Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

[PETE_]

Topic: Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy

Affirmative: shernren

Negative: mark kennedy

Rounds: 4 rounds each for a total of 8 posts.

Format: Alternating rounds initiated by the affirmative and concluding with the negative.

Time limit between posts: 2 week maximum, no minimum.

Maximum length for each post: 5000 words.

Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source. The quote/reference citation is not part of the grand word total for the post, but proper citation is necessary if used. I’d like to add that when quoting snippets of Early Christian Writers that they should be cited in the most complete context available.

Peanut gallery here for readers of the debate and for the participants to post in after the debate is concluded is located HERE (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=49247029#post49247029)

The proposal for this debate is found Here (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7300658)

Good luck to both participants.

[mark kennedy]

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm) calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). The Apostle Peter writing on the subject of false teachers mentions Paul:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law. Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things. For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes. Anyone interested in the scientific aspect of this debate can find a summation of my thoughts and research on the subject here, 'Human and Chimpanzee DNA (http://genetics4creationists.info/forums/index.php?topic=19.0)'. I have also had a number of formal debates on the subject with Loudmouth (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5784958), AnEmpiricalAgnostic (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=3937767), USincognito (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2892470). My opponent shernren will be the first professing Christian that I will engage on doctrinal issues regarding human ancestry in a formal debate. He is exceptionally bright and well read on the subject. I have challenged him to a formal debate many times and he has politely refused. Now he has agreed to address these issues here and I am deeply impressed with his courage to stand by the convictions of his beliefs.

Most of my time on CF has been spent debating the Creation/Evolution controversy. My primary interest was Christian Apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics) and my study of the theory of evolution (TOE) as it relates to the Scriptures is an experiment in evidential apologetics. Apologetics is a Greek word for a legal defense and the most scathing accusations from the secular world regarding the Christian faith has come to focus on the historical content of Scripture. The central focus of this debate will be on essential Christian doctrine. I have no problem with brief mentions of the scientific aspect but that is not the topic of our debate. The question we will be addressing will be whether or not chimpanzee/human lineage is a rejection of Orthodox Christian theology. Quite frankly, I find my opponents assertion that it is not a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin indefensible, but must confess I would love to be proven wrong. My opponent will be given ample opportunity and time to argue otherwise.

I know shernren, he will no doubt accumulate more quotes and references then he could post here. He is quite welcome to post whatever he likes on the Genetics4Creationists discussion forum or elsewhere here on CF. I would ask him to refrain from arguing his points in the peanut gallery since that is set aside for observers who want to share their thoughts on the debate.

‘Darwinism destroyed the dogma of the Fall upon which the whole intellectual fabric of Christianity rests. For without a Fall there is no redemption, and the whole theory and meaning of the Pauline system is vain.’ (Wells, H.G., Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought)

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to Christian Orthodoxy. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the special creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whale and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation. Darwinism knows no bounds, it is actively seeking inroads to Christian conviction.

The early Church Fathers occasionally mentioned geocentric cosmology with regards to the Scriptures but never tied it to essential doctrine. One of the tactics I can anticipate is that my opponent considers the rejection of human evolution from that of apes to be a modern equivalent of the same error. The fact is that at the time most astronomers believed the same thing, something that did not change until in invention and development of the telescope. Again, no central doctrine was ever tied to astronomy, unlike human lineage that the New Testament traces back to Adam and no further.

Examples of how original sin is tied to justification are numerous, this is just one of many:

Justification by the righteousness and obedience of Christ, is a doctrine that the Scripture teaches in very full terms, Rom. 5:18, 19, “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall all be made righteous.” Here in one verse we are told that we have justification by Christ’s righteousness, and that there might be no room to understand the righteousness spoken of, merely of Christ’s atonement by his suffering the penalty. In the next verse it is put in other terms, and asserted that it is by Christ’s obedience we are made righteous. (Justification by Faith Alone by Jonathan Edwards. 1703-1758)

If you can maintain Christian orthodoxy and affirm a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees then it is exactly here that you have to address the need for justification by faith. Anyone interested in exploring some of the resources related to a Young Earth Creationist point of view might want to check this out. Creation Science Resources (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5088068)

This concludes my opening statement, my opponent will respond as he sees fit. I will not be able to respond to his post until after Thanksgiving so he has ample time to prepare his opening post. For years I avoided doctrinal issues with theistic evolutionists simply because I was unsure if evolution was having a damaging effect on their theology. Now I have decided that the doctrinal issues are unavoidable and if accepting human and chimpanzee common ancestry is not a rejection of orthodoxy then I would love to see how.

God bless you shernren, I realize that you are busy and this debate will cost you time and energy that could be spent on other things. I think it will be worth the time and trouble we go to if we focus on the Pauline doctrine of original sin and the historicity of Scripture. You are, of course, free to respond as you see fit and I look forward to reading and responding to your post in a couple of weeks. I would love to respond sooner but I will be in the field until then.

To the observer, I warn you that these debates can be contentious but as steel sharpens steel sometimes you need to come down on important issues with considerable force. As Christians we must take our stand on the Gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). As Christ has assured us, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33).

Grace and peace,
Mark

[shernren]

Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19).

What mark quotes is true enough but what he leaves out is fascinating:

As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ...
(Romans 5:12, KJV) [all quotations from here on will be from the ESV unless explicitly stated otherwise.]

;)

=========

In this post I will first set out an overview of the entire discussion regarding origins theology, and then an overall direction for my position in this debate, finally replying a particular point mark has made. My next posts should follow the same pattern of a section of substantive explanation of my position followed by replies to selected parts of mark's posts.

My goal is not to convince readers that evolution that is true - such education is the province of minds far greater than my own. Rather, I wish to provide some guide to the theology of those of us who do accept evolution, for the help of those who don't. To those who have never seen the need to leave a conservative mindset, the choice seems bewildering. How can these evolutionists still call themselves Christian?

Historically speaking, the effect of evolution on theology has been felt (in roughly historical order, too) in three areas: the theology of Scripture and its inspiration, the theology of God as creator, and the theology of man and his biological being.

In the area of Scripture, evolution and an old earth seemed to challenge the literal interpretations that many Christians had grown used to. Historically, however, many conservative Christians, and even proto-fundamentalists like Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield were able to reconcile the Bible with the new geological and biological facts the science discovered. The fact that they were able to come to this accommodation is important to current fundamentalist claims that evolution at heart destroys the place of the Bible in Christianity.

(With respect to that, mark is almost right in saying that that geocentrism has no link to any important doctrine. But it is tied to precisely the doctrine of inspiration! The geocentrists simply could not conceive of the Bible as being inspired in a heliocentric universe, just as many modern creationists simply cannot conceive of the Bible as being inspired in an evolutionary universe. However, it doesn't seem that inspiration per se will be an important issue in this debate, and thus neither will geocentrism.)

In the area of God as creator, the seemingly random and wasteful mechanism of evolution could not be seen as commensurate with the workings of God as creator. Evolution was seen to directly impale Paley-esque arguments for God from design. However, many were already seeing teleology in the laws of nature rather than the details they evinced; and in this respect many prominent scientists such as Asa Gray and Theodosius Dobzhansky were able to reconcile the fact that God governs nature with the fact that He used evolution. After all, science explains many other facets of nature, and yet we do not consider God to no longer run the weather, the Solar System, or the internal workings of life.

