What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?

[St. SteVen]

Since Jesus died to pay the death penalty for original sin, what happens if you remove the original sinner?

Or to state this another way... How does our view of origins affect our doctrine?

Trying to sort this out in my own mind. Stuck somewhere between science and religion.

Send help! - LOL

This scripture shows that the fate of all humankind rested on the actions of the two Adams.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Chadrho]

This scripture shows that the fate of all humankind rested on the actions of the two Adams

(This turned out to be incredibly long. Sorry, y'all)

For me, the place between science and religion is myth and metaphor, i.e. spiritual readings that treat the scriptures as sacramental-revealing Christ and the divine intention for love and life. But that might seem a bit hasty. Lol

What do we know from understanding and experience before we come to the scriptures, in the most general terms of what we might know? I think we know, or very strongly believe, a couple of general things. I think we know humanity has a beginning. Our race is not eternal as far as the evidence goes. Beside that, we're wholly contingent beings so that finitude is a given. Humanity has a beginning, and like all things in this world that have a beginning, humanity most likely has an end. Perhaps it's fuzzy where to mark that beginning, exactly, if we accept evolutionary theory, but there was a time when humanity was not.

The other thing we know, I think, is that something is terribly wrong with us. Lol. That's not to say we aren't amazing and good in so many ways. To the contrary, that fact accentuates how messed up we are because we know we could do better, so much better in some instances.

Both of these facts, we have a beginning and something is wrong (morally) with us, are things I think many humans have known, or have strongly believed, throughout history. Many religions, ancient and new, have assumed those two things.

What makes the Genesis creation account appealing is not our belief that it is historically accurate. (If the last few years with the internet have shown anything, they've shown that people will believe all kinds of things regardless if the epistemic or doxastic warrant for believing those things is significant.) What is appealing about the Genesis account is how it resonates with our experience and understanding.

Science has done nothing but affirm a beginning for humanity. The universe, it appears, has a beginning, at least regarding anything that can be measured empirically. In the creation according to Genesis, the universe, including humanity, comes into being through an orderly process. Similarly, the scientific understanding claims that certain laws have guaranteed that the universe has come into being through a process that has a certain amount of order we can trace back and study.

Also, human experience consistently shows that we are as messed up as we ever were. Lol. There is still something terribly wrong with us. So there are specific aspects of Genesis that resonate with our experience and understanding, we have a beginning and we are messed up.

There are other aspects of Genesis that are purely spiritual. Every aspect that pertains to God and the divine intention is spiritual. The same holds for Paul's commentary on Genesis in relation to Christ.

I think we can say with Paul that humanity ("Adam" means "human") had a beginning and that Jesus was human. Those we can believe as historical facts. That sin is an inescapable part of the human condition because humanity (Adam) has sinned from the beginning is a spiritual claim. Although that spiritual claim resonates with our experience, it also assumes a God who creates good, and that sin is contrary to that good. Those spiritual claims resonate, perhaps, with our experience of the human condition, but they are still spiritual claims. That Christ is a new humanity that redeems humanity, transforming it, is a purely spiritual claim that is held by faith.

Most likely, Paul believed the first human was Adam of Genesis. But his faith was that humanity is in a fallen condition, has fallen short of the good of the divine intention, and that humanity in Christ is redeemed and transformed. He believed the same spiritual truths about Genesis and Jesus that I believe and have gleaned from Genesis and Jesus. Most of what Paul is saying in Rom. 5 is spiritual. What little historical content is there is not far from what we understand and experience, i.e. humanity had a beginning and is messed up.

I don't think it makes a bit of difference if someone believes the Genesis account is historically accurate. If they are not gleaning the spiritual claims from it, they are simply believing some claims are historical facts. Believing something is a historical fact is not a virtue nor is it necessarily spiritually beneficial. The demons believe...

What makes the difference? It's gleaning the spiritual truths in such a way that it affects who and what we are that makes the difference. If my reading, based on experience, science, and a spiritual reading of the text gleans the same spiritual truths without sacrificing good reason and a preponderance of evidence, all the better.

