What becomes of our faith if the Genesis account is NOT literal?

[St. SteVen]

Perhaps its time to investigate some other theories of atonement. ...
I don't think that Faith-in-Christ is the same thing as Faith-in-the-Atonement-provided-by-Christ.

Interesting point. Let's unpack this a bit more.
My view of the atonement is that Christ paid our death penalty for sin.
(the death penalty earned for us by the actions of the literal genealogical Adam)
Which may be the cause for my genealogy concerns.

[

 

[Lambano]

Interesting point. Let's unpack this a bit more.
My view of the atonement is that Christ paid our death penalty for sin.
(the death penalty earned for us by the actions of the literal genealogical Adam)
Which may be the cause for my genealogy concerns.

[

Don't worry. Even if there were no "original sin" to be paid for, I'm sure we all have plenty of unoriginal sins of our own to be atoned for.

 

[Lambano]

We do we live in a world where everything living will die. Even babies who can't possibly be held responsible for their actions, even though babies are about as self-centered as they come. Why is that?

Why DO we sin? You can't say "free will". That great founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, wrote a book called The Bondage of the Will. (It was basically a reply to Erasmus's post, On Free Will. Same thing we do here using 16th century technology.) Apparently, humanity is really into Bondage. Why is that?

 

[Lambano]

What becomes of our faith if the Genesis account is NOT literal?​

I'm still not following your logic here. Even if the Adam and Eve account is only an "origin story" to explain how we got into this mess, that doesn't affect the empirical evidence that we really are hip deep (okay, neck deep) in a mess, we do make life miserable for our ourselves and for our fellow human beings with our sin, we are estranged from God, and we are going to die.

 

[St. SteVen]

What becomes of our faith if the Genesis account is NOT literal?​

I'm still not following your logic here. Even if the Adam and Eve account is only an "origin story" to explain how we got into this mess, that doesn't affect the empirical evidence that we really are hip deep (okay, neck deep) in a mess, we do make life miserable for our ourselves and for our fellow human beings with our sin, we are estranged from God, and we are going to die.

So, how does the atonement apply to that situation?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic:

Do what is right to please God.

While eating breakfast I considered my reply to a request to work a late shift. At this point I would typically say, "No thanks, I'm not available." But I considered adding a comment, "Consider Nigel, he has done awesome work lately." A few weeks back, Nigel was assigned to cover a late...

www.christianityboard.com

{

 

[Wick Stick]

Interesting point. Let's unpack this a bit more.
My view of the atonement is that Christ paid our death penalty for sin.
(the death penalty earned for us by the actions of the literal genealogical Adam)
Which may be the cause for my genealogy concerns.

[

As I understand it, atonement just means 'covering' or 'smearing.' Here's the lexicon entry. When Noah built his ark, he 'atoned' it with tar.

With regard to The Atonement, I think the idea is that Jesus has covered up our sins. They are no longer visible.

Let's bring that back around to Adam and Eve. When they sinned, their first realization was 'I'm naked' and their first action was to make themselves (some wholly insufficient) clothing. God's first action to remedy that problem was to clothe them properly. That's a covering - an atonement.

I don't know that it necessarily has to do with paying a penalty. Although, money can be quite useful for covering up some wrong-doing. Just ask a politician!

 

[St. SteVen]

With regard to The Atonement, I think the idea is that Jesus has covered up our sins. They are no longer visible.

Do you believe that only covers the sins up to the point of conversion? (if one knows) ???
What do you make of this scripture?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Do you believe that only covers the sins up to the point of conversion? (if one knows) ???

No... but that belief is more borne out of necessity than anything else. If that were so, what hope is there for anyone?

What do you make of this scripture?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

At a glance, it seems to proclaim Unlimited Atonement (Calvinists in shambles).

There's some wiggle room in the phrase 'whole world' if you start digging at it. The underlying Greek word κόσμος (kosmos) has several meanings. The one that fits best in this verse is Gentiles, as it seems to be used in contrast to "us" and "ours," which I take to mean the Jews.

So, this could just be talking about the adoption of Gentiles as promised to Abraham - a pretty common New Testament topic. If that's so, then the Atonement here is limited to those who receive the adoption. (Calvinists feeling good).

 

[Lambano]

So, how does the atonement apply to that situation?

I must be exceptionally thick this week, because I still don't follow your logic. How does whether or not there was a literal "first sinner" (logically, somebody had to throw out the first sin, right?) affect the MEANING of Christ's death?

Individually, every human being has "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Step 3:23 on the Romans Road. Collectively, the human community is "unclean" before God, regardless of whether that "uncleanliness" is inherited from the alleged "first sinner" or earned by our own sins of commission and omission, right?

I love Chesterton's quote: "The doctrine of Original Sin is the one Christian dogma that is empirically verifiable."

 

[Lambano]

There's some wiggle room in the phrase 'whole world' if you start digging at it. The underlying Greek word κόσμος (kosmos) has several meanings. The one that fits best in this verse is Gentiles, as it seems to be used in contrast to "us" and "ours," which I take to mean the Jews.

Curious. I don't see any direct identification of First John's opponents being Jewish. Traditionally, 1 John and the Gospel of John are attributed to the same writer. The Gospel writer does not hesitate to name Jesus's opposition as "the Jews"; the epistle writer did not deem it necessary to name his community's opponents (they knew who the bad guys were). Most commentaries I've seen identify them as (Gentile) Gnostics/Docetists based on 2 John 1:7 (a totally different letter?) rather than as Jews. I suppose that if we assume John was still hanging around Judea/Samaria/Galilee, then a Jewish identification would not be completely unreasonable.