In the area of man as a biological being, to say man was evolved seemed to place him squarely with the apes who were his predecessors. If man was no more than biology, who was he to think that the strange ethical and moral compulsions he felt were really pointing to a higher power? And if man was simply the descendent a thousand times removed of mindless beasts, in what sense could he still possess the image of God or a relationship with Him? Furthermore the question of why and how humanity is so sinful and needs God's rescue, once so easily answerable with the stories of snakes and fruit, now becomes maddeningly subtle.

It is in this area that mark and I will be expending most of our energy. And unfortunately it is also in this area that evolutionary Christians are themselves most divided. But mark rightfully sets his emphasis on this area, for it is here where evolution and Christianity might most come into conflict. Christianity can square with a non-literal reading of Genesis, much hinted at both within the form of the passages themselves and the nature of surrounding literature of the time; Christianity can square with the subtlety of a Creator who works through randomness, as is explicitly described when God is said to preside over the casting of lots and the falling of sparrows.

But the central message of Christianity has always been (and will always be) that man needed God to reconcile man to Himself, for he was in his own self incapacitated by sin and destruction. If evolution should conflict with this, then truly either evolution or Christianity must go.

And happily, I believe that in this area too evolution and Christianity are essentially reconcilable. That man evolved from apes in no way voids the fact that he was created for relationship with God, that he is unable to accomplish this on his own because of the depravity of his heart and the sinfulness of his actions, and that Christ came to take on the likeness of sinful man, thus achieving justification for all who would but believe in Him and receive the privilege of becoming sons and daughters of God.

This is, of course, precisely what conservatives are sceptical about. So in this next part of my post I will present my broad strategy, illustrated with the structure of the typical Pauline letter.

=========

How evolutionists deal with the theology of humanity depends essentially on how they deal with Adam and the story of Genesis 2-3. The most conservative of evolutionists are almost old-earth creationists in this respect: they conceive of Adam and Eve as historical ancestors of the entire human race, supernaturally set apart from other hominids. The events of the Garden of Eden actually took place – perhaps in a different place, with a different sin, but there was still a first sin, which spread throughout all humanity, leaving the doctrine of original sin essentially unchanged.

More liberal evolutionists will see Adam and Eve not as a first pair, but as a first community of humans. Even more liberal evolutionists will see in Adam and Eve a literary representation of the totality of humanity, so that the story of Genesis 2-3 is the story of the entire human race represented with two actors in a garden. Alternatively they may see Adam and Eve as symbols not of all humanity, but of every human: so that at every moment I, in my individual sin, am Adam and Eve in the garden reaching for the fruit I shouldn’t be reaching for.

I tend towards the more conservative end of the spectrum myself, but I don’t think any of those who lean more towards the liberal side (as represented, for example, by Assyrian and gluadys, both regular posters in the OT forum) are committing an essential error. Basically, we need to distinguish between three ideas: universal sin (or that all humanity is sinful), original sin (or that the sin of all humanity stems from a single ancestor), and special creation of humanity (essentially, that humanity did not at all evolve from apes in any way, for the purpose of this discussion). And what I hope to demonstrate are these:

- the concept of universal sin, on its own, is a sufficient prelude to the doctrine of justification by faith
- one can hold to universal sin without necessarily holding to original sin
- one can hold even to the concept of original sin as understood in orthodox theology without accepting the special creation of humanity.

=========

Part of what I don’t like in online discussions is how quoting back and forth easily messes up threads – answering a 5,000 word post by quoting every word of it will not be productive! Thus, at various points I will focus my thoughts into a particular question or two for mark.

For the reply section, the single quote of mark's that struck me was:

Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

It is not at all clear. The single question I have for mark this time, to demonstrate this, is:

If original sin logically precedes justification by faith, then why does Romans 5 come after Romans 4 (and before Romans 6)?

To me the cardinal mistake creationists make in reading Romans 5 is to not read the rest of the book! (Or at least to act like they have not.) The very structure of Romans paints a different picture from the creationist reading of Romans 5.

Of all of Paul’s letters, Romans is the closest Paul comes to delivering a systematic theology of salvation. He begins this systematic exposition with a description of universal sin (not original sin; note the definitions above). In 1:18-32, Paul condemns the general wickedness of immoral Gentiles; in 2:1-16, Paul speaks most likely to the moralizing pagan (or perhaps to the moralizing Jew), convicting them of inner sin; in 2:17-3:8, Paul speaks to the Jew, accusing them both of pride and of inability to observe the Law in its entirety. In 3:9-20 he summarizes the state of affairs:

For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
(Romans 3:9b-11)

Paul then goes on in the rest of Romans 3 and then Romans 4 to describe the justification that is by faith, linking its coming by grace to human inability to be saved any other way:

[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
(Romans 3:23-25a)

After describing the benefits of justification in the first half of chapter 5, only then does Paul go on to describe original sin in that passage which creationists so often pluck out of its context in Romans. This question bears asking regardless of one’s origins position: why did Paul leave it until then? Surely Paul could have introduced Adam in Romans 1. Paul could have described our ancestry from Adam, and then said how, since we all are descended from Adam, we are all sinful, Gentile and Jew alike, as mark would claim that Paul clearly teaches.

Instead, Paul sees no reason to invoke Adam until Romans 5. And what does Romans 5 accomplish? It sets us up for the arguments in Romans 6, where Paul again explains the doctrine of justification by faith, this time emphasizing that our ancestry in Adam has condemned us all to a flawed sinful nature – wait, he doesn’t! Romans 6 speaks instead of sanctification, and the need for a Christian to avoid sin even though he is not saved by works.

Once we see Romans 6 in action it is easy to see what Romans 5 is leading up to: Paul sets up the situation of humanity as a choice between two factions. In the red corner, Adam started his fight with an act of sin, got his payment in death and separation from God, and paved the way for anyone following him to do the same. In the blue corner, Jesus started his fight with a life of obedience, won righteousness in grace not just for Himself but for all who are on His side, and invites anyone who is with Him to reign in life with Him. The setup in Romans 5 renders the rhetorical questions of Romans 6 (“Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?” and “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?”) ridiculous.

The funny thing is that Paul accomplishes exactly the opposite of what the creationists think he does. After all, to creationists, the point of Romans 5:12-21 is that we all have something to do with Adam – namely being tainted with the consequences of his sin. But to Paul the point of Romans 5:12-21 (as demonstrated in Romans 6-8) is that we Christians have nothing to do with Adam! Paul’s point is diametrically opposite to that of the creationists.

How does Paul’s reasoning work in the larger context of the rest of the Bible? In my next post I will describe a more nuanced and Biblical view of the idea of original sin, largely utilizing The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin (1967) by Dubarle.

[mark kennedy]

What mark quotes is true enough but what he leaves out is fascinating:

As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ...
(Romans 5:12, KJV)

I don't know what's so fascinating since the context clearly indicated sin and death had it's origin (genesis) in Adam, that is how and why 'all' have sinned. Don't get this twisted, Paul is clear that when Adam sinned we did not fast. What my ambiguous opponent is trying to do is to is to distract you from the clear meaning of the text. The Protestant understanding of the text is that we both sinned in Adam and continue to in ourselves because of our fallen nature. The fall itself is an historical account and the conflict between evolution and creation are not about natural science, it's about natural history. What they have done with Darwinism is rewrite human history:

For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven. (John Wesley's Notes)

Sin originated with Satan Isaiah 14:12-14, entered the world through Adam Romans 5:12, was, and is, universal, Christ alone excepted ; Romans 3:23; 1 Peter 2:22, incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death ; Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Romans 6:23 and has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ ; Hebrews 9:26; Acts 4:12 availed of by faith Acts 13:38,39. Sin may be summarized as threefold: An act, the violation of, or want of obedience to the revealed will of God; a state, absence of righteousness; a nature, enmity toward God. (Scofield Commentary)

Am I to conclude that Scofield, Wesley and Paul are all mistaken that sin and death entered through Adam. Is there some reason I could logically conclude that the meaning is not both literal and explicit with regards to the sin of Adam?

To those who have never seen the need to leave a conservative mindset, the choice seems bewildering. How can these evolutionists still call themselves Christian?

Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. An allele (http://biology.about.com/od/geneticsglossary/g/alleles.htm) is an alternative variation of the gene. What my opponent is doing here is to broaden the meaning of evolution to mean universal common decent which is artificially imported into the meaning. It's called equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) and he is attempting to focus on the fact that all have sinned so therefore Adam is figurative. He has equivocated evolution with the assumption of universal common ancestry and universal sin with a figurative Adam. Both are fallacious, the sin of Adam and the sinfulness of humanity are not mutually exclusive and evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time (not universal common decent).

The fact that they were able to come to this accommodation is important to current fundamentalist claims that evolution at heart destroys the place of the Bible in Christianity.


This has nothing to do with scientific facts but is about false assumptions. Darwin's argument in On the Origin of Species was not as much for evolution as it was against special creation, he says so in the preface. Now when faced with the clear testimony of Scripture in becomes vital to determine what is consistent with the genuine article of science and what must rejected as a false assumption.

(With respect to that, mark is almost right in saying that that geocentrism has no link to any important doctrine. But it is tied to precisely the doctrine of inspiration!

Geocentrism was the conclusion of both Biblical Christians and astronomers up until the invention of the telescope. No doctrine was ever tied to it but the special creation and sin of Adam clearly is. More equivocation.

Furthermore the question of why and how humanity is so sinful and needs God's rescue, once so easily answerable with the stories of snakes and fruit, now becomes maddeningly subtle.

Now to the meat of his argument, he is simply mocking the figurative language of the Old Testament. The Serpent is identified as Satan and really more of a proper name then an actual snake.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. (Rev 20:2)

He should know this by now.

It is in this area that mark and I will be expending most of our energy. And unfortunately it is also in this area that evolutionary Christians are themselves most divided. But mark rightfully sets his emphasis on this area, for it is here where evolution and Christianity might most come into conflict. Christianity can square with a non-literal reading of Genesis, much hinted at both within the form of the passages themselves and the nature of surrounding literature of the time; Christianity can square with the subtlety of a Creator who works through randomness, as is explicitly described when God is said to preside over the casting of lots and the falling of sparrows.


Nothing with God is random, particularly the change of alleles in populations over time. The fall of Man is essential doctrine and Christian theology is reconcilable with science and evolution not when we compromise with Darwinian false assumptions but when we use the scientific definitions rather then equivocating common ancestry with evolution itself.

How evolutionists deal with the theology of humanity depends essentially on how they deal with Adam and the story of Genesis 2-3. The most conservative of evolutionists are almost old-earth creationists in this respect: they conceive of Adam and Eve as historical ancestors of the entire human race, supernaturally set apart from other hominids. The events of the Garden of Eden actually took place – perhaps in a different place, with a different sin, but there was still a first sin, which spread throughout all humanity, leaving the doctrine of original sin essentially unchanged.

They try to do that but they were not supernaturally set apart, they were specially created from the dust and from a rib respectively.

Alternatively they may see Adam and Eve as symbols not of all humanity, but of every human: so that at every moment I, in my individual sin, am Adam and Eve in the garden reaching for the fruit I shouldn’t be reaching for.

Which is blatantly contradictory of Paul and Moses. Should we take the miraculous death, burial and resurrection of Christ figuratively by the same token? Christ and Adam are spoken of in many the same ways in Romans 5. My problem is that it does not end with a figurative Adam, it just begins there.

- the concept of universal sin, on its own, is a sufficient prelude to the doctrine of justification by faith

But it is unable to explain it unless you want to conclude that we were created sinners. Paul explains it and Christian scholars have affirmed the clear meaning of his statements in no uncertain terms.

- one can hold to universal sin without necessarily holding to original sin

It would be a neat trick if you pulled it off.

- one can hold even to the concept of original sin as understood in orthodox theology without accepting the special creation of humanity.

Not without rejecting the historicity of Scripture or at least compromising it at critical points of doctrine.

For the reply section, the single quote of mark's that struck me was:

Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

It is not at all clear. The single question I have for mark this time, to demonstrate this, is:

If original sin logically precedes justification by faith, then why does Romans 5 come after Romans 4 (and before Romans 6)?

So it is unclear why Paul speaking to the Jewish converts in Rome would start off discussing Abraham being justified by faith before discussing the sin of Adam? The first three chapters focused on the sin of all humanity culminating at the heart of the emphasis with:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (Romans 3:21)

After elaborating that boasting is excluded he begins with Abraham being a sinner saved by grace and finally in Romans 5 explains why. Then Paul departs from his historical parenthesis and in chapters 6, 7 and 8 expounds the choice between a slave to sin or slave to righteousness and finally walking in the Spirit.

To me the cardinal mistake creationists make in reading Romans 5 is to not read the rest of the book! (Or at least to act like they have not.) The very structure of Romans paints a different picture from the creationist reading of Romans 5.

Nonsense.

Of all of Paul’s letters, Romans is the closest Paul comes to delivering a systematic theology of salvation. He begins this systematic exposition with a description of universal sin (not original sin; note the definitions above). In 1:18-32, Paul condemns the general wickedness of immoral Gentiles; in 2:1-16, Paul speaks most likely to the moralizing pagan (or perhaps to the moralizing Jew), convicting them of inner sin; in 2:17-3:8, Paul speaks to the Jew, accusing them both of pride and of inability to observe the Law in its entirety. In 3:9-20 he summarizes the state of affairs:

I'll omit the rest since he isn't saying anything that contradicts or even addresses my position.

After describing the benefits of justification in the first half of chapter 5, only then does Paul go on to describe original sin in that passage which creationists so often pluck out of its context in Romans. This question bears asking regardless of one’s origins position: why did Paul leave it until then? Surely Paul could have introduced Adam in Romans 1. Paul could have described our ancestry from Adam, and then said how, since we all are descended from Adam, we are all sinful, Gentile and Jew alike, as mark would claim that Paul clearly teaches.

First of all the context focuses on the Gospel and universal sin. It is not until Romans 5 that he reaches the heart of the emphasis as peels the layers of sin back getting to the heart of the problem. We are sinners because in Adam all were cursed with sin and death. It is perfectly consistent with the context. The first three chapters culminate with 'But now, the righteosness of God has been revealed', which is opposed to the sin of man that has been manifest in both Jew and Gentile. Then the historical parenthesis in chapters 4 and 5 followed by the 'What shall we say' sections. He first had to explain the inclusion of the Gentiles since he is writing to a community of mostly Jewish Christians. Then he speaks of their father, with regards to lineage, Abraham. Finally he brings the whole exposition to the father (again with regards to lineage) of all humanity. Then for six chapters he will expound on doctrinal issues that logically follow. When he asks, "What shall we say?", he is really saying 'What should be teach'.

Instead, Paul sees no reason to invoke Adam until Romans 5. And what does Romans 5 accomplish? It sets us up for the arguments in Romans 6, where Paul again explains the doctrine of justification by faith, this time emphasizing that our ancestry in Adam has condemned us all to a flawed sinful nature – wait, he doesn’t! Romans 6 speaks instead of sanctification, and the need for a Christian to avoid sin even though he is not saved by works.

Romans 5 firms the historical foundation for the doctrinal portion. In Romans 6 he is not talking about sanctification, he is talking about being a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. He would not start discussing sanctification until chapter 8. We are washed, renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Justification by faith was already established starting in chapter 3 and finally culminating the root cause which stemmed from Adam's sin. With chapter 6 he is essentially saying so based on this what should our doctrine (teaching) be. In essence he says we cannot be righteous by keeping the law because we are slave to sin, we are saved by faith and sanctified by walking in the Spirit.

The setup in Romans 5 renders the rhetorical questions of Romans 6 (“Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?” and “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?”) ridiculous.

I was kind of enjoying your analogy when I ran into this disjointed statement. I have no clue how Romans 5 is making the doctrinal portion ridiculous. I assume you mean if we are taking Adam literally but I didn't understand the argument and I'm not sure you did either.

The funny thing is that Paul accomplishes exactly the opposite of what the creationists think he does. After all, to creationists, the point of Romans 5:12-21 is that we all have something to do with Adam – namely being tainted with the consequences of his sin. But to Paul the point of Romans 5:12-21 (as demonstrated in Romans 6-8) is that we Christians have nothing to do with Adam! Paul’s point is diametrically opposite to that of the creationists.

That is utterly absurd and the exact opposite of the clear meaning of the text. Clearly Paul is saying that just as in Adam all sinned in Christ all are made righteous. Creationists are not interpreting Romans in some new or novel way, they are simply taking it as Christian scholars always have.
How does Paul’s reasoning work in the larger context of the rest of the Bible?

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)

[shernren]

Let me start by addressing some minor points:

Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. An allele (http://biology.about.com/od/geneticsglossary/g/alleles.htm) is an alternative variation of the gene. What my opponent is doing here is to broaden the meaning of evolution to mean universal common decent which is artificially imported into the meaning. It's called equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) and he is attempting to focus on the fact that all have sinned so therefore Adam is figurative.

Note firstly that you have grossly misrepresented my position:

The most conservative of evolutionists are almost old-earth creationists in this respect: they conceive of Adam and Eve as historical ancestors of the entire human race, supernaturally set apart from other hominids. The events of the Garden of Eden actually took place – perhaps in a different place, with a different sin, but there was still a first sin, which spread throughout all humanity, leaving the doctrine of original sin essentially unchanged....

I tend towards the more conservative end of the spectrum myself, but I don’t think any of those who lean more towards the liberal side (as represented, for example, by Assyrian and gluadys, both regular posters in the OT forum) are committing an essential error.

Nowhere have I claimed that Adam is purely figurative. He could be, and I will defend the legitimacy (if not total correctness) of those who believe that he is, but I do not personally hold that position, nor does TEism as a whole hold that position.

Furthermore, accusing me of equivocation is baseless when I set out very clearly in my proposal that:

- that accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the biological makeup of humans ("accepting human evolution") is compatible with the infallibility and divine authority of Scripture.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the universal sinfulness of humanity and the necessity of justification by faith.
- that accepting human evolution is compatible with the biblical and classical doctrines of God, and thus that it is not logically tantamount to atheism.

Feel free to ask for clarification and rewording of any of the wordings or phrases used in the motion.

I defined my terms clearly and mark had every opportunity to ask for clarification and redefinition but he did not.

Accusing me of things that are not true is ungracious to say the least.

Geocentrism was the conclusion of both Biblical Christians and astronomers up until the invention of the telescope. No doctrine was ever tied to it but the special creation and sin of Adam clearly is. More equivocation.

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent. The Fifth Session)

I'm sorry but my point (that geocentrism was tied to inspiration) remains unchallenged other than by sheer assertion otherwise.

I hope you are aware that deciding on Adam was not the only thing the Council of Trent did:In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
And the Fathers were unanimously geocentric.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

According to Catholic understanding, accepting heliocentrism was (and still is, depending on who you ask) a direct affront to the inspiration of the Scriptures and the authority of the Fathers. And I hope you will agree with me that the inspiration of the Scriptures is an important doctrine!

=========

Now I will address mark’s treatment of Romans and say more about a Biblical view of original sin.mark: In Romans 6 he is not talking about sanctification, he is talking about being a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. He would not start discussing sanctification until chapter 8.
Romans 6 isn't about sanctification? Becoming a slave to righteousness, my dear mark, is "sanctification"; the Christian's being made perfect at the end of time in the power of God as described in Romans 8 is "glorification".mark: So it is unclear why Paul speaking to the Jewish converts in Rome would start off discussing Abraham being justified by faith before discussing the sin of Adam?
No, you have not made it clear at all. In addition, Romans was not written predominantly to Jewish converts. Look at the list of addressees in Romans 16: how many of them are Jewish, and how many Gentile? Sections of Romans are addressed exclusively to Jews, but the book as a whole mainly addresses Gentile understanding and concerns.mark: It is not until Romans 5 that he reaches the heart of the emphasis as peels the layers of sin back getting to the heart of the problem. We are sinners because in Adam all were cursed with sin and death.
In what sense was Paul "peeling back the layers of sin"? Paul moves from the universal, debased sin of the Gentiles to the subtle but no less prevalent sin of the Jews. And Romans 4 has nothing to do with sin; why did Paul have to take a break?

More importantly, Romans 5:12-21 is in no way any "heart" of any emphasis. To reiterate my last post, this section more likely than not paves the way for Romans 6. In the previous chapters Paul preached that grace is freely available for all who will take hold with faith. This however leads to the danger of antinomianism – the idea that since faith is “free” we can continue sinning at leisure – which Paul combats in Romans 6-7. Romans 5:12-21 is thus a setup for Romans 6: the contrast between Adam and Christ sets up the contrast between sin and justification.

Another viewpoint on Romans 5:12-21 is that it is a logical continuation of Romans 5:1-12. Paul has just been expounding the benefits of justification, and he feels the need to further illustrate just how wonderful justification is by comparison with Adam’s failure. In this view, Romans 5:12-21 is a further meditation in the vein and theme of Romans 5:11’s rejoicing.

The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive; if Romans 5:12-21 both illustrates a previous passage and prefigures the next one, then it serves efficiently as a transitional passage. However, its logic is still best connected either with what comes immediately beforehand or what comes immediately afterwards. The connection with Romans 1-3 is tenuous.

