Malevolent Inheritance: Biola Professor on The Fall

[whag]

The boxed content below is a verbatim transcription Biola University professor Sean McDowell’s view of the Christian theological concept known as “The Fall.” I thought it was a good launching point for discussion here. He says:

https://youtu.be/oY6ZEqTR2f8?si=2aeH1NDlZgImWLoH
Why did Adam and Eve’s sin have to be handed down to us? Why do we suffer for their choices? Well, in some ways, the reason why we suffer is because when any of us make choices, it affects our kids and those who come after us. It’s just the way things are. *shoulder shrug* The reality is, they were our first parents. And they made a choice, and thus, because of the choose they made, and it changed our relationship with God, that affects all of us that come afterwards. But with that said realized, I think there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

How much does this view veer from the orthodox view of The Fall?

I forbid HA and JimL from participating in the thread.

[tabibito]

The boxed content below is a verbatim transcription Biola University professor Sean McDowell’s view of the Christian theological concept known as “The Fall.” I thought it was a good launching point for discussion here. He says:

https://youtu.be/oY6ZEqTR2f8?si=2aeH1NDlZgImWLoH
Why did Adam and Eve’s sin have to be handed down to us? Why do we suffer for their choices? Well, in some ways, the reason why we suffer is because when any of us make choices, it affects our kids and those who come after us. It’s just the way things are. *shoulder shrug* The reality is, they were our first parents. And they made a choice, and thus, because of the choose they made, and it changed our relationship with God, that affects all of us that come afterwards.

How much does this view veer from the orthodox view of The Fall?

I forbid HA and JimL from participating in the thread.

Orthodox views I'm not sure of.

The consequences of a decision made by a person's forebears having consequences that their descendants must live with - no argument. Messing up the environment leaves a problem that later generations must live with or find ways to remediate, for example.

But with that said realized, I think there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

An interesting point made there. The whole concept of "sins of the forefathers being inherited" is based in "we would have made the same decision if the circumstances were the same." People for whom it is not true do not inherit the sins of their forefathers (nutshell comment), but they still must deal with the fallout from those sins.

[NorrinRadd]

The boxed content below is a verbatim transcription Biola University professor Sean McDowell’s view of the Christian theological concept known as “The Fall.” I thought it was a good launching point for discussion here. He says:

https://youtu.be/oY6ZEqTR2f8?si=2aeH1NDlZgImWLoH
Why did Adam and Eve’s sin have to be handed down to us? Why do we suffer for their choices? Well, in some ways, the reason why we suffer is because when any of us make choices, it affects our kids and those who come after us. It’s just the way things are. *shoulder shrug* The reality is, they were our first parents. And they made a choice, and thus, because of the choose they made, and it changed our relationship with God, that affects all of us that come afterwards. But with that said realized, I think there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

How much does this view veer from the orthodox view of The Fall?

It's hard to tell, because he doesn't specifically mention -- maybe even avoids mentioning -- things like "federal headship" and "ancestral guilt."

[whag]

Orthodox views I'm not sure of.

The consequences of a decision made by a person's forebears having consequences that their descendants must live with - no argument. Messing up the environment leaves a problem that later generations must live with or find ways to remediate, for example.

Yes, but he’s saying something more than that. Obviously, choices have consequences down the road. For example, 18th century coal barons choosing to force kids to extract their product will have far-reaching repercussions. That’s not parallel to McDowell’s explanation, which says that the first human beings spoiled our relationship with God.

An interesting point made there. The whole concept of "sins of the forefathers being inherited" is based in "we would have made the same decision if the circumstances were the same." People for whom it is not true do not inherit the sins of their forefathers (nutshell comment), but they still must deal with the fallout from those sins.

There’s no qualitative difference between inheritance of my grampa’s sins and fallout from my grampa’s sins. The former is a superstitious metaphysical claim, while the latter simply acknowledges dumping chemical waste in a lake that feeds a village will have fallout. That possibly might affect grampa’s family line, but not necessarily.

This analogy exposes McDowell’s assertion that:

there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

To claim there’s “a lot of truth to the point” that I’d also deliberately dump chemical waste in a pristine lake is baseless and smacks of desperation to justify the doctrine of imputed sin.

[whag]

It's hard to tell, because he doesn't specifically mention -- maybe even avoids mentioning -- things like "federal headship" and "ancestral guilt."

He doesn’t have the sophistication to distinguish the two concepts and would probably conflate them.

