What else, besides humans, do you find Scripture assigning “imago Dei” status to? Or, are you simply holding this option open because you see no Scriptural prohibition against doing so?
Clarifying Redux
There are different ways of framing the central question that I have been asking here. I began by wondering, “Why is the de novo creation of Adam important theologically?” It appears to be fairly important to quite a few Christians, particularly those who are young-earth or old-earth creationists, but I struggle to understand why that should be the case. (I used to know, back when I was a young-earth creationist myself, but the problem for me was solved so long ago that I no longer remember what those reasons were.) I have digested material from a variety of Protestant theologians and scholars (e.g., Wayne Grudem) but for some reason their criticisms tend to attack an evolutionary perspective that is quite antithetical to biblical theism and shares more in common with deism. Consequently, their arguments regarding Adam are questionable, since that evolutionary perspective is different from and weaker than the one which informs my view (as informed and influenced by Denis R. Alexander). In other words, when I hear their description of theistic evolution, I think, “Well, that is not relevant to biblical theism,” and I want to move on.
Another way of framing the question is by asking, "What does biblical anthropology and/or soteriological orthodoxy lose if Adam was born? Grudem, for example, points out that if you accept evolution then you are committed to the belief that Adam was born, as opposed to being created de novo. He is wrong on this point, of course. One can affirm both an evolutionary history of life (including humans) and, at the same time, a de novo creation of Adam and Eve without any contradiction or inconsistency. However, Grudem serves as an example of this conviction that many Christians have, that Adam being born compromises or undermines something about biblical anthropology or soteriological orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rather nebulous concern about which I cannot find any specific argument.
So, between these two ways of framing the question, it is my desire that the members of this forum try and specify the actual concern as they see it. Apparently the de novo creation of Adam is indeed important theologically, but why is that? Do we lose anything important with respect to biblical anthropology or soteriological orthodoxy if Adam was born to human parents? If so, what? If I am missing something, I need to know so that I can take it into account. Again, try to be specific. As far as I can tell, one’s theology can remain biblical and orthodox if it is held that Adam, belonging to God as one of his elect, was born and raised in the ancient Near East and was called by God at some point to a peculiar vocation as federal head and covenant representative of his collaterals and descendants who were made God’s image-bearers.
3 Likes
I often hear that it challenges:
- Doctrine of inerrancy.
- Doctrine of infallibility (different than #1!)
- Doctrine of original righteousness.
- Personal conscience, due to unshakable perception of what Genesis 2 teaches.
- Magisterial use of Scripture (by letting science override it).
Of these, as you can see, only one of these concerns has anything to do with biblical anthropology (#3). The point is, however, that this isn’t really about biblical anthropology any ways. This is really about the place of Scripture in relation to science and personal conscience.
1 Like
On the contrary, for me it really is about biblical anthropology and soteriological orthodoxy—as it is for Christians like Wayne Grudem and others, I think, for we are all operating on the assumption of inerrancy. In other words, for us the inerrancy of Scripture is a given, which then leads to these alleged problems.
2 Likes
Sure, but I thought you asked about them? Also, at least one point is about biblical anthropology: original righteousness.
I can agree that you are operating this way, and so am I. Among Christians that affirm evolutionary science, however, we seem to be a minority. Most public Evolutionary Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists do not affirm inerrancy. Many actively dispute inerrancy.
Why do you think we are all operating under the inerrancy “assumption?”
1 Like
Indeed, and I appreciated that insight. I had already been confronted with that point and have been working through it. And it was such a good point that I posted this redux in order to tease out some more specific ideas like that one. This is the sort of stuff that I need to know, concerns of which I need to be aware, take seriously, and understand properly.
My response to this point is as follows (from an article I am working on that addresses Grudem’s 12 problems with theistic evolution): In all that is essential to Christian orthodoxy, is anything jeopardized by Adam being born to human parents? Not anything of which I am aware. Someone suggested that if Adam was born and raised in some Neolithic community prior to God calling him as an adult, he could not have enjoyed original righteousness because he would have accumulated a history of wrongdoing by that point. However, it would seem to follow from the biblical witness that there is no such thing as sin apart from a covenant relationship with God. Humans alone are capable and culpable of sin. Chimpanzees, earth worms, ravens, whales, these and all other creatures are neither capable nor culpable of sin, despite the fact that many creatures demonstrate characteristics of moral agency. Arguably, this state describes mankind prior to a covenant relationship with God, capable of wrongdoing even though sin at this point is a meaningless term, just as it is for chimpanzees. But once that covenant relationship was established, sin became a potential—but it was not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God (posse non peccare et posse peccare). This fits the description by Derek Kidner, of God conferring his image upon Adam’s collaterals, bringing them into the same realm of being. “Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.” Thus, one is not committed to denying original righteousness under evolutionary creationism.
True, unfortunately.
I mean that it’s assumed “for the sake of argument,” so that we may have this discussion about Adam and Eve without having to first defend inerrancy. That is the sense in which it is an assumption.
1 Like
Kidner himself held that Eve was specially created, so he is not a very good reference here for the standard BL/EC position.
This type of federal headship is (in my view) rightly disputed as arbitrary, and implicates God with the intentional spread of original sin. Reliance on arbitrary headship has not been acceptable to many theologians, because it comes with so many theological problems.