In a sense Paul is making a metaphysical claim that towers above the historical claim. The human way of being is x given its beginning in sin. The human way of being is now y given Christ's life, death, resurrection. Both the first way of being and the second way of being are human ways of being on account of the first human being "adam/humanity," being human and the second human being "Son of Man/humanity," being human

Sorry for the long reply.

 

[St. SteVen]

humanity had a beginning and is messed up.

I like this short summary statement. What we know for sure.
Great post. Thanks!

In a sense Paul is making a metaphysical claim that towers above the historical claim. The human way of being is x given its beginning in sin. The human way of being is now y given Christ's life, death, resurrection. Both the first way of being and the second way of being are human ways of being on account of the first human being "adam/humanity," being human and the second human being "Son of Man/humanity," being human

And your expansion on the summary in your last paragraph.

Whether Adam/humankind was a single individual, or not, the spiritual aspect survives.
But if Adam wasn't the first man, I see a potential problem.

Adam's seed.
Or as Genesis states, Eve's seed. Which is strange biologically. (egg/seed)
But might answer the question. Paul wrote something about it. Seed = singular

If there were others before Adam that did not sin, what about their seed?
Why does the fate of humankind rest on the loser? (in the obedience game)

Galatians 3:16-18 NIV
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[a] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

 

[Chadrho]

I like this short summary statement. What we know for sure.
Great post. Thanks!

And your expansion on the summary in your last paragraph.

Whether Adam/humankind was a single individual, or not, the spiritual aspect survives.
But if Adam wasn't the first man, I see a potential problem.

Adam's seed.
Or as Genesis states, Eve's seed. Which is strange biologically. (egg/seed)
But might answer the question. Paul wrote something about it. Seed = singular

If there were others before Adam that did not sin, what about their seed?
Why does the fate of humankind rest on the loser? (in the obedience game)

Galatians 3:16-18 NIV
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[a] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Good question. I just meant it's hard to determine when humanity emerged as distinct species from other hominids.

If we take a literal interpretation of "Adam" (humanity) and "Eve" (living/mother of life) then the seed of the woman (singular) referenced in Gen. 3:15 is a living human, i.e. Son of Man.

Perhaps we can say the first human(s) were Adam and Eve, whomever they were. I mean, even though many of us have Neanderthal DNA, only humans have persisted as a distinct species. Is what makes us distinct the fact we have the imago dei? That would be a spiritual claim, not a scientific one, but I'm on board. It also helps to keep in mind that the incarnation, death, and resurrection didn't just redeem and restore humanity but all creation. All creation longs in hope for the revealing of the children of God in order to be freed from corruption and finitude. Whatever came before humanity is included in God being all in all.

Why does the fate of all rest on the loser? If you want to pick up the whole pile, you have to grab from the bottom. Lol.

 

[St. SteVen]

Good question. I just meant it's hard to determine when humanity emerged as distinct species from other hominids.

Interesting that there are issues on both sides of the origins debate.
At what point did humans emerge from hominids? (rhetorical question)
Emerging as those in the image of God, with the spiritual component.
Did the former hominids lack the spiritual component, not being in the image of God? (more rhetoric?)
A literal reading of Genesis has a load of its own issues. (of course)

If we take a literal interpretation of "Adam" (humanity) and "Eve" (living/mother of life) then the seed of the woman (singular) referenced in Gen. 3:15 is a living human, i.e. Son of Man.

Interesting that Jesus made a point of referring to himself that way. (Son of Man)
We make so much more of his Son of God aspect. But he didn't. If memory serves.

Perhaps we can say the first human(s) were Adam and Eve, whomever they were. I mean, even though many of us have Neanderthal DNA, only humans have persisted as a distinct species. Is what makes us distinct the fact we have the imago dei? That would be a spiritual claim, not a scientific one, but I'm on board. It also helps to keep in mind that the incarnation, death, and resurrection didn't just redeem and restore humanity but all creation. All creation longs in hope for the revealing of the children of God in order to be freed from corruption and finitude. Whatever came before humanity is included in God being all in all.

That's a good way to look at it. Thanks.

Why does the fate of all rest on the loser? If you want to pick up the whole pile, you have to grab from the bottom. Lol.

Quite the visual. - LOL
Make sense though.

 

[Chadrho]

Interesting that there are issues on both sides of the origins debate

I think so. I think the tendency to pit the scriptural account and the scientific understanding against each other is, ultimately, the result of a category mistake. One is a theory based on a set of evidence that can be convincing or not by various degrees. The other is a set of sacred writings that inform and support one's faith in God, which assumes trust, commitment and whole host of transcendent ideas and ideals. I don't look to scientists to tell me what is good and the value of life. But I also don't seek out a heart surgeon whose sole training was derived from the scriptures. Lol

At the end of the day, I don't necessarily think believing the Genesis account is literal history is problematic so long as the spiritual notions, which are fairly general, about the nature of God, humanity, and creation are also understood and informing faith. So long as one is grasping that God is Creator, creation is good, humanity bears the imago dei, sin is not the divine intention, God will redeem the situation, etc., then believing it's historically accurate simply means one has a certain "propositional attitude" in regard to the account. That's not of much value, in and of itself, without the lived faith informed by the general, more spiritual claims about God, humanity, and creation.

To be clear, I think one should seek spiritual truth, as did ancient interpreters who understood the anemic value of simply believing it's literally true, throughout all the scriptures. But the primeval history from Genesis 1-11 is clearly in need of spiritual interpretation because its spiritual import runs throughout. The most obvious, large spiritual claim, I think, is the repeated cycle where God intends good, humanity does otherwise, and God steps in to redeem the initial good the God intends. You see it with A&E, with Cain, with the flood, and with the homogeneous mass of humanity on the Plain of Shinar where they refuse to spread out and, instead, build a city and tower (to be saved from floods?). It's the process of redemption repeated over and over setting up major spiritual themes that inform the rest of scripture.

But the primeval history from chapters 1-11 are communicating spiritual truths through ancient stories. Is it literal history? Who knows, but it's rich in spiritual truth. Once Genesis turns to Abram, the whole tenor of the book changes. It moves from making large, spiritual claims about God, humanity, and the world to focusing on one person, one family, 1 nation through whom all the families of earth will be blessed. It really starts acting like history with Abraham and Sarah. God has entered tte story on the individual level but through that one person God promises the ultimate redemption based on the theme of redemption revealed in the primeval history, a redemption that will be fulfilled in one person.

I definitely take the person of Jesus Christ as literal history, even though I'm fully away of the inconsistencies in the gospels. lol. Am I, then, being inconsistent. No, I don't think so. My faith is in the living Christ, understood as the orthodox have for two millenia. The scriptures entail historical accuracies. But my faith is in Christ in a way that is different than my trust in the scriptures, which are the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ. The scriptures inform my faith but believing they are inerrant is not necessary for my faith. They are a sufficient witness under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the "object" of my faith is the risen Christ and God as revealed in him.

 

[Chadrho]

Interesting that Jesus made a point of referring to himself that way. (Son of Man)
We make so much more of his Son of God aspect. But he didn't. If memory serves

Agreed. He uses Son of Man to the virtual exclusion of Son of God. It's like he's saying, "This is what being human is supposed to look like, will look like."

 

[St. SteVen]

I think so. I think the tendency to pit the scriptural account and the scientific understanding against each other is, ultimately, the result of a category mistake. One is a theory based on a set of evidence that can be convincing or not by various degrees. The other is a set of sacred writings that inform and support one's faith in God, which assumes trust, commitment and whole host of transcendent ideas and ideals. I don't look to scientists to tell me what is good and the value of life. But I also don't seek out a heart surgeon whose sole training was derived from the scriptures. Lol

Thanks for your thoughtful and richly appointed post, friend. I quoted the first paragraph for comment.

I like what you are saying here. Our tendency is to force the Genesis account in the scriptures together with scientific claims to make a singular truth. (my words) But that is not the intention of either. "One is a theory based on a set of evidence that can be convincing or not by various degrees. The other is a set of sacred writings that inform and support one's faith in God, ..." (your words)

But perhaps we are still left with the desire for some mental harmony between the two. (oil and water) After all, both address the subject of origins. It seems that one must be dismissed to make room for the other. "In the beginning God created..." or Hominids R Us. - LOL

 

[St. SteVen]

Is it literal history? Who knows, but it's rich in spiritual truth.

What do you make of the genealogies?
The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels seems to indicate that those in the NT times believed the genealogies in the Books of Moses to be true?

And this plays into the topic title question: What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?

And, I think you have covered this in general. Any specific thoughts on the Fall and the Atonement from your perspective?

 

[Gottservant]

Identifying the source of your sin, is vital.

 

[St. SteVen]

Identifying the source of your sin, is vital.

Does a choice of origins matter?

 

[Chadrho]

Thanks for your thoughtful and richly appointed post, friend. I quoted the first paragraph for comment.

I like what you are saying here. Our tendency is to force the Genesis account in the scriptures together with scientific claims to make a singular truth. (my words) But that is not the intention of either. "One is a theory based on a set of evidence that can be convincing or not by various degrees. The other is a set of sacred writings that inform and support one's faith in God, ..." (your words)

But perhaps we are still left with the desire for some mental harmony between the two. (oil and water) After all, both address the subject of origins. It seems that one must be dismissed to make room for the other. "In the beginning God created..." or Hominids R Us. - LOL

That's true; they both concern origins. And, I too desire to find some harmony between them. I think it's possible. Well, I do harmonize the two. But I also know when it comes to God, science simply can't speak to that. It's confined by the limits of creation and methods. The moment a scientist starts speaking about God, we have left the domain of science and have entered the domain of metaphysics. I don't mind speaking with a scientist about metaphysics but I don't confuse the two.

 

[Chadrho]

What do you make of the genealogies?
The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels seems to indicate that those in the NT times believed the genealogies in the Books of Moses to be true?

And this plays into the topic title question: What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?

And, I think you have covered this in general. Any specific thoughts on the Fall and the Atonement from your perspective?

I don't have a definitive judgment about the genealogies, OT or NT. Despite the differences, I think the ones in the NT are probably tracking something close to the truth, at least back to David. And the same for the OT genealogies. These are referencing ancient memories that probably track the truth to some extent. But any symbolic and spiritual meaning regarding them shouldn't be discarded or thought of as playing second fiddle to historical accuracy. For example, the fact the ages of the patriarchs add up to 12,600 is symbolically significant in that variations (1,260) of it show up in Revelation. The writers had spiritual intent, maybe more so then some anachronistic notion of historical accuracy.

In Book IV.1 of On First Principles, Origen discusses at length the problems with trying to read all of scripture as literal history. For instance, he recognizes the problems with the creation account. "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without sun, moon, or stars? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husband man, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from a tree?"

This is a Christian from early 200s A.D. pointing out the obvious. And so he says that "a meaning worthy of God must be sought out in such subjects."

I read the fall as Irenaeus did. We were created to mature into spiritual maturity. A&E ate the fruit too soon because in their spiritual immaturity, they believed eating was good in spite of the command to not eat, which is an image of all human sin. We choose evil because for one reason or another, we think it will be "good." This is contrary to Augustine who frames them as being virtually perfect and then, inexplicably, choosing to eat. They were not perfect, or near perfect. Perfection doesn't choose evil and is not fooled.

I reject Calvin's substitution/penal and Anselm's satisfaction atonement theories. I embrace both Christus Victor and moral influence theories. We are redeemed from the powers of sin and death, transformed by God's love revealed in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. In short, pace an Irenaean notion of the fall, we are brought to spiritual maturity-the full stature of Christ- through the work of Christ and the HS. We were created to go through this process of transformation. The incarnation and cross were not God's plan B because humans are such rotten worms. As the ancients used to say: God became like us so that we could become like God.

 

[Gottservant]

Does a choice of origins matter?

No. You would just give a variety of repentances.

However, a choice would suggest God's Creation was flawed, because it would suggest that no one was put in authority.

The whole point of Adam sinning, is that it was someone who God put in authority, that sinned.

 

[St. SteVen]

I read the fall as Irenaeus did. We were created to mature into spiritual maturity. A&E ate the fruit too soon because in their spiritual immaturity, they believed eating was good in spite of the command to not eat, which is an image of all human sin. We choose evil because for one reason or another, we think it will be "good." This is contrary to Augustine who frames them as being virtually perfect and then, inexplicably, choosing to eat. They were not perfect, or near perfect. Perfection doesn't choose evil and is not fooled.

Thanks for the terrific post. I want to respond here to the second to last paragraph.

I like the thinking here, but have trouble aligning it with the consequences of the Fall.

The death penalty seems pretty harsh for the transgression of a spiritually immature ancient couple.

 

[Chadrho]

Thanks for the terrific post. I want to respond here to the second to last paragraph.

I like the thinking here, but have trouble aligning it with the consequences of the Fall.

The death penalty seems pretty harsh for the transgression of a spiritually immature ancient couple.

From one point of view it's harsh. If we see it merely as punishment for a wrong done, it's just mean. From the point of view of the divine intention for life, it's the end of sin and the corruptability of this embodied existence, and it's the entrance into one where "righteousness is at home." The whole point of maturing is to be ready to "bear the weight of glory."

Besides, I'm not sure immortality was a given. When they immediately eat, nothing really changes, they simply see things in another light and feel fear and shame. They were always naked, they just are now realizing it. I read that as referring to our inherent mortality without divine grace. We aren't eternal beings. God is eternal. We are finite creatures. We only live by grace. Our nakedness is the fact, ontological fact, that we are nothing on our own. I think their fear and shame is seeing that truth as not being a good truth. Lol. But, of course, it is good because God is good. At any rate, more and more, I see their perspective of their being contingent, wholly dependant creatures the new "knowledge" which weakens their trust in God and commitment to the way of life, which is obedience.

God says they will die as a matter of fact. If you do x, death will follow. Is that punishment or simply explaining how things follow? Death is a gift of grace that leads to life, perhaps? As Gregory of Nyssa puts it, the beginning is determined by the end. The divine intention is to bring creatures bearing the divine image into existence and preparing them to participate in the divine nature. That's bound to be a bumpy ride.

 

[St. SteVen]

The divine intention is to bring creatures bearing the divine image into existence and preparing them to participate in the divine nature. That's bound to be a bumpy ride.

That's a great way to put it. Thanks. - LOL

 

[RedFan]

I don't have a definitive judgment about the genealogies, OT or NT. Despite the differences, I think the ones in the NT are probably tracking something close to the truth, at least back to David. And the same for the OT genealogies. These are referencing ancient memories that probably track the truth to some extent. But any symbolic and spiritual meaning regarding them shouldn't be discarded or thought of as playing second fiddle to historical accuracy. For example, the fact the ages of the patriarchs add up to 12,600 is symbolically significant in that variations (1,260) of it show up in Revelation. The writers had spiritual intent, maybe more so then some anachronistic notion of historical accuracy.

In Book IV.1 of On First Principles, Origen discusses at length the problems with trying to read all of scripture as literal history. For instance, he recognizes the problems with the creation account. "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without sun, moon, or stars? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husband man, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from a tree?"

This is a Christian from early 200s A.D. pointing out the obvious. And so he says that "a meaning worthy of God must be sought out in such subjects."

I read the fall as Irenaeus did. We were created to mature into spiritual maturity. A&E ate the fruit too soon because in their spiritual immaturity, they believed eating was good in spite of the command to not eat, which is an image of all human sin. We choose evil because for one reason or another, we think it will be "good." This is contrary to Augustine who frames them as being virtually perfect and then, inexplicably, choosing to eat. They were not perfect, or near perfect. Perfection doesn't choose evil and is not fooled.

I reject Calvin's substitution/penal and Anselm's satisfaction atonement theories. I embrace both Christus Victor and moral influence theories. We are redeemed from the powers of sin and death, transformed by God's love revealed in Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. In short, pace an Irenaean notion of the fall, we are brought to spiritual maturity-the full stature of Christ- through the work of Christ and the HS. We were created to go through this process of transformation. The incarnation and cross were not God's plan B because humans are such rotten worms. As the ancients used to say: God became like us so that we could become like God.

