s a credible scholar (head academic guy at Logos) and does a lot with divine council. He’s always worth reading/listening to, no matter your conclusions. He’s not a kook, but well respected in academia.

I’ve read it. It’s a mix of articles from different perspectives trying to think of “what’s next?” given the way the scientific consensus seems to be. Worth a read, but still more to come overall.

1 Like

Actually I think it helps a little but even if it doesn’t you find the most interesting Heiser stuff.

1 Like

My wife calls Heiser my internet man crush :slight_smile:

1 Like

We can look at the Sin Nature as three parts-

  1. Having the ability to discern between good and evil. (This is not a sin).
  2. Not having the ability to do good even when we desire to do so. (I.e a weak will)
  3. Our desires are corrupted so that we desire to do evil (a corrupted will).

Innocence before the “fall” would only account for 2 at most. That too only if there is a conscience or law which instructs the person on good and evil.1 and 3 would require some actual change in nature to happen. And this makes more sense in the framework of inheritance as opposed to a change in position or relationship. This also makes sense of the increasing trend of wickedness in the world in Genesis 6. (Till all thoughts of man were evil)…If we believe in a community of humans outside the garden, we can see this as an increasing effect of Adams seed spreading in the population.

Romans 5:11-15 and 5:
How do you interpret these verses logically:
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death upon all men, for that all have sinned:
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

This seems to me that we do somehow inherit original sin from Adam.
The question is how?

  1. Is it by virtue of the fact that we all literally descend from Adam as St Augustine wrote? Or
  2. Is Adam a federal representative of all mankind from whom we all become sinners?
  3. Or is the story of Adam and Eve that simply gave a bad example to all that had been created by God? This would make the creation story simply an allegory. This British monk from the Province of Britain in Imperial Rome keeps popping up. The bad example play on the stage of life. I do no accept that.

I must accept what St Augustine believed. Sin was inherited even if there were more people than a literal Adam and Eve. Let’s say there were more people created than Adam. Over the billons of years that has been life, the genes of Adam and Eve must have spread into other tribes of people. I do not believe at this time in the bad example legend. How would the bad example spread to people who might not be able to communicate higher concepts. Good night my friends and have fun discussing this topic. I would like to hear what Swamidass and Lamoureux would say on this topic. Dr. Denis does not believe that Genesis 1-11 are historical: These chapters amount to allegory if I remember correctly. I believe Dr. Joshua would accept them as historical fact. I would truly like to hear them talk about them. I must rest now because my bones hurt. Oh, one thing. It seems from my David Frost/Billy Graham book that Billy accepted the creation story, even though he believed in evolutionary creation or at least could have accepted it.

@swamidass

1 Like

For a big part of it please see the link I believe I posted earlier in the thread.
Basically mankind lived in a state of innocence, not sinless perfection. Adam and Eve decided, for everyone, to have for themselves the power to determine what was good and what was evil. Once they got it they found out that they were evil! They were self-condemned even before the Law of Moses. That’s why it say “nevertheless death reigned from Adam till Moses”. I could go on but I have already written out an explanation for these verses in great detail in the link.

Micheal Heiser describes Adam’s act as producing the conditions which led to everyone being a sinner. Heiser’s view, which as it turns out aligns closely with my own even though he has not yet considered the two-population model (all the more amazing to me because I never even began to question it until I saw the two-population model), is described in more detail than most would want to know here…

@Ashwin_s I think the answer and links above are also instructive to our dialogue. I’d say the desires becoming corrupted (your #3) is a process because our flesh pulls us one way but our desire for God pulls us another. Thus one can be tempted by sin even without the desire for it in our inner man. This was the condition I believe applies to all of us, even Christ in the incarnation, but I would not call it a “sin nature” until it actually becomes a part of our nature. Which it does for all of us but him! Once our will starts to make peace with #2, we get a sin nature.

1 Like

Even though I respect the view you have presented, I must continue to hold the Augustinian view. That is why Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (almah, betoolah) Mary. She had never had intercourse with a man; thereby, Jesus would have inherited original sin. Even the Catholic Church would agree with me on that even though I am a Baptist. I know that almah has more meaning than betoolah in Hebrew. In any case, have a good tomorrow and God bless. In the LXX the Old Testament uses the same Greek word for almah and betoolah. The Greek word only means virgin. The Hebrew dictionary was transliterated into the English alphabet by a Jewish scholar. I am becoming more everyday an Old Earth Creationist. I do not believe in Common Descent of all creatures. I feel that God created creatures on a similar model, but we are not related. Therefore, I reject evolutionary creation. We agree on some things, my friend. I respect your thinking on Adam even though I disagree. I feel that David Snoke and Hugh Ross are correct in relation to creation. There you have won me over. If evolutionary creation is correct, you may call me Cheetah (Tarzon’s monkey).

1 Like

Thank you for your gracious disagreement Charles @Charles_Miller. I want you to know that I also believe in the Virgin Birth. I am unclear as to your point about Jesus not inheriting “original sin” from Adam as it related to this. It seems to me that if a male descendant of Adam, say Joseph, had sex with Mary and no child was the result of the union, then if the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary later Christ would have still been without any original sin from Adam via Joseph, as Joseph still would not have been the father. The idea of her virginity simply emphasized that this was a miracle and that God is the Father of Christ.

1 Like

I’d go one step further and say even if Jesus had been born by natural means, he would escape original sin due to his deity. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ’s impeccability connected to the virgin birth. As you say, it was a miracle, i.e., a sign pointing to God’s power. In this view, original sin is not passed on “genetically.” One of the main reasons Heiser did his series is to address what, in his eyes, is an inconsistency on how Christ escapes original sin.

1 Like

Fair enough, but there is a lot of traditional discourse on this.

When you get around to reading my Dabar paper, you’ll see the conception of sin I put forward is causal, not genetic, and does give some coherence to “why” the Virgin Birth. Curious your thoughts on that.

1 Like

I did and emailed my comments…but did not address that section. I’m not “set” on my view here, but the traditional (but by no means only) way of spelling out the “how” has bothered me. The Eastern church has more of a radiation model of the passing on of sin. The inevitability of sin is the same in both basic models (except for Jesus, of course, whose deity protected him from what would have been inevitable for him as a mortal human being). Heiser’s whole discussion is worth a read at least. I’ll take another look at the Dabar paper on this. I don’t think variance here upsets your overall thesis.

1 Like

@deuteroKJ, this article by @jongarvey was cited by @jack.collins and makes the case that both conceptions depend on descent:

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/05/17/irenaeus-and-others-on-original-sin/

What do you think?

I’ve read the piece before. I could be wrong, but I don’t see clearly that the “how” of transmission of sin is tied to procreation. Descent is a given in order to talk about transmission to the next generation.

2 Likes

Good night, friends. I have had a great time writing to all of you and hearing from you. God bless. All of you have good minds and spirits.

1 Like

I’m not saying I’m correct or have it all figured out. The proposal, however, is that it is “causal” connection. That Adam sinned and should have been executed, but God mercifully exiled him instead. If God had not shown Adam mercy, we would not exist. If Adam had not sinned, we would not exist either. So, for that reason, we are caused by an unjustified act of God’s mercy, and this has consequences that we call “original sin.”

1 Like

I’m good with this. But I can’t say we would not have existed otherwise.

1 Like

We descend from Adam; so, if he had been executed in a counterfactual world, how exactly would we still exist? It seems like nothing could have actually been there in his place to cause our existence? Kill my father when he is a baby, and there is no way I would exist. Right?

If Adam had not sinned, he would still produce progeny. I guess it comes down to who “I” am essentially. I was focused on the “what if Adam never sinned” scenario. Of course, if Adam was executed, we would not exist.

1 Like

That’s helpful.

I suppose it is surprising to bring the decision to exile versus execute into the discussion of Original Sin. It is usually understood as Adam’s act in isolation. I’m changing that script, by saying Original Sin emerges from Adam’s act as it interacts with God’s merciful response. That is a good thing to make clear. I suppose that is surprising.

1 Like

Joshua,
This is the idea I am proposing in this Biologos-Forum thread.
See also this article.

Nonetheless the idea implies that after Adam’s sin also those “outside the garden” come into existence in the state of Original sin, even if they are not genealogical descendants from Adam.

This seems to me a point deserving deeper discussion.

2 Likes