This was an interesting post, Michael (and the responses were interesting, too).
Your “interpretation” of how it’s just for us to be held accountable based upon the idea that we all “would have done the same thing as Adam” is informative and insightful.
What I like even better is that you put it forth as an OPINION, not an ABSOLUTE FACT. R.C. Sproul was guilty of doing this (saying that the “Bilical Teaching is that in Adam, we all ate the sour grapes” when he should have said, “MY PERSONAL OPINION IS “). There is NO final answer on THIS SIDE OF DEATH and I think that God is VERY KIND for having it be this way.
The problem that I have with your interpretation, though, Michael, is this. If 5 billion out of 5 billiion people, when confronted with the choice “to sin or not to sin” (since BEFORE this, man did not have a sinful nature) what are the chances that 5 billion out of 5 billion people WOULD HAVE CHOSEN SIN?? That’s like saying, “What are the chances of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 5 billion out of 5 billion times??” Not even 1-in-5 billion! No, 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 (5 billion times removed).
But if given a transient nature (a term that the Theologan “Jonathan Edwards used to describe the ‘ability to sin or not to sin’) BEOFRE the fall (whereupon AFTER, it went from “able to sin or not sin” to “able only to sin”), it may be that given enough time and opportunities, it might be VERY UNLIKELY that any individual would choose NOT TO SIN on ALL of those opportunities. So that could be the key and it may well be along the lines of what you were saying that sooner or later, we’d have fallen to the temptation. But this still leaves something UNSOLVED: if it is so inevitable to NEVER SIN (given the ability to sin or not to sin), then it DOES seem UNJUST to be condemned for ONE SIN whereby it would SEEM (to my own frail human interpretation) that we should not be “eternally condemned” unless we sinned more than say, 50% of the time or maybe 60% of the time. BUT HERE IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD as they say. The “whys” and the “hows” of imputation of sin and the “how is it just to punish ALL for the sins of ONE” or “how is it just to punish a person for sinning ONCE when given a transient nature, the odds of NEVER SINNING if given even 10 occasions would be “1 in 2 to the 10th” or 1/1024?” must remain unanswered.
Shame on R.C. Sproul for saying “This IS the answer” and playing with people’s minds when it’s better that we DON”T know the answer ON THIS SIDE OF DEATH (some of us would like to believe that WE ALL would have sinned IN ORDER THAT then, God would be JUST while others of us-and I am one of these latter people-would like to believe that WE-ourselves-might NOT HAVE SINNED.

All,

Respectfully…

How does one classify any of “the very word of God” as being obscure?

2 Timothy 3:16 NIV: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Also, the story of Job was certainly not for God’s edification… He knew the outcome even before the Creation. I see the story of Job as a demonstration of perseverance, by faith, while under extreme suffering. This lesson was meant for all who have since heard this story, believed it to be the truth, and were encouraged by it…

Humbly, In Christ,

Dan…

I think the point of the Enoch story was missed in this discussion. His name is brought in a discussion of faith…by faith…by faith. The whole point is that we must have faith in order to please God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Indeed, without faith we would rather curse God than please Him. Faith is the key. Let us all humbly thank God for our faith his Son Jesus Christ and repent of our sin that makes little of His love.

I would just return to the original statement I made, don’t build doctrine off of obscure passages.

Thanks for the conversation, sorry I cannot engage too much.

Thank you, Mr. Patton.

I was never taught that I could simply reject a Biblical passage because I thought it was not “clear and expedient” . I was rather taught that given two seemingly contradictory passages, I had to do my best to reconcile the two through reference to other Scriptures and theological documents.

You wrote: “Frankly, it is a bit of a waste of time to argue, as you seem to be, that the implications you draw for some doctrine tied to the Hebrews passage about Enoch is either as clear or as expedient as the doctrine of original sin drawn from many passages and dealt with by theologians from the very beginning.”

As you will remember, I was not using the Enoch passage to contradict original sin per se, but rather (along with the entire Book of Job) to take issue that God thought mankind would be as helplessly sinful as Adam.

Despite your response to my comment on the God of Job (“Concerning Job, I would not give him too much credit in relation to this. While he never denied or cursed God, he did have his share of problems. Notice God’s rebuke of him and his attitude and his repentance in chapter 40 and following.”), the fact remains that it was God who bet on Job’s righteousness, and it was Satan who bet on Job’s sinfullness. And despite Job’s “share of problems”, all “theologians from the very beginning” have agreed that God won the bet.

So it’s not just a few obscure passages that say God believes in the righteousness of man (thereby obviating the need for any collective brotherhood of original sin to give us a sense of solidarity), but rather an entire book in the Old Testament. And, I might add, one that could hardly be considered an obscure text.