 

[Lambano]

As I understand it, atonement just means 'covering' or 'smearing.' Here's the lexicon entry. When Noah built his ark, he 'atoned' it with tar.

With regard to The Atonement, I think the idea is that Jesus has covered up our sins. They are no longer visible.

If we use the Yom Kippur ritual as the model for understanding the Atonement, what happens is that one goat (the Scapegoat) carries the community's sins for the year out into the Negev, and the other goat is sacrificed and has its blood smeared on the "Cover" (Kippur) of the Ark of the Covenant. This renews the Covenant for another year. Apparently the Covenant has to be renewed on an annual basis. The LXX translates Kippur as hilasteron which is same word used by Paul in Romans 3:25, usually (mis?)translated as "atoning sacrifice" or "propitiation".

I suppose that symbolically, Jesus's death both carries our sins away and brings the believer who appropriates it into Covenant with God.

 

[St. SteVen]

I must be exceptionally thick this week, because I still don't follow your logic. How does whether or not there was a literal "first sinner" (logically, somebody had to throw out the first sin, right?) affect the MEANING of Christ's death?

Individually, every human being has "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Step 3:23 on the Romans Road. Collectively, the human community is "unclean" before God, regardless of whether that "uncleanliness" is inherited from the alleged "first sinner" or earned by our own sins of commission and omission, right?

Good questions.
Two issues come to mind.

If there were non-sinners prior to Adam, what about their progeny?
And couldn't there have been other non-sinners after Adam?
Sin, or original sin, is carried genetically, correct? Adam's race. (all of humankind)

Secondly, the Bible names Adam as the original man, formed from the dust of the earth. (whatever that means)
And his name appears in genealogies, so he can't really be a figurative representative, unless the genealogies are bogus.

[

 

[Lambano]

If there were non-sinners prior to Adam, what about their progeny?
And couldn't there have been other non-sinners after Adam?
Sin, or original sin, is carried genetically, correct? Adam's race. (all of humankind)

If “original Sin” were literally genetic, there’d be hope we could fix it with a little gene splicing.

 

[Wick Stick]

If we use the Yom Kippur ritual as the model for understanding the Atonement, what happens is that one goat (the Scapegoat) carries the community's sins for the year out into the Negev, and the other goat is sacrificed and has its blood smeared on the "Cover" (Kippur) of the Ark of the Covenant. This renews the Covenant for another year. Apparently the Covenant has to be renewed on an annual basis. The LXX translates Kippur as hilasteron which is same word used by Paul in Romans 3:25, usually (mis?)translated as "atoning sacrifice" or "propitiation".

I suppose that symbolically, Jesus's death both carries our sins away and brings the believer who appropriates it into Covenant with God.

Perhaps Hebrews 10:4 needs an addendum?

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins... that's the scapegoat's job.

I don't think much of the Levitical sacrifices. I don't think God wanted them (well it says so a few times). I think their effect amounted to 'oh no I did a bad thing, and now I have to go make a barbeque.' There's a reason that priesthood got replaced.

I would argue that the Melchizedek priesthood is the proper model for Jesus.

 

[St. SteVen]

If “original Sin” were literally genetic, there’d be hope we could fix it with a little gene splicing.

Perhaps "genetic" was a poor word choice on my part. Hereditary might be more appropriate.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

Curious. I don't see any direct identification of First John's opponents being Jewish. Traditionally, 1 John and the Gospel of John are attributed to the same writer. The Gospel writer does not hesitate to name Jesus's opposition as "the Jews"; the epistle writer did not deem it necessary to name his community's opponents (they knew who the bad guys were). Most commentaries I've seen identify them as (Gentile) Gnostics/Docetists based on 2 John 1:7 (a totally different letter?) rather than as Jews. I suppose that if we assume John was still hanging around Judea/Samaria/Galilee, then a Jewish identification would not be completely unreasonable.

I don't know about opponents. The contrast seems to be between Jewish and Gentile believers... reading the verse like...

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our (the Jewish believers') sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (the Gentile believers who would come to Christ).

 

[St. SteVen]

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our (the Jewish believers') sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (the Gentile believers who would come to Christ).

Wouldn't that have the built-in conclusion that ALL gentiles (the whole world) would indeed come to Christ?
If "our" assumes belief, then "the whole world" also assumes belief, since the atonement applies to the sins of both parties.

[

 

[Wick Stick]

If there were non-sinners prior to Adam, what about their progeny?
And couldn't there have been other non-sinners after Adam?

"All have sinned" seems to eliminate both as possibilities.

Sin, or original sin, is carried genetically, correct? Adam's race. (all of humankind)

I think it's more nurture than nature. The child of an alcoholic is more likely to be an alcoholic, but there's no observable physical change in the child. It's patterned behavior - if daddy did it, then it's permissible for me too.

Secondly, the Bible names Adam as the original man, formed from the dust of the earth. (whatever that means)
And his name appears in genealogies, so he can't really be a figurative representative, unless the genealogies are bogus.

The pre-flood genealogies ARE bogus. It should be obvious from the lifespans listed there.

 

[Wick Stick]

Wouldn't that have the built-in conclusion that ALL gentiles (the whole world) would indeed come to Christ?
If "our" assumes belief, then "the whole world" also assumes belief, since the atonement applies to the sins of both parties.

[

Not necessarily. The idea of Jewish believers includes an idea of Jewish non-believers, so if the second thing is like the first...