Your approach makes great sense. Aulén’s Christus Victor argues that the early Church Fathers did not hold to the ransom theory as a payment to Satan, but as a ransom from the bondage of sin in general. I haven’t read their writings in sufficient depth to know whether he is correct. Either version of the ransom theory avoids the many logical difficulties attending a “just” God declining to forgive a debt owed to Himself in preference to His Son's crucifixion. And I am predisposed toward any ransom theory that doesn’t involve setting up Satan as the prison guard.

One modification is to think of Christ as our champion in a cosmic battle against the Forces of Evil, our representative (the way David was Israel’s representative when he fought Goliath) -- but unlike with David vs. Goliath, Christ’s victory consisted not in surviving the battle and slewing the enemy, but in dying in battle and robbing the enemy of its victory. Once Champion Christ died, we don’t have to; the Evil One has no choice but to accept Christ’s death as the final outcome, as the end game (just as the Philistines took Goliath’s death as the end game) – and retreat. Therein lies both the “substitution” and the “atonement.” Meanwhile, forgiveness doesn’t enter into it per se. Atonement isn’t forgiveness, but a declaration of vicarious victory in the cosmic battle.

I think I’m ready to abandon any substitutionary atonement theory of the Cross that entails paying a debt owed to God Himself. I’m ready to focus on ransom from Satan (or, equivalently, from some personified or non-personified Evil that had captured humanity, a la Gal. 1:4) -- which I understand to have been the dominant theory for the first millennium of the Christian era before Anselm turned it around.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
What sort of death did we earn in the Fall? Physical. spiritual, or both?

I like this question because it begins to reveal the story of Adam and Eve.
Adam only knew fellowship with God, not chosen but always there. He and Eve did not know morality, and had no objectivity.
I wonder if they had true self awareness or a conscience at this point.

Ironically, our God-given human conscience is the knowledge of good and evil gained in the Fall. IMHO
And for those who say God wants us to have a freewill choice to love him, that came with the Fall too.
Had humankind exercised that free will prior? No indication either way.
Perhaps if they failed to care for the garden, or failed to be fruitful and multiply?

The warning was simple, eat of the tree of knowledge and you will die.
In the story they were not eternal, as God stops them from eating from the tree of life.

I wonder if they had any idea what that meant. Had they yet witnessed death of any kind?
And what sort of death was God talking about? Physical. spiritual, or both?

Nothing the Lord said about whether He would lead Adam to the tree of knowledge in the future, just that it would lead to death.
Once Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of knowledge they could decide their own morality and choose their relation to others.

It seemed unavoidable, since it was placed in the center of the garden.
Amazingly, they had to be tricked into eating thereof.

This was rebellion against God, but equally it is part of were love comes from. Objectivity and distance yet choosing to come close
to another to share. So in a sense unless Adam and Eve ate of the tree they would never become like the Lord.

Agree.

Now the story is very limited but puts forward this dilemma. Man is born in rebellion separate from God and unable to
resolve this independence, defending himself against the challenges of life until finally he dies.

Agree.

So how far you take this as a historical story or an allegory of our state of being, Adam is less important as an individual but
rather a symbol of where we are today. In this sense the first human who was on earth was in the same place.

Agree.

If you take the view Jesus gave of John the Baptist who was born filled with the Spirit, being born of the Spirit is a real
step into eternity and realisation of Gods plan. In this context the fall was part of the right of passage.

That's an interesting tie-in. Was John above the Fall. Already redeemed at birth.

This is a very hard position to take if you believe all people not in the Kingdom are tortured in hell for all eternity.
It is a simplistic view to hold, and fits with revenge emotions towards one enemies, but the Lord simple says chaff
will be burnt up and forgotten. Why should evil people be remember throughout eternity?

Agree.
Jesus taught us that it is godly behavior to love our enemies.
Does God hold himself to a lower moral standard than he holds us to?
What should he therefore do with his own enemies? (love them)

The standard hell dogma declares that hell is love because God,
"being the gentleman that he is", gives them what they want.
Which is preposterous. No one wants the hell of church dogma.

/ cc: @RedFan