It would be nice if we could just brush away inexpedient passages by citing “theologians from the very beginning”, but that would not help us when we ran into others whose theologians from the very beginning claimed something else. And they always will.

Here for your review is the Wikipedia entry on the Pelagians:

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ad. 354 – ad. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam’s sin was “to set a bad example” for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as “setting a good example” for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.”

So the doctrine of original sin has not been agreed upon by theologians from the beginning, nor is it agreed upon by many today. For this reason, rather than relying on the everyone-has-agreed-from-the-beginning-that-this-passage-is-irrelevent argument, I would rather discuss the merits of the doctrine of inherited sin based on what has been affirmed by all the Biblical passages that spoke of it–including the Ezekiel 18 chapter that you rejected earlier–and then use our good minds and communion with Spirit to reconcile any seeming disparity.

Thank you for your engagement in this discussion, Mr. Patton.
Lynne Monds

The passage about and your implications of Enoch are obscure and minimal. Because of this, I would not compare it to the doctrine of original sin. In all of church and doctrinal history the church has recognized that there is no comparison between the two. Frankly, it is a bit of a waste of time to argue, as you seem to be, that the implications you draw for some doctrine tied to the Hebrews passage about Enoch is either as clear or as expedient as the doctrine of original sin drawn from many passages and dealt with by theologians from the very beginning.

BTW: No one believes that Paul wrote Hebrews…or, vertiually no one. But that is beside the point since who wrote it does not add the kind of value relavent to this conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Patton.

I’m not sure why you say “because a document is ancient, does not discredit it in any sense” or “Do you have a reason for rejecting documents that are 2000 years or older?”. I did not think we were having a conversation about rejecting documents, but rather about how theology is built. And my response was simply in agreement with your comment that “..I would take the Augustinian approach to such in that I would not build theology from obscure texts.”

Even though I do not selectively build theology from one or two obscure texts, I actually accept the entire Bible–Romans and Hebrews and Genesis, wherein Enoch was translated–with equal reverence. I am deeply grateful for the the comprehensive body of Holy Scriptures for giving me the theological basis for my thoughts, words and deeds.

Regarding the Holy Scriptures, Romans 5:12, I take Paul’s words to have the literal meaning of my King James Version: “Wherefore, 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.”

In other words, because Adam brought sin into the world, therefore have all men sinned and have suffered death thereby.

Employing then this scripture to build a theology, I conclude that I should not sin, or I will suffer the wages of sin, which is death.

Now at this point I will say that I wondered why you said, “I would not place the Hebrews passage and Romans 5 in the same category.” They are both attributed to Paul, after all. And if we are going to select one over the other for theological soundness, I would choose Hebrews, since it is written later than Romans and therefore should be considered to update his earlier views.

So continuing my endeavor to build a theology from the epistles of Paul, I learn from Hebrews 11:5 that anyone who is as righteous as Enoch can go to heaven. So I strive to be righteous.

And so on with the other passages as I read through the Scriptures.

This, I believe, is the way to build theology–through communing with a multitude of passages, not just one or two selectively chosen to justify a certain perspective. Using this practice we obtain a broader picture brought forth through the many prophets that God used to tell His story of plan to bring home His wayward earthly children.

Thank you again for this interesting dialogue.

Lynne Monds

I would not place the Hebrews passage and Romans 5 in the same category. Romans 5 certianly has had some disagreement as to the particulars (e.g. is “sin” in 5:12 a historic aorist; how the “many” is parallel in the accounts of Christ and Adam, etc.), but that original sin is taught is something that most Christians have always agreed upon (with some differences in the Eastern Church). As well, Romans 5 is not the only passage from which this concept is derived.

Finally, because a document is ancient, does not discredit it in any sense. If it does, then we are pretty much devoid of all ancient knowledge upon which most current understanding is built.

Do you have a reason for rejecting documents that are 2000 years or older? How far back can they go and you will consider them? To the enlighenment? Or am I misunderstanding?

Thank you, Mr. Patten.

That theology should not be built from obscure texts is something we can both agree on. Yet the entire theology of original sin itself derives from an obscure text: Romans 5:12—or at least from some interpretations thereof.

As a matter of fact all Christian theology is built from obscure texts written thousands of years ago. If we can both agree that Christianity should not build a theology around Hebrews 11, can we also agree it should not build a theology around Romans 5?

That for me would be a worthwhile resolution to this discussion.

Lynne Monds

I wish I knew, but I would take the Augustinian approach to such in that I would not build theology from obscure texts. We don’t know enough about the situation to tell.