This can best be seen by means of a small experiment: read through Romans 1-8 in one sitting, omitting Romans 5:12-21. No difference will be felt in the force of the argument in Romans 1-3 nor in its illustration in Romans 4; the biggest difference will be that the movement between Romans 5:11 and 6:1 may feel unnatural, and this points to precisely the most important role that Romans 5:12-21 plays, namely as a transitional passage.shernren: The funny thing is that Paul accomplishes exactly the opposite of what the creationists think he does. After all, to creationists, the point of Romans 5:12-21 is that we all have something to do with Adam – namely being tainted with the consequences of his sin. But to Paul the point of Romans 5:12-21 (as demonstrated in Romans 6-8) is that we Christians have nothing to do with Adam! Paul’s point is diametrically opposite to that of the creationists.
mark: That is utterly absurd and the exact opposite of the clear meaning of the text. Clearly Paul is saying that just as in Adam all sinned in Christ all are made righteous. Creationists are not interpreting Romans in some new or novel way, they are simply taking it as Christian scholars always have.
“Clearly Paul is saying that just as in Adam all sinned in Christ all are made righteous” – but that is not what Paul says in Romans 5:12-21 (in which neither “in Adam” nor “in Christ” even appear as phrases) or in 1 Corinthians 15:22 which mark has misquoted:For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. [NIV]
But let us see where mark’s analogy takes us. The “all” who are made righteous in Christ certainly does not include the entire human race, as mark should surely agree. (I hope I am not trying to defend my orthodoxy before a universalist! ;) ) By simple analogy, why should we expect the “all” who sinned in Adam to be the entire human race either?

Is the entire human race under judgment? Will the entire human race face condemnation? Does death reign over the entire human race? Surely not – for praise be to Jesus who has set aside a remnant for His glory who will not suffer such things, being covered by His blood! And yet this fate, Paul says, awaits all who are in Adam. How can any Christian possibly escape them – unless we are no longer in Adam, no longer of him? The old has gone, the new has come! In all of this, a comment by Frederick Tennant is most important to set things in their proper context:[Paul] does not attempt to supply exhaustive or systematic instruction with regard to these subjects … Both in Romans 5:12ff and 1 Cor. 15:45ff Adam is made the subject of passing consideration only in order to illustrate the significance of Christ, and the comprehensiveness of His redemptive work.
=========

It is important to have a good overall Biblical conception of original sin. We begin in Genesis 3 in the Garden of Eden where – surprise! – no such thing can be seen. Of course, there is the reference to the seed of the woman and of the serpent in 3:15, which hints that the struggle in the garden will continue across the generations. And the punishment of woman and man is described in terms which continue to resonate with us today – for their curse sounds precisely like our own. Yet God never promises to corrupt the nature of Adam and Eve’s children. For God to be silent about doing such a thing at the only possible moment He could have decreed it – shouldn’t that alone bring enough suspicion? And there is a hint of some innocence even in Cain: sin is crouching “at his door” in Genesis 4:7, and not already inside him.

Importantly, the story of the Fall in the Garden of Eden is never again referred to in the Old Testament, even when the ideas of universal sin are being developed in the Prophets. Instead (or complementarily), the idea of generational punishment begins to develop:You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
[Exo 20:5-6 NIV]
Are the children corrupted by the sins of their fathers? Perhaps not, but they are punished nevertheless.

The idea of collective punishment for individual sin may not appeal to the Western individualistic mindset, but it is a strong idea in Eastern community living (as I can personally attest to even today). And so we have the destruction of the families of Korah, Abiathar and Dathan for the sins of their heads (Num 16); Achan’s family is stoned along with him (Joshua 7); Saul’s sons are executed for a failure their father committed during his reign (2 Sam 21).

The same sense of community applies also to those not related by blood. In Genesis 12 and 20, the barrenness that strikes transgressors also covers their household and servants; Jonathan’s (inadvertent) breaking of an oath prevents the divine oracle from proclaiming the outcome of a battle (1 Sam 14); all who were in Rahab’s house – not just her family – were safe from the slaughter at Jericho (Joshua 2, 6); the guilt of Jeremiah’s murder would rest not only on his murderers but on the whole city of Jerusalem (Jer 26:15). The same passage of Hebrews 7 demonstrates both senses of community neatly: Levi pays his tithes through Abraham since they are related by paternity; but Jesus receives the promises given to Melchizedek, even though Jesus has no relation to him by lineage.

Why bother? Because surely there is some sense in which people are “in Adam”. However, should we expand those thoughts along the line that people receive some kind of corrupted human nature which is somehow communicated along parental lineage to unsuspecting recipients – a line of thought that is entirely unprecedented in biblical thought and counter to the great stream of individual responsibility (though not punishability) for sins committed? Or should we believe that Paul is simply standing in the great stream of the past books of the Bible, in which an individual can be punished for sins committed by a representative?

If we make the biblical choice and believe the latter then the creationist rhetoric surrounding original sin completely loses its teeth – for it is clear enough from the Old Testament that spiritual solidarity does not necessarily come with biological lineage. No Christian is under Adam, even though every Christian is descended from him (if he is real, of course). Now evolution as a theory is purely concerned with our biology; if our being in Adam has nothing to do with our biology, how can our being in Adam have anything to do with evolution?

And if that is the case, whether or not one accepts evolution has no effect on whether or not one believes the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

=========

Here’s a question for mark in preparation for my next response. Mark is fond of the phrase “first father” used in many commentaries, thinking that it somehow gives him the biblical high ground in saying that Adam had no biological precedent. And yet the phrase is found in only one verse in the Bible. My question for mark is:Who is the “first father” in Isaiah 43:27, and how is your use of the phrase exegetically inappropriate for that passage?

[mark kennedy]

Note firstly that you have grossly misrepresented my position
Note more importantly that I pointed out a logical fallacy, there is a difference between the scientific definition of evolution and one that assumes universal common ancestry. The primary issue is one of geneology and that central emphasis in Genesis and Romans are explicit on this point of contention.

Nowhere have I claimed that Adam is purely figurative. He could be, and I will defend the legitimacy (if not total correctness) of those who believe that he is, but I do not personally hold that position, nor does TEism as a whole hold that position.

That position has been less then clear, you even said earlier, 'if he even existed'. That kind of ambiquity is the mark of what I have come to recognized as Liberal Theology which is little more then secular/naturalistic philosophy put into theological terminology.

Furthermore, accusing me of equivocation is baseless
Yet you do not even address the argument I based it on. You equivocate Evolution as the change of alleles in population over time with universal common ancestry and geocentrism with creationism.

I defined my terms clearly and mark had every opportunity to ask for clarification and redefinition but he did not.
No definition for evolution or theologicial terminology was offered until I did so, your protest is as ambiguise as your position.

I'm sorry but my point (that geocentrism was tied to inspiration) remains unchallenged other than by sheer assertion otherwise.

I never said anything about inspiritation, I said that Adam was directly tied to essential doctrine and geocentrism was not. By the way, the vast majority of astronomers until the 15th century were geocentrists and that was based on observation not Christian doctrine.

the Fathers were unanimously geocentric.
Again, no essential doctrine was effected, more equivocation.

And I hope you will agree with me that the inspiration of the Scriptures is an important doctrine!
It's not the subject of the debate and you have not addressed my central point.

