OS and Adam
Hank January 31st, 2008
I felt like we were just going to go down the same path as in another post about the historicity of Adam and whether or not sin and righteousness is imputed (I would say both are imputed because that is the very parallel that Paul is drawing out in Romans 5:12-21, and thus for this parallel to work Adam must be historical and his sin must be an actual event in history) on the Myth thread. So I just went ahead and posted this so that we could devote an entire thread to OS, picking up some where Brad left off, and Adam being historical.
By my reading of Calvin’s Institutes, he would not say that there is a specific gene, like modern science would understand "genetic," that contains sin. Rather Calvin points to Romans 8:20 and says that humanity is part of the creation (ἡ κτίσις ) that was subjected to futility. He also understands original sin not to be sin itself but rather it is the corruption (cf Romans 8:21 ESV "bondage to corruption") of the imagio dei that all humans have. Thus we who are in the image of Adam bear that corrupted image as well (Notice the parallel of "futility" [ματαιότητι] in 8:20 and "bondage to corruption" [τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς] in Romans 8:21), being part of the created order. Thus it was Adam’s sin that corrupted humanity’s being the image of God and it is God’s curse that confines all of creation under that corruption. Therefore the corruption of sin rules over all of the creation, including human beings and their wills–which is precisely what (that is the human will) Calvin argues to be what makes humans the bearers of the image of God. The creation is enslaved or in bondage (Gk. δουλείας) to the corruption that is removed when the bodies of the sons of God are redeemed. I think "genetic" is too much of a caricature of the Reformed view of OS, at least from Calvin’s point of view expounded in The Institutes that is.
- Calvinism vs Arminianism , Imagio Dei , Theology
- Comments(3)
Hank,
This is a great post! First, I like what you say a lot about the historicity of Adam. I think it is clear in Romans 5 that Paul is affirming the historicity of Adam prima facie. This is so because Paul is considering both Christ and Adam to be men with the exact same roles in God’s creation (that is, exact in their opposition to each other). Just as one man brought sin and trespasses into the world, one man brought rightousness and life into the world. (As a note, I have read Calvin’s commentary on Romans 5, and there is a really good case that he propones a doctrine of universal atonement, but that is another post).
As using the word “genetic” to refer to OS, there have been many of Calvin’s word and sayings twisted by the Reformers that proceeded him (i.e. the Synod of Dort, Puritans, etc.) OS obviously is found in all men, but to say that it is found in the DNA of man is another thing.
Good work and research!
Travis
I think where you guys are going wrong time and time again is that nowhere in Romans is Paul using these figures as historical persons. Look at Romans 5 and Romans 9. Paul is using mythical (Adam), historical (Jesus) and quasi-historical figures (Pharaoh, Leah and Rachel) to represent corporate realities. These persons are not being used to talk about individual, historical realities. Rather, they are each being used typologically (which is mythological language), to represent corporate realities and identities.
To interpret Paul as dealing with individuals is to misread what Paul is doing in all of Romans. He is concerned with the corporate nature of humanity and redefining that reality, moving from categories of Jew/Gentile to Adam/Christ.
JR,
Perhaps you can give an exposition of Romans 5 or Romans 9 that demonstrates how viewing these people "mythically" fits the flow of thought better than viewing them as historical?