[tabibito]

Yes, but he’s saying something more than that. Obviously, choices have consequences down the road. For example, 18th century coal barons choosing to force kids to extract their product will have far-reaching repercussions. That’s not parallel to McDowell’s explanation, which says that the first human beings spoiled our relationship with God.



There’s no qualitative difference between inheritance of my grampa’s sins and fallout from my grampa’s sins. The former is a superstitious metaphysical claim, while the latter simply acknowledges dumping chemical waste in a lake that feeds a village will have fallout. That possibly might affect grampa’s family line, but not necessarily.

These are differentiated quite clearly. The one is the actual blame for the action, the other is the mess left behind for later generations to clean up or otherwise suffer from. To the limited extent that "inherited sin" can be adduced from scripture, it is the second sense that applies though not completely (a more detailed explanation follows).

This analogy exposes McDowell’s assertion that:

there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

To claim there’s “a lot of truth to the point” that I’d also deliberately dump chemical waste in a pristine lake is baseless and smacks of desperation to justify the doctrine of imputed sin.

If you would also dump chemical waste in the lake, pristine or otherwise, you are guilty of the same sin even if you don't actually do it. That is the crux of Paul's argument against observing the law. If you only refrain from breaking the law because of the legal and social consequences, your observance of the law is not worthy of accolades - the reward is already given. If you refrain because you consider an unpolluted lake to be a good thing (because you consider the laws to be good), you approve of the law: that is an entirely different scenario.

Jesus comments (paraphrased) to the religious leaders of his time: You would do the same as your forefathers, which shows that you approve of their sin, so you are guilty of their sin.

[Diogenes]

Complaining about clip that is under 1 minute is rather petty but is very much your style.

[whag]

These are differentiated quite clearly. The one is the actual blame for the action, the other is the mess left behind for later generations to clean up or otherwise suffer from.

I meant there’s no qualitative difference between inherited guilt (original sin)and fallout in the context of McDowell’s synopsis of The Fall. The issue is his seemingly erroneous conflation.

If you would also dump chemical waste in the lake, pristine or otherwise, you are guilty of the same sin even if you don't actually do it. That is the crux of Paul's argument against observing the law.

That doesn’t make sense, but maybe it’s because I wasn’t clear. In this scenario, a person deliberately, and with malice of forethought, poisons a lake that sustains a village. His grandson is of the constitution to not be tempted to kill a village, even if faced with the same circumstances and option to do it.

If you only refrain from breaking the law because of the legal and social consequences, your observance of the law is not worthy of accolades - the reward is already given.

The bolded is a bizarre view. Observing the speed limit in a school zone isn’t done in expectation of accolades or motivated by fear of the law. Ditto the deliberate pollution of a lake.

If you refrain because you consider an unpolluted lake to be a good thing (because you consider the laws to be good), you approve of the law: that is an entirely different scenario.

Jesus comments (paraphrased) to the religious leaders of his time: You would do the same as your forefathers, which shows that you approve of their sin, so you are guilty of their sin.

You have to explain by actually citing the verse. If it’s this, there’s a problem with the example:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”

Every male is programmed to have libidinous feelings on seeing an attractive woman. It’s a biological response that actually drives human reproduction.

It’s an especially terrible example given the Creator endows the male adolescent with these feelings then calls it adultery. Slick.

[tabibito]

I meant there’s no qualitative difference between inherited guilt (original sin)and fallout in the context of McDowell’s synopsis of The Fall. The issue is his seemingly erroneous conflation.

If that is McDowell's understanding of the fall, he has some learning to do. IIRC, in "Confessions," Augustine actually backed away from the concept of original sin, attributing his prior misunderstanding to a flawed translation of the text into Latin.

That doesn’t make sense, but maybe it’s because I wasn’t clear. In this scenario, a person deliberately, and with malice of forethought, poisons a lake that sustains a village. His grandson is of the constitution to not be tempted to kill a village, even if faced with the same circumstances and option to do it.

That would make the grandson not an inheritor of the sins of his grandfather. Sin cannot have been inherited if it has not been embraced.

The bolded is a bizarre view. Observing the speed limit in a school zone isn’t done in expectation of accolades or motivated by fear of the law. Ditto the deliberate pollution of a lake.

That was my point. If the only reason to do or not do is fear of the consequences, adherence cannot be attributed to rectitude on the part of the person concerned: no reason to give the person kudos. If the person rejects performing the wrongful action for other reasons (e.g. because he finds the action morally repugnant), it remains that he must live with the consequences of the prior sin (e.g. a horrible environment to live in), but it is not his sin.