Federal headship is well and good, but we need a natural explanation, something about the structure of reality, that explains how and why Adam becomes our proper representative.
I suppose my response is: well, if de novo creation in a sin free environment is important to your theology, you have no evidence against your confession if you can account for people outside the garden. Go in peace, without opposing evolutionary science for this reason any more.
I expect there will remain disagreements about the importance of de novo creation among Christians for a long time. Why do we need to settle that disagreement? Why exactly do we need to justify AE not being de novo created? Both ways work with science, so why does it matter if some people affirm de novo creation?
I don’t know that we need to settle that disagreement, so much as I need to be able to settle it for myself.
1 Like
I see. You are trying to figure it out for yourself. That, in fact, is a really good activity. I’ll be curious to hear what you think of it after you read the relevant sections of my book. I engage this question in depth.
1 Like
Do any of those people subscribe to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary?
1 Like
Yes, some of them do, the catholics, such as (I’m pretty sure) Ken Kemp, Ed Feser, and @AntoineSuarez.
So doesn’t that resolve the supposed problem? Where there’s one, there can be a couple more.
1 Like
Yup. And I also draw close analogy between the Virgin Birth and de Novo creation. They are both “special entries into the world.”
1 Like
This of course leads us to asking what makes the immaculate conception different from any other conception, or what it means to be “born with sin” as opposed to without.
1 Like
First, I wouldn’t draw from Kidner if I was looking to support evolutionary creationism. He never makes a positive case for any kind of theistic evolution. The only thing he does, really, is examine the Genesis narrative in the context of a long evolutionary history. (However, he denies that there is any “natural bridge from animal to man”). He assumes evolution for the sake of argument in order to map out the events of Genesis concerning Adam and Eve. It is my understanding, at least from this passage in his commentary (pp. 28–31), that Kidner holds to a de novo creation of both Adam and Eve as the first Homo sapiens, those contemporaries living around him and throughout the world being “near-humans.” What I mean to say is that I’m well aware of what Kidner argues and, more importantly, what he doesn’t argue.
Second, my intention in citing Kidner was to demonstrate that what I said about Adam’s federal headship as covenant representative of mankind (which already numbered in the millions) does not present anything that is terribly new or unique. Biblical scholars like Kidner were thinking about these things as far back as the 1960s—perhaps even earlier, but my personal library is limited. So, again, even in the context of a long evolutionary history, original righteousness need not be denied and sin entered the world through one man (inerrancy being preserved).
Third, Kidner’s position is not inconsistent with evolutionary creationism at any rate, as I’m sure you know. One could affirm both an evolutionary history of life (including humans) and, at the same time, a de novo creation of Adam and Eve without any contradiction or inconsistency. So while Kidner is not a good reference for evolutionary creationism per se, he’s also not unfriendly or problematic.
-
When you say that Adam’s federal headship was “arbitrary,” what does that word mean in this context?
-
Given this usage, what are the implications for Christ’s federal headship? Was it likewise arbitrary in that sense?
-
Is divine election arbitrary in the same or a similar sense?
-
What is meant by “the intentional spread of original sin”? Is it contracted? Inherited? Something else?
Note: On my view, sin is covenantal language. I have been led to believe that sin is a meaningless term apart from a covenant relationship with God. Therefore, on my view—given that covenant representatives serve as federal heads—original sin is “spread” by imputation to all those in Adam, in the same way that Christ’s righteousness is “spread” by imputation to all those in him.
Why does a theological explanation not suffice?
1 Like
This kind of jumps out at me. In your view, what is the relationship between “sin” which is only meaningful based on a covenant relationship with God, and “evil” that may be visited on our fellow man, which surely has meaning at least to the person on the receiving end?
Yes.
They are both evil in the sense of causing harm to at least the person on the receiving end. But sin is differentiated from harm in the same way crime is differentiated from harm.
And both never happened.
1 Like
I believe that this same covenant explains the relationship between them. While humans have arguably wronged one another for as long as there have been humans, it was not a “sin” until there was a covenant relationship between God and mankind which defined it as such. Even in prehistoric times, a person probably felt wronged when their loved one was murdered in cold blood, but it became a sin once God established that covenant relationship. Then God could reveal to us, “You shall not murder” (Exo. 20:13), “for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6). All of God’s commandments to his people—the prohibitions against murder, adultery, stealing, coveting and so forth—“are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom. 13:9), that is, it’s covenantal.
Here is another way of looking at this distinction. Consider two individuals, Jane and John. They both seek to help a homeless person with a hot meal, John being motivated by secular humanism and Jane being motivated by Christ-centered theism. Humanly speaking, both cases are examples of a civic good. But even though each act is the same, for one it was a sin (John) while for the other it was not (Jane). Jerry Bridges observed this distinction, which he points out in Transforming Grace (1991): “One of the most damning indictments of mankind is found in Isaiah 53:6: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way.” Each of us has turned to his own way. That is the very essence of sin, the very core of it—going our own way. Your way may be to give money to charity, while another person’s way may be to rob a bank. But neither act is done with reference to God; both of you have gone your own way. And in a world governed by a sovereign Creator, that is rebellion, that is sin” (p. 29; emphasis mine).
Exactly what never happened?
1 Like