Evidence for God from Science

Jac wrote:
Paul doesn't say that there as no sin present in the kosmos, as if it did not exist. Paul is saying that it entered the kosmos, in that it had not infected things or taken up residence.

Jac,

I don't see the difference. If I enter into a house, it is understood that I wasn't present in the house before I entered. Could you explain the difference?

And also, if your argument is that Paul wasn't saying that sin wasn't present, then why can't the same argument be used for death? Maybe your interpretation would allow death to be present in the kosmos, as sin was?

There is an idea here of Adam's role as vice-regent here over creation. It seems to me that Adam's proper role would have been to see sin evil of the serpent (and even his wife, for that matter), and judge it accordingly rather than submit to it. I mean, think about it . . . why does Paul mention Adam? Eve sinned before Adam did. Are we going to suggest that Eve's disobedience wasn't sin? Of course not. If Eve is not an issue, Satan (or the serpent) is still less of one.

Thinking about this, brings up a new issue for me. If Adam is a kind of "vice-regent", and Eve's sin, and Satan's sin, which were both before Adam's sin, aren't an issue, then would your interpretation(specifically of these verses) also allow for other humans to have sinned before Adam as well?

Jac3510 wrote:Here's the intro I to the popular version I was talking about (rough draft, of course):

• Romans 5:12-21 has been at the heart of significant scholarly debate over the years. It has often been used to prove the doctrine of “original sin,” that is, the idea that all human beings are not merely born with a fallen nature inclined to sin, but that human beings are actually born guilty of (Adam’s) sin. Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” is based just on this principle. So Kreider says, “What is probably most distasteful in Edwards's theology is the doctrine of original sin, that he would believe that human beings are born guilty of sin and deserving of divine wrath.” This theology was hardly unique to Edwards. It permeates all of Reformed theology today through the influence of John Calvin, who in turn took this idea from Augustine (and thus, the doctrine is fundamental to Catholic teaching). Calvin wrote, “as Augustine says, whether a man is a guilty unbeliever or an innocent believer, he begets not innocent but guilty children.”
  
  It is my view that Romans 5:12-21 does not teach original sin, and that, in fact, such an understanding obscures the meaning of the entire passage. As such, this paper offers a detailed analysis of the passage, in which I hope to show that Paul is actually dealing with the death brought about by each person’s sin and how Christ’s life overcomes that death.

As to your comments . . .

How would you deal with the Mormon concept of original sin regarding that all people are merely guilty of Adam’s sin alone?

We know how that group strays away into a three tier concept of the degrees or levels of heaven and universalism’s end game plan but they too have a more serious dealing with Adam’s guilt than any other group. Mormonism is growing and it may be well to mention them in your article.

As for kosmos – I have taken it to mean the world of humanity and touching all that humanity governs (note Genesis chapter 1, 2 account regarding dominion and tending, etc…) The text, as I see it, is referring to only human beings dying due to sin and not to animals, insects, bacteria, or fishes ability to die. Do you take it to mean all creatures dying as a result of sin entering the world but before that, nothing animal, insect, bacteria, or fishes ever died?

Next, Sin is a word; few folk really define well enough for the modern mind to comprehend. How would you define sin clearly enough for people to grasp?
-
-
-

I forgot to mention something regarding Augustine - do you think Augustine had a sexual hang up?

His view on sex is rather odd as it relates to original sin...

Anyone else notice this?

I always wondered if this clouded his view on original sin....
-
-
-

I think we need a clear definition of "original sin" since there are so many variations on it.

Some versions I've read seem understandable and I'd even support. But, do these water down the true doctrine of Original Sin?

Other versions, for example, that we somehow are guilty of sin just ontologically -- such that a baby is guilty of individual sin in virtue of its human nature... such I just don't get the logic of.

B. W. wrote:I forgot to mention something regarding Augustine - do you think Augustine had a sexual hang up?

His view on sex is rather odd as it relates to original sin...

Anyone else notice this?

I always wondered if this clouded his view on original sin....
-
-
-

I found his Confessions a difficult book to digest mainly due to his views on sex sounding more like repression, and less like "I've dealt with it" or "I'm working through it". It may in part be projection on my behalf, I think the book I read beforehand was the letters between Jung & Freud, but I felt the sexual issues clouded much of what he had to say on anything.

*edit*
To remain slightly on topic I will say thanks to Jac, the thread is well beyond my scope or criticism but is fascinating and adresses many finer points I am unable to articulte but find in abundence as I make my through the Bible.

RickD wrote:I don't see the difference. If I enter into a house, it is understood that I wasn't present in the house before I entered. Could you explain the difference?

Paul's emphasis isn't on sin's ontological reality. Again, if you read it that way, you'll have to say that Paul was factually wrong, since sin was not an ontological reality at Adam's sin but rather at Eve's (or the serpent's, if you want to argue that the snake was sinning). Paul's emphasis is on its presence, it's "normalcy," the fact that it is now a basic part of the fabric of this world.

And also, if your argument is that Paul wasn't saying that sin wasn't present, then why can't the same argument be used for death? Maybe your interpretation would allow death to be present in the kosmos, as sin was?

Not in any helpful sense. Sin is presented by Paul as something that was not supposed to be present, that was made present by Adam. Go back to what I said before. Adam should have confronted the sin and judged it with the righteous judgment of God. I have actually read some theologians who have speculated that Adam could have had the power to raise animals from the dead in cases of accidents. I don't think we know enough to affirm that is necessarily the case, but I can see the logic. If death were a part of the world, it would have been less normal, less intended, less of what was supposed to be, then it would have been rare if nothing else. Perhaps Adam would have had the authority to judge it as well (so to speak). But even if not, what Rom 5:12ff does teach is that the reign of death in the world is due to the fact that Adam sinned.

Thinking about this, brings up a new issue for me. If Adam is a kind of "vice-regent", and Eve's sin, and Satan's sin, which were both before Adam's sin, aren't an issue, then would your interpretation(specifically of these verses) also allow for other humans to have sinned before Adam as well?

No, because there were no other humans before Adam.

-----------------------------------

B. W. wrote:How would you deal with the Mormon concept of original sin regarding that all people are merely guilty of Adam’s sin alone?

I would just ask where they got that doctrine, because they can't get it out of Rom. 5:12. On my argument, Paul does not say that we are guilty of Adam's sin. We are guilty of our own only.

We know how that group strays away into a three tier concept of the degrees or levels of heaven and universalism’s end game plan but they too have a more serious dealing with Adam’s guilt than any other group. Mormonism is growing and it may be well to mention them in your article.

That might make for a good illustration. I appreciate that.

As for kosmos – I have taken it to mean the world of humanity and touching all that humanity governs (note Genesis chapter 1, 2 account regarding dominion and tending, etc…) The text, as I see it, is referring to only human beings dying due to sin and not to animals, insects, bacteria, or fishes ability to die. Do you take it to mean all creatures dying as a result of sin entering the world but before that, nothing animal, insect, bacteria, or fishes ever died?

I don't think you can take kosmos in that sense. There may be some verses that take the word in that way, but they only do so by metonymy, and I don't see anything in the text to suggest that Paul is using the word figuratively (more technically, there are no linguistic markers that the word is being used figuratively). I think "humanity" is just as bad a translation for the same reason, and worse still because it destroys the parallels of the passage that I take pains to demonstrate. No, I think it has to be taken in the sense of "the Creation," which is really the standard (that is to say, non-figurative) sense of kosmos. See the link I referred to earlier where K offered a plausible OEC understanding of the proper translation, "the Creation."

And as an aside, for the ten millionth time, YEC does not hold that no-death-before-the-fall means that things like plants and bacteria did not die. They are not considered alive from a biblical perspective in that they have no nephesh.

Next, Sin is a word; few folk really define well enough for the modern mind to comprehend. How would you define sin clearly enough for people to grasp?
-
-
-

Sin is that which misses the mark of God's nature. I've written on this in some detail here, here, and here. The summary, though, is as follows:

• When studying the other words the biblical authors use to help us understand the various nuances of “sin,” this basic meaning of missing a mark must always be kept in mind. The mark is nothing less than God’s perfection and is best summed up as “righteousness.” When we understand these words, Paul’s statement in Rom 3:23 rings all the more true: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

B. W. wrote:I forgot to mention something regarding Augustine - do you think Augustine had a sexual hang up?

His view on sex is rather odd as it relates to original sin...

Anyone else notice this?

I always wondered if this clouded his view on original sin....
-
-
-

Well, it's well known that he was very promiscuous in his pre-Christian, so I think it's possible he may have been overly preoccupied with the subject. But, at the risk of sounding dismissive (please understand I don't mean it at all that way), it's not something I think is incredibly fruitful to think about. Psychoanalysis of someone based on a text, trying to discern underlying motives for why they said what they said, doesn't strike me as a very objective endeavor.

--------------------------------

Kurieuo wrote:I think we need a clear definition of "original sin" since there are so many variations on it.

Some versions I've read seem understandable and I'd even support. But, do these water down the true doctrine of Original Sin?

Other versions, for example, that we somehow are guilty of sin just ontologically -- such that a baby is guilty of individual sin in virtue of its human nature... such I just don't get the logic of.

All I mean by "original sin" is the typical Augustinian view that Adam's sin is actually imputed to all his descendants, that they are born guilty of this sin by shear virtue of being "in" him. It is pervasive in all of Reformed theology as well as Catholicism.

-----------------------------

Proinsias wrote:To remain slightly on topic I will say thanks to Jac, the thread is well beyond my scope or criticism but is fascinating and adresses many finer points I am unable to articulte but find in abundence as I make my through the Bible.

Thank you. I'm glad it helped somewhat. I'll look forward to the reaction of the next version of the paper when I get it up.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:I don't see the difference. If I enter into a house, it is understood that I wasn't present in the house before I entered. Could you explain the difference?

Paul's emphasis isn't on sin's ontological reality. Again, if you read it that way, you'll have to say that Paul was factually wrong, since sin was not an ontological reality at Adam's sin but rather at Eve's (or the serpent's, if you want to argue that the snake was sinning). Paul's emphasis is on its presence, it's "normalcy," the fact that it is now a basic part of the fabric of this world.

And also, if your argument is that Paul wasn't saying that sin wasn't present, then why can't the same argument be used for death? Maybe your interpretation would allow death to be present in the kosmos, as sin was?

Not in any helpful sense. Sin is presented by Paul as something that was not supposed to be present, that was made present by Adam. Go back to what I said before. Adam should have confronted the sin and judged it with the righteous judgment of God. I have actually read some theologians who have speculated that Adam could have had the power to raise animals from the dead in cases of accidents. I don't think we know enough to affirm that is necessarily the case, but I can see the logic. If death were a part of the world, it would have been less normal, less intended, less of what was supposed to be, then it would have been rare if nothing else. Perhaps Adam would have had the authority to judge it as well (so to speak). But even if not, what Rom 5:12ff does teach is that the reign of death in the world is due to the fact that Adam sinned.

Thinking about this, brings up a new issue for me. If Adam is a kind of "vice-regent", and Eve's sin, and Satan's sin, which were both before Adam's sin, aren't an issue, then would your interpretation(specifically of these verses) also allow for other humans to have sinned before Adam as well?

No, because there were no other humans before Adam.

-----------------------------------

Thanks for explaining your view Jac.