On the issue of evolution, I can respect your views entirely, and I have always promoted a very irenic approach to this: HOW and WHEN God created is not a salvation issue, and to create dogmatic lines in the sand where they don’t need to be can only do more harm than good. It is only the dogmatic “either/or” that makes the slope slippery in the first place.

I would love to see it become a non-issue, and have ALL Christians focus on opposing atheism and philosophical naturalism itself that those various things which people think can LEAD to them.

Theres still hope for you Michael, turn away from the drinking, playing cards,
and laughing at jokes and you may recover.

While I don’t agree with evolution I am interested in what you have to say. So I just listen so I don’t say something stupid.

I would not say that I am not well read on the subject, but keeping up with it all is difficult. Science is so dynamic that I remain skeptical (in a postmodern sense) of many claims . . . Unless, of course, it agrees with my presups. Then I jump on the band wagon

You could at least yell back at the screen!
See, here you present a logical, comprehensive and systematic overview of imputed sin and I come along and grab that ball and run off into the woods with it! Doesn’t that just rile you up?

BTW, I have been listening to your bibliology series and I keep waiting to disagree, waiting for you to overstate your case, etc. But so far, I am disappointingly in agreement with you! Of course, I am not done yet . . .

You are right about the danger of reading too much into the text, and so I want to make clear one little bit. I am not saying that I have any reason to believe Scripture is trying to tell us that this exact process happened via evolution, etc. I think that Scripture only tells us what we need to know for our salvation and edification. I think that the “need to know” here is on the broader level. God DID create Mankind, it WAS in “His Image”, Mankind did have the opportunity to commune with God in spiritual life, Mankind DID Fall, etc.

All I am doing is seeing, more as a matter of curiosity than anything else, whether what Michael is talking about fits in with my general “theistic evolution” approach. I am leaving the Scripture as it is: telling us the WHO and WHY, not the HOW and WHEN.

As for the Fall and God’s Image, I think the “Image of God” has to do with our having a consciousness, a self-awareness and ability to make the types of choices mentioned above. It is what makes us ABLE to either be in communion with God, or be in sin. Again, I think it HAS to mean that, whether it is by way of special creation or evolution with a divine intervention. Adam WAS created in the Image of God, and Adam DID choose to disobey, and thus sin. So, by definition, being in the Image of God does not mean being equal to God, and does not seem to preclude sinning.

You said:

“The Bible says that God created Adam, THEN God placed Adam in the Garden. Where was Adam created, if it was outside the Garden? What happened when God “breathed” into Adam? I think that this symbolizes an historical event, something happened where God engaged with the human species and provided Mankind with a something new, some divine intervention which allowed them to be “created in the image of God”.”

I’ve never thought of it in that way and it makes sense in some ways. But for me it seems you have to read too much into the text with stuff that isn’t there (I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way at all, just my perspective).

Curious, what do you do with the Fall itself? If in fact God “breathing” onto Adam symbolized an historical event, which allowed man to be “created in the image of God”, did God remove His image from man after the Fall; since we are naturally (as you stated) unable to be obedient to Him by ourselves because of our selfish nature?

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

P.S. I like these mental exercises, you certainly think outside the box!

I don’t think there can be sin without consciousness and choice. Thus, I don’t think animals can sin, even though they have the same selfish genetic make-up that we do. Sin results from rejecting God’s plan for allowing us to rise above our selfish nature.

The Bible says that God created Adam, THEN God placed Adam in the Garden. Where was Adam created, if it was outside the Garden? What happened when God “breathed” into Adam? I think that this symbolizes an historical event, something happened where God engaged with the human species and provided Mankind with a something new, some divine intervention which allowed them to be “created in the image of God”.

With this came the ability to commune with God “in the Garden”, to rise above the selfish nature and be regenerated into a sinless, unselfish being, wholly a gift from God, not of our doing. He gave us the opportunity for spiritual life. All we had to do was obey and accept the gift God freely gave.

But, as we see in Scripture (and the world around us), Mankind somehow rejected this, disobeyed, and made choices based on their selfish nature.

The dilemma you raise IS an issue, but it is not one that is raised by my approach, it is inherent in the scenario itself. Adam and Eve (Mankind, if you like) was ABLE to be tempted and to make the selfish, sinful choice. So, God obviously CREATED them with this ability, whether you consider it an evolutionary development, or a product of special creation. The selfish instinct was there, and it was from God, either way. This “inevitableness” issue has been raised for hundreds of years, and is not unique to my approach.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

I think you have some difficulty with that line of reasoning.

If you say that we have a “selfish gene”, and I think you equate this (in some way at least) to the understanding of mans inability (depravity) to do good (in its “true” sense, you listed other reasons why we do “good” but it’s not really good [in the God sense] at all).

Does it not follow that God (who used the evolutionary process, as you say); is then the author of sin? Because after all, if He guided the evolutionary process, then He fully created and developed (I’m not sure how you would classify God’s Hand in using evolution as His method for creation) the “selfish gene” and there really wasn’t “free will” at all; the Fall was merely a biological response, which is no different from a mother lion leaving her “gimped” cub because she knew it would not survive.

It seems along this line of reasoning we could say it was only “natural” for Adam to sin, because it was within his genetic make up to do so. Thus there should be no moral outrage on Gods part, because it was no in no way a moral act of the will, it was merely what Adam was “programmed” (genetically) to do.

Hopefully I haven’t miss-understood you, if I have please correct me.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

The basis of all sin is selfishness. Ultimately, what makes Mankind a sinful being is that we seek our own way, our own desires, what we believe meets our needs. I think just about every sin can be linked to this human trait, this drive, rising to the level of human instinct, to think of ourselves first and foremost.

Conversely, what God calls us to, and enables us to work toward, is just the opposite, to put GOD and OTHERS first. Jesus gave us two commandments: love God with all your heart, and love others AS YOURSELF. These are exactly the two things that we can not do on our own, since we are instinctively selfish, ie sinful, creatures.

Now, here comes the twist, and it is something I am just pondering. As you may know, I am one who accepts (right along with the Intelligent Design scientists) that God created through evolutionary processes, including the development of Mankind. I do not want to get into that debate, but the points you make has created some possible links with a “theistic evolution” approach.

As you may know, one of the primary tenets of evolutionary theory is the “selfish gene” concept. This is the idea that for evolution to work, each organism must ultimately working for its own survival, meaning at the genetic level, the survival of the genetic line. Thus, each individual seeks to its own good, but at times will sacrifice itself for the good of its genetic line. This is not some moral act, but still a selfish one overall. There is a CORPORATE nature to this selfishness, a species-wide selfishness.

Thus, humans are hard-wired, in our natural state, to be selfish, ie, sinful. Right down to the genetic level. This does not mean we would never sacrifice ourselves for, say, our children. But, ultimately, we do not put each other first, we do not put God first. We put ourselves, and our agenda, first.

Thus, the theory of evolutionary development supports the concept of an inherent selfishness, an inherent sinfulness.

Gives me a lot of food for thought . . .

Kinda off topic, but I would be curious your thoughts (on a future blog)
on two things:

1. How human was Christ?
-Could he have “really” sinned?
-To what extend did he have foreknowledge?
-etc

2. How should those in Christ look at passages in reguard to judgement?
-Passages like 1st Cor. 3:11-15 etc.

Thanks for your wonderful ministry.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh