Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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?

share|improve this question
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. –  fredsbend Mar 13 '13 at 9:18

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

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.

share|improve this answer
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. –  Lawrence Dol 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

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.