Becoming a slave to righteousness, my dear mark, is "sanctification"; the Christian's being made perfect at the end of time in the power of God as described in Romans 8 is "glorification".
It's bad enough to have TEs condesend to me on scientific issues but to pretend I don't know proof texts on a subject I have studied for over 20 years is absolutely unacceptable. Justification is revealed in Christ, by grace, apart from works. Having become a new creature in Christ you are marked with the Holy Spirit of promise and that begins the sanctification process. To be justified is to have righteousness credited to you much as your bank credits you after a deposite. Sanctification is to be made holy which is to be set aside for God's exclusive use. Both chapters 6 and 7 are elaborating on Paul's recurring theme of dead to sin/alive to God. If santification was the focus of Chapter 6 then why is Paul still wretched in Chapter 7? It's because he is talking about justification that empowers us with grace to overcome our earthly nature and escape the curse of the law. How do we do this? The Holy Spirit and that is what Chapter 8 is about, it's clear enough from the text but TEs simply contradict creationists they need not be substantive in their arguments.
No, you have not made it clear at all. In addition, Romans was not written predominantly to Jewish converts.

Yes I have, the Church at Rome was started in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Every commentary I have seen emphasises this central point. I have elaborated on this many times and why it is unclear to you is a mystery to me since I explained the the mention of Abraham and Adam or both historical parenthesis and lineage focused. I don't think the problem is that you don't understand but that you want to covertly undermine my argument. First you equivicate the scientific definition of evolution with the a priori assumption of universal common lineage and then you pretend that you don't realize Paul's discussion of Abraham and Adam are historical and geneological.

More importantly, Romans 5:12-21 is in no way any "heart" of any emphasis.

Yes it is, Romans 5 is the heart of the emphasis in a lenghty historical prelude laying the historical foundation to the doctrinal section. You think all you have to do is to contradict me at every turn and that's the same as a substantive argument.

Another viewpoint on Romans 5:12-21 is that it is a logical continuation of Romans 5:1-12. Paul has just been expounding the benefits of justification, and he feels the need to further illustrate just how wonderful justification is by comparison with Adam’s failure. In this view, Romans 5:12-21 is a further meditation in the vein and theme of Romans 5:11’s rejoicing.

The theme of the entire treatise is justification, that is to be made or declared righteous. Adam did not just fail he sinned and when Adam and Eve ate we did not fast. Paul would never contradict an historical Adam nor does he ever express the slightest doubt as to him being or first father, why would you unless you are philosophically biased against it.

The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive; if Romans 5:12-21 both illustrates a previous passage and prefigures the next one, then it serves efficiently as a transitional passage. However, its logic is still best connected either with what comes immediately beforehand or what comes immediately afterwards. The connection with Romans 1-3 is tenuous.
This statement is as unclear as it is diversionary. The connection is evident and obvious, up until Romans 3:21 Paul is reading us our Adamic pedigree. Being children of Adam is no cure since even Abraham was made righteous by grace, in fact, he believed God and it was credited to him for righeousness. He then follows the lineage all the way back to Adam which concludes his historical parenthesis and starts his 'What shall we teach' section which is doctrinal.
Here’s a question for mark in preparation for my next response. Mark is fond of the phrase “first father” used in many commentaries, thinking that it somehow gives him the biblical high ground in saying that Adam had no biological precedent. And yet the phrase is found in only one verse in the Bible. My question for mark is:Who is the “first father” in Isaiah 43:27, and how is your use of the phrase exegetically inappropriate for that passage?

Your first father as Jews, namely Jacob/Israel and was judged for it, so will you. We know Abraham sinned because he was saved by faith through grace.

It is I, I, who wipe out, for my own sake, your offenses; your sins I remember no more. Would you have me remember, have us come to trial? Speak up, prove your innocence! Your first father sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me.Till I repudiated the holy gates, put Jacob under the ban, and exposed Israel to scorn.

The hope of the future was described in terms of the past and notice that it is God who wipes out their sin for His own sake. That's the exegetical principle to be taken from this text when examined in it's proper context. Just as we become a new creation in Christ, their will be a new creation of the heavens and the earth.

For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. (Is. 66:21)
What was lost in the first Adam is promised and created in the new Adam (Romans 5). There is also a common them of a new exodus, this colors a lot of his writings and Paul is very found of quoting Isaiah in Romans and elsehwere, probably for that reason. (Is 11:11-16; 43:14-21; 51:9-11).

Finally I do have the Biblical high ground and the interprutation you are imposing on the book of Romans and Genesis are modernist rationalizations, not Christian orthodoxy. Genesis speaks of creation in absolute terms with regards to origins with regards to place, time, order or rank. There are 53 occurrenses when ray-sheeth' (H7225 ראשׁית rê'shîyth) is translated beginning which is a clear referance to the absolute first beginning with regards to time. Another term used in the absolute sense is baw-raw' (H1254 בּרא bârâ') and it means creation ex nihilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo) which means out of nothing and always in referance to God and mostly found in Genesis and Isaiah:

created, 33 Gen:1:1, Gen:1:21, Gen:1:27 (3), Gen:2:3-4 (2), Gen:5:1-2 (3), Gen:6:7, Deu:4:32, Psa:89:12, Psa:102:18, Psa:104:30, Psa:148:5, Isa:40:26, Isa:41:20, Isa:42:5, Isa:43:1, Isa:45:7-8 (2), Isa:45:12, Isa:45:18 (2), Isa:48:7, Isa:54:16 (2), Jer:31:22, Eze:21:30, Eze:28:13, Eze:28:15, Mal:2:10 (Strong's)

Finally, the theme of Genesis which is confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament is Geneological:

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Genesis 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Genesis 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Genesis 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Genesis 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram's father; Genesis 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Genesis 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Genesis 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Genesis 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Genesis 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exodus 1:1-5; also Exodus 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exodus 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary (http://www.studylight.org/dic/fbd/view.cgi?number=T1369))

Rejecting the special creation of Adam is a radical departure from Christian orthodoxy in no uncertain terms. This is affirmed in every Christian tradition before the advent of Darwinism and deliberatly undermines essential doctrine. Theistic evolutionists have been primed for so long by secular academics and scientists to believe they are intellectually superiour to creationists that they even believe themselves to be better theologically grounded. The Darwinian idols of the mind are not limited to science, they breach every academic, scientific and cultural boundry, shamelessly grinding Christian theism down to mythical abstractions. The Scriptures speak clearly to the subject of our historical lineage and it is directly tied to the doctrine of justification by faith but the words of Paul can be twisted:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The modern myth of stone age ape men being our ancestors proceded from the imaginations of Darwinians, not for science. Darwinism has grown to become the Hubris of our age and the premire idol of the mind in modern academia:

The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men's minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance is obtained, they will again in the very instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults. (FRANCIS BACON, "The Idols of the Mind")

Human/ape ancestry is not based on science, it's based on supposition. It's based on fantasy rather then fact and the way evolutionists handle the Scriptures is proof positive for me that their concern for orthodox Christian doctrine is weak at best. The primary focus of Darwinian arguments is not for evolution but against special creation and a catagorical a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. Their not satisfied to limit their vain criticisms to academic and scientific subjects they go right to the heart of traditional Christian theism which was their target from the beginning.

It is remarkable that I have encountered so many of the cults, Catholic and Orthodox traditions and doctrines and yet I consider this one to be more dangerous then even some of the cults and certainly more then Catholic or Orthodox theology. The Scriptures are explicit on this point of doctrine and you must believe either Paul and Moses or Darwin, the two views are mutually exclusive and accepting Darwinism does compromise Christian orthodoxy if not abandon it entirely. Many theistic evolutionists have been lulled into a false sense of security that this is not the case but I find it an inescapable conclusion after years of fielding their arguments.

[shernren]

Firstly, as the next posts will be our last, I wish to thank mark in advance for what has been an invigorating (if not particularly enlightening) discussion on evolution and original sin.

As before, I will not be making a point-by-point reply to mark. My preference in debates is to canvass the general scope of the debate, only using specific quotes to demonstrate the issue. For this penultimate post I will look at the spectrum of liberal ideas on Adam and Eve, as well as critiquing mark’s understanding of Romans in particular and Pauline theology in general.

=========

My other issue in this post is something mark himself has keenly noted:

It's bad enough to have TEs condescend to me on scientific issues but to pretend I don't know proof texts on a subject I have studied for over 20 years is absolutely unacceptable.

Oh mark, I am not pretending. I sincerely mean it. ;) More specifically though, I think you have become so used to these passages and what you think they are saying that you have long been blinded to what they actually say. You who would speak against Francis Bacon’s idols of the mind seem to have fallen prey to one of them! The Idols of the Cave, Bacon says, come about because “everyone (besides the errors common to human nature in general) has a cave or den of his own, which refracts and discolors the light of nature…”

He warns that “men of this kind, if they betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general character, distort and color them in obedience to their former fancies”, and tells us to keep the Idol at bay in this way: “whatever his mind seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion, and that so much the more care is to be taken in dealing with such questions to keep the understanding even and clear.”

What, other than an Idol of the Cave, could possibly induce you to attribute the following words and ideas to Paul?

...The primary issue is one of geneology and that central emphasis in Genesis and Romans are explicit on this point of contention.

The connection is evident and obvious, up until Romans 3:21 Paul is reading us our Adamic pedigree. Being children of Adam is no cure since even Abraham was made righteous by grace, in fact, he believed God and it was credited to him for righeousness. He then follows the lineage all the way back to Adam which concludes his historical parenthesis and starts his 'What shall we teach' section which is doctrinal.

Yes it is, Romans 5 is the heart of the emphasis in a lengthy historical prelude laying the historical foundation to the doctrinal section. You think all you have to do is to contradict me at every turn and that's the same as a substantive argument.

… you pretend that you don't realize Paul's discussion of Abraham and Adam are historical and geneological.

By the by, no other commentator refers to Romans 5:12-21 as a climax or pinnacle of any kind. Martin Luther calls it an enjoyable digression; John Stott calls it a “necessary transition” (with precisely the kind of language you labelled “unclear and diversionary”; Charles Hodge calls it a summary of what has gone before; Ray Stedman calls it an argument supporting verse 11 and showing why we should rejoice in God.

In any case, you display far worse misunderstandings of Paul. “Pedigree”? “Lineage”? “Historical prelude”? “Geneological [sic]”? You sound like you have never read anything Paul wrote besides Romans 5:12-21! Genealogy may be the foremost concern on your mind, but I am hardly convinced that it was on Paul's mind, for the following reasons.

One does not write a historical prelude by referring to general truths and broad archetypal descriptions the way Paul did in Romans 1:13-3:31. You want to know what a historical prelude looks like? Go read Acts 7:1-53. Stephen recounts play by play, almost word for word, multiple specific historical events demonstrating again and again the sinfulness of the Israelites.

Put Romans 1:18-3:31 next to that and you will see that calling it a historical prelude is like calling the Da Vinci Code a work of journalism. Why, there isn’t even one single proper name in the whole thing other than Christ Jesus, let alone specific historical acts. Romans 4 might convincingly be called a historical prelude but it deals only with one specific demonstration of faith (and one which makes no mention whatsoever of God’s dealings with Abraham’s descendants, at that), and Romans 5:1-12 is about as doctrinal as you can get, while Romans 5:12-21 never specifically describes (and barely mentions) the Fall.

(Interestingly, the most detailed description Paul actually makes of the actual Fall story comes in 1 Tim 2:13-14. Compared to this, Paul’s other citations mention no event details and only one name [Adam, which might as well be a nickname for humanity]. You would then think that the most detailed description of the Fall must support the most important doctrine that comes from it, right? And yet the elaborate description of who sinned first props up the wonderful Pauline doctrine of female silence in the assembly, a doctrine almost no church I know of holds to – a stunning discrepancy. Apparently, while creationists think the story of the Fall is important, they can’t quite agree with Paul on what it’s important for. ;) )

By the way, you do remember how Paul reacted to that historical prelude in Acts, don’t you? “Then they cast [Stephen] out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.” [Act 7:58 ESV] … looks like Paul wasn’t a fan of long historical preludes even then. ;)

And does a concern with pedigree and lineage sound like Paul? Perhaps you could be excused of saying such a thing of the author of Hebrews; but Paul said, not once but twice, and to two separate apprentices:

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [1Ti 1:3-4 ESV]

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. [Tit 3:9 ESV]

Why, Paul wasn’t even concerned about his own lineage. Paul cites it twice: once in Romans 11, only to demonstrate that there were still ethnic Jews who worshipped Christ, and more revealingly in Phillippians where he says:

… If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ … [Php 3:4-8 ESV]

“Count them as rubbish”, the man says! If Paul counted his own lineage, the very best you could possibly display, as rubbish, why would spend the first third of his most doctrinal book poking his nose into the lineage of people he had never met and telling them that it had defined their relationship with God up to the point of salvation? This kind of preoccupation just does not seem like the Paul of the rest of the New Testament!

As for the structure of Romans itself, you say:

It's bad enough to have TEs condescend to me on scientific issues but to pretend I don't know proof texts on a subject I have studied for over 20 years is absolutely unacceptable.

Justification is revealed in Christ, by grace, apart from works. Having become a new creature in Christ you are marked with the Holy Spirit of promise and that begins the sanctification process. To be justified is to have righteousness credited to you much as your bank credits you after a deposit. Sanctification is to be made holy which is to be set aside for God's exclusive use. Both chapters 6 and 7 are elaborating on Paul's recurring theme of dead to sin/alive to God. If santification was the focus of Chapter 6 then why is Paul still wretched in Chapter 7? It's because he is talking about justification that empowers us with grace to overcome our earthly nature and escape the curse of the law. How do we do this? The Holy Spirit and that is what Chapter 8 is about, it's clear enough from the text but TEs simply contradict creationists they need not be substantive in their arguments.


(By the by, I know what justification is. It’s bad enough to have you talk condescendingly to me on scientific issues, but to pretend I don’t know theology which I have studied for … okay it’s time for me to display a little humility for once. ;) )

On this point the discussion is in danger of degenerating into meaningless semantics (what an oxymoron!). But if you will not take on my word that Chapter 6 is concerned with sanctification, perhaps you will take Paul’s word on it?

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. [Rom 6:19 ESV]

Sanctification, or being made holy, is both the process of our being trained in the ways of holiness here on Earth and our being made completely holy on the Last Day. Paul speaks of sanctification as a process:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor … [1Th 4:3-4 ESV]

Is this process complete on Earth? Certainly not. Why is Paul still wretched in Chapter 7? Because he realizes the operation of strange principles in him that resist sanctification, the very sanctification that he has been speaking of in the previous two chapters. Is Chapter 8 about sanctification? Yes, but at the same time it also speaks of the eternal state of ultimate holiness that we cannot reach in our own efforts (even as Christians), a state most commonly referred to by theologians as glorification.

