21

One answer to this previous question asks,

One of the problems I have with theistic evolution is: when did this alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins? [sic]

It would seem that this is a fundamental problem with TE - it denies the legitimacy of Adam's Fall as being representative for the entire human race (as Paul explains in Romans 5).

How does TE understand\explain awareness of and responsibility for sin?

Community
  • 1
warren
  • 12,665
  • 5
  • 47
  • 108
  • 2
    Unfortunately, I don't know enough to speak for most TE'ers, so I won't give this as an answer, but I personally believe that Adam and Eve were the first ones to have human souls. – El'endia Starman Aug 17 '12 at 20:30
  • It seems your question, as currently written, presumes belief in the inheritance of Original Sin. That in itself may be an unreliable presumption, but the root of the question here is definitely interesting. – Iszi Aug 17 '12 at 20:59
  • I think the question is a red herring. When does any of us become aware of and accountable for our sin? Can you look back on your own life and point to a single moment of accountability? – kurosch Aug 17 '12 at 22:25
  • 3
    For in depth articles and dicussions of this and other TE questions see the excellent Biologos website – Justsalt Aug 21 '12 at 17:03
  • 1
    @kurosch perhaps you should ask instead if you have ever sinned without first being taught that it was a sin, yet you still felt guilty or at least funny about it? I do not have single moment I remember where I sinned and did not know about it AND felt no guilt. –  Mar 13 '13 at 09:18

1 Answers1

8

First, a disclaimer: Theistic evolution (TE) is neither a theological system nor an alternative to mainstream evolutionary science. TE is an awkward label applied to people who accept evolutionary theory and also believe in God. Those who claim this label are not a unified group. The following is my own understanding, which is still evolving.

The early chapters of Genesis, taken as historical narrative, are impossible to reconcile with mainstream evolutionary biology. To accept evolution as fact is to deny Adam and Eve as history.

On the other hand, the typology of Adam and Eve does not change if they are not historical figures. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, then it is an allegory explaining the beginnings of God's relationship with created beings.

Put into a framework of hominid evolution, Adam and Eve represent the first beings capable of living in relationship with God. This is represented by God's breathing the "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) into them.

The eating of the forbidden fruit that "opened their eyes" (Genesis 3:7) is a poetic reference to the awakening that transformed amoral hominids into moral agents, capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

And I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that this moral awakening grew directly out of an experience (or multiple experiences) of realizing the consequences of wrong actions. That's one of the lessons of Adam and Eve: actions have consequences.

So, no TE does not necessarily deny Adam's fall as being representative of the entire human race. In fact, from a TE perspective we could say Adam's fall is nothing other than representative of the entire human race.

And in answer to the question in the title, the "alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man" became accountable for his sins when he first became aware that he was acting against the will of God.

Bruce Alderman
  • 10,674
  • 6
  • 47
  • 81
  • 3
    One glitch here is that it becomes essential to define "moral choices". For example, it might be pretty easy to show many primates making what could easily be classed "moral choices" (example 1 | example 2 | example 3) - does that make them human? – Marc Gravell Aug 17 '12 at 22:41
  • 2
    Excellent answer, except the last line. We're human even before we can make moral choices (and for some people that's their entire life). – kurosch Aug 17 '12 at 23:24
  • @MarcGravell, kurosch: Good points. I may need to reconsider my conclusion. – Bruce Alderman Aug 17 '12 at 23:42
  • 3
    If they were amoral hominids, then eating the fruit could not have been a sin for which they were accountable - they must have been moral agents before eating the fruit. Furthermore, Genesis teaches we were made in the image of God before we ate the fruit, so the consequences of eating it cannot be to be transformed into being which image God. –  Aug 20 '12 at 22:14
  • @SoftwareMonkey: Good points. I can see that I still have a lot of work to do on this answer. – Bruce Alderman Aug 21 '12 at 15:33
  • What makes things difficult is that the genesis account IS presented as a history (with specific chronology, geography, description of people and cities, etc.) and not an allegory, especially moving into ch.6 and beyond. And so to acknowledge evolution as fact is not only to deny the historicity of genesis, but the truth at all of (some of) it. It is to imply that the book is a made-up story, plain and simple. – khaverim Apr 30 '14 at 09:36
  • @khanahk I see plenty of indicators in Genesis 1-3 (the most relevant part to this discussion) that these chapters are not presented as history, that they are intended to be read metaphorically. The supernatural trees at the center of the garden; the talking serpent; the God who isn't sure what kind of helper Adam needs, and who has to leave heaven and walk in the garden to find out what the humans are up to. All of these point to something other than history. – Bruce Alderman May 01 '14 at 20:53
  • And then there are numerous references in the New Testament treating these chapters typologically or allegorically (e.g. Romans 5:14 explicitly calls Adam a type; 1 Corinthians 15:45 contrasts Adam, with Jesus as the "last Adam"; Hebrews 4 speaks of God's day of rest as a metaphor for new life in Christ). The truth of Genesis is found in the things it points to, not in its own historicity. – Bruce Alderman May 01 '14 at 20:54
  • @BruceAlderman granted there are elements especially in ch.1-3 that can be considered metaphorical -- it still says that Adam lived 930 years. It still tells the name of his son's city etc. There's no room to doubt -- Adam is a literal person according to the Bible. Then onward, you can trace the genealogy from Adam to Christ, directly. It's 64 generations of mankind (through Joseph's bloodline). Besides this, there are other stories moving from Genesis that have a similar aspect, e.g. when the Lord "appears" to Abraham and talks with him directly, and "reasons" with him over the fate of Sodom – khaverim May 01 '14 at 23:59
  • I think for most the crucial distinction between humans and animals is not "the ability to make moral choices" but rather "the ability to relate to God." Although they are likely related (theologically, philosophically, biologically, etc), I think most would say they are not at all the same thing. A human who consciously chooses to reject God is still able to make moral choices, but, at least according to much Christian theology, incapable of relating to God. – Flimzy Oct 04 '15 at 11:14