[shernren]

Let me continue by making clear something that was only implicit in my arguments:

That position has been less then clear, you even said earlier, 'if he even existed'. That kind of ambiguity is the mark of what I have come to recognized as Liberal Theology which is little more than secular/naturalistic philosophy put into theological terminology.

I apologise if my position has seemed ambiguous to mark or any other readers. However, I am not here just to defend my individual position on origins (which itself is still in flux – I have only been in this game for a few years after all). I don’t want to win anyone over to evolution (or think I could); I want those who remain unconvinced to see that we do understand what we speak of and that we do not place ourselves outside the great stream of Christian orthodoxy, even if they would not take our position themselves.

That means I hope to speak of the soundness of not just my own views but that of evolutionists both more liberal and more conservative than myself. I am trying to broker peace, not start a war; of necessity my instruments will not be as pointed as the swords and spears mark may have had in mind. Note that few, if any, of my points have referred at all to evolution! I have said nothing of the timescale of human evolution, or to the nature of our ancestors, or indeed to the very mechanism of natural selection.

By the way, there is a pleasing symmetry to mark’s accusation: mark himself has offered no theology of original sin, either! To be sure, he has made frequent reference to the Scriptural idea that “in Adam all sin”. Never mind that this phrasing isn’t even in Romans 5; I have essentially made his point for him at the end of my previous post, as well as in an accompanying post in the peanut gallery. (“You believe that God is one? Good! Even the demons do so, and tremble …”)

If I must admit ambiguity, I should also point out mark’s utter ambivalence as to how we have all sinned in Adam. Did we, for example, all inherit a corrupted nature from Adam, so that we cannot help but sin on our own and are thus punished for those sins? Or is it that Adam is our “federal head”, so that quite irrespective of what we do, God sees us under Adam’s umbrella and thus assigns his punishment to us? Perhaps it is a hybrid of both? Or neither?

Isn’t it utterly strange that it has been left to the evolutionist in this debate to enumerate the various classical positions on original sin? (Perhaps mark simply doesn’t have the mental capacity to distinguish between the various views but I am far too charitable to believe that.) Having enumerated these theories, let me get my hands dirty and show how these theories would work in different biological origin settings.
Setting 1: The events of Genesis 1-11 literally and historically happened: namely, that the Earth was created in six days roughly six thousand years ago, and Adam and Eve created supernaturally, the biological ancestors of all humans today. [YEC]
Setting 2: The description of Genesis 1 is figurative: the universe and the Earth are old, and all life other than humans evolved. However, most of the events of Genesis 2-11 literally and historically happened: Adam and Eve were created supernaturally, the biological ancestors of all humans today. [OEC]
Note that these two settings are identical in terms of original sin, since the events of Genesis 3 literally occurred in the second setting.
Setting 3: The descriptions of Genesis 1-11 are figurative. The universe and the Earth are old and all life evolved, including Homo sapiens. However, Homo sapiens was an unthinking brute until God chose Adam and Eve and gave them supernaturally endowed intelligence and spirituality. However, they sinned and fell, but all humanity is descended from this one couple. [OEC/ID]
Again note that in this setting all the traditional theories of original sin would hold; indeed, this is a position quite widely held in the world of conservative theology, with people like John Stott and Derek Kidner holding to it (or to a variant of it). Note that since in this view all people are descended from Adam, Romans 5:12-21 and other Pauline passages are literally true in about every sense imaginable.
Setting 4: The descriptions of Genesis 1-11 are figurative. The universe and the Earth are old and all life evolved, including Homo sapiens. However, after Homo sapiens had developed intelligence and culture through evolution, God chose a starting community of humans and entered into relationship with them, thus endowing them with spirituality. However, they sinned and fell, and all humanity is descended from them. [TE, conservative]
Is there any theological difference if intelligence and culture are evolved or granted supernaturally? Not really; after all, in the traditional theological understanding of original sin, one is a sinner whether one is smart or stupid, cultured or barbarian.

Is there any theological difference if the first sins were done by a community instead of an individual? Not really. If one adheres to the “original taint” theory of original sin then there might be an issue regarding biological lineage; suffice to say for now that tying original sin to biological lineage alone raises many, many problems, some of which I will describe later and some I will discuss in my closing post. Paul himself plays fast and loose with the question of who sinned first (in Romans it seems to be Adam, but in 1 Tim 2:14 it is Eve!); what matters is the solidarity of man in sin, whether it is solidarity with a single sinful individual or with a first sinful community (which after all is really a collection of single sinful individuals, any one of which we might as well designate “Adam” to get us right back to something that looks extremely orthodox).
Setting 5: The descriptions of Genesis 1-11 are figurative. The universe and the Earth are old and all life evolved, including Homo sapiens. God and humanity developed a relationship through unspecified means, but each man in and for himself inevitably sins, breaking his relationship with God, a relationship that can only be restored by the application of grace made available through Christ’s propitiatory death on the cross. [TE, liberal]
Is there any theological difference between this and the more conservative TE view? Certainly, and significant ones at that. To me this view lacks an understanding of the solidarity of sinful humanity, something which is obvious in the Bible and which should not be dismissed as simply an artefact of previous, less “ethical” beliefs. We do not each sin on our own, we drag each other down in sin, and we are all dragged down in sin in a network which ultimately traces back to Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. (And I have at points almost disagreed with other TEs on this very matter.)

However: have all sinned? Certainly. Have all fallen short of the glory of God? Definitely. Is their future in their natural condition eternal perdition? There is no other option. Can any person save themselves without God’s help? In no way. And is Christ the only way to human freedom and restored relationship with God? Absolutely. And this persists throughout all of the settings I described earlier, whatever the age of the universe is, whatever the age of the Earth is, whether man evolved or was created supernaturally, whether the story of Adam and Eve literally happened or is just a retelling of the same fundamental truth of sinfulness for less modern (though no less intelligent) minds.

Even in the most liberal setting 5, the core of the gospel has been held fast to. Mark will challenge this, and my question to him if he does is to name one specific aspect of the gospel that is missing in this picture, and show that it is universally agreed to in all other presentations of the gospel. The Four Spiritual Laws, the Bridge Illustration, the Two Ways to Live presentation, the Alpha Course – all these would be suitably summarized by what I have just described.

Of course, this brief presentation can only scratch the surface of the vast spectrum of theological beliefs held by the TE camp. It may seem hopelessly unruly; but remember, conservative critics, that the theory of evolution has only been around for a century and a half, and that definitive evidence for human evolution has only really been on the table for the last eighty years or so. The very canon of Scripture took many centuries to solidify (and to this day there are still dissenters who would add or take away); the issue of original sin concerns nothing less than the very heart of what it means to be human at all, a question that will probably take centuries more to unravel.

We preach the same gospel. Have the grace to let us differ over incidental details.

[As an aside, I have deliberately left out or said very little about a vital element of the Fall in these descriptions. What is it? This is a test for mark; I will be writing some reflections on it in my final post.]

=========

I apologize for the vast length of this reply; but I think this has enabled me to complete the essentials of my arguments. While mark has one post left to go, I doubt he will say anything very novel, and so my final post will be less a response to his final post as a series of closing thoughts and meditations on the theme of this debate.