You have to explain by actually citing the verse. If it’s this, there’s a problem with the example:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”

Not related to the pericope that I was referring to. It was one (or more) of the pieces where Jesus was pointing out that any claims the religious leaders might make to finding actions of their forebears deplorable was demonstrated false by their own actions.

Every male is programmed to have libidinous feelings on seeing an attractive woman. It’s a biological response that actually drives human reproduction.

It’s an especially terrible example given the Creator endows the male adolescent with these feelings then calls it adultery. Slick.

Back to rectitude, and there would certainly be a cut-off point. Beyond noting that a threshold must be reached before "lust" can be said to be in effect, full assessment requires far too much speculation to be of any use.
and
"Every male," you say? Not every male, though the significant majority (and usually those that don't ... have a love interest, which would be a legitimate outlet for libidinous feelings) - but the phenomenon is not restricted to males.

[whag]

If that is McDowell's understanding of the fall, he has some learning to do. IIRC, in "Confessions," Augustine actually backed away from the concept of original sin, attributing his prior misunderstanding to a flawed translation of the text into Latin.

You’re letting your unorthodox bias come in here, I think. The doctrine of sin nature has strong support:

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

Back to rectitude, and there would certainly be a cut-off point. Beyond noting that a threshold must be reached before "lust" can be said to be in effect, full assessment requires far too much speculation to be of any use.
and
"Every male," you say? Not every male, though the significant majority (and usually those that don't ... have a love interest, which would be a legitimate outlet for libidinous feelings) - but the phenomenon is not restricted to males.

Yes, I went a little too far with that one. The threshold is blurry, however. Most adolescents certainly cross that threshold through no fault of their own, thanks to hormonal systems they never chose to activate.

We are not murderers because our thoughts entertain killing the people who harm us, nor are we adulterers because we masturbate. War and human reproduction depend on entertaining such thoughts, unfortunately.

[Sparko]

The boxed content below is a verbatim transcription Biola University professor Sean McDowell’s view of the Christian theological concept known as “The Fall.” I thought it was a good launching point for discussion here. He says:

https://youtu.be/oY6ZEqTR2f8?si=2aeH1NDlZgImWLoH
Why did Adam and Eve’s sin have to be handed down to us? Why do we suffer for their choices? Well, in some ways, the reason why we suffer is because when any of us make choices, it affects our kids and those who come after us. It’s just the way things are. *shoulder shrug* The reality is, they were our first parents. And they made a choice, and thus, because of the choose they made, and it changed our relationship with God, that affects all of us that come afterwards. But with that said realized, I think there’s a lot of truth to the point that, if we were there, we would have made the same decision, too.

How much does this view veer from the orthodox view of The Fall?

I forbid HA and JimL from participating in the thread.

It's a simplified but fairly accurate protestant view. When Adam and Eve sinned, they became mortal and flawed. They passed that onto their children. But not only did humanity fall, the entire creation was changed.

[whag]

It's a simplified but fairly accurate protestant view. When Adam and Eve sinned, they became mortal and flawed. They passed that onto their children. But not only did humanity fall, the entire creation was changed.

By creation, do you mean the earth or the universe?

How was creation changed by the first human’s disobedient act? (Ie, how was it expressed?)

If sin was already extant (via Satan), how was the creation—whether the earth or the universe—not already “changed”?

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=whag;n1593466]

You’re letting your unorthodox bias come in here, I think. The doctrine of sin nature has strong support:

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.

It can be inferred - perhaps it might even be said, "it is implied," but there is a problem with building doctrine on the basis of poetical works. The concept of inherited sin is explicitly denied in the Old Testament: Jeremiah 31:29-30 (WRT the introduction of the New Covenant, and therefore a future flow-on from the expiry of the Old Covenant). Ezekiel 18 (passim) gives a more detailed exposition, in which it is made clear that a person will be held to account only for his own sins; as much in the author's own time as in the future. Other passages add information, and the sum leads to the conclusion that inherited sin is a myth. The capacity to sin is inherited, certainly, but no more strongly than the capacity to avoid sin - a whole other issue, but those who so desire will be eager to call me a Pelagian.

Yes, I went a little too far with that one. The threshold is blurry, however. Most adolescents certainly cross that threshold through no fault of their own, thanks to hormonal systems they never chose to activate.

We are not murderers because our thoughts entertain killing the people who harm us, nor are we adulterers because we masturbate. War and human reproduction depend on entertaining such thoughts, unfortunately.

At heart the problem stems from the merger of definitions. That temptation came to be defined as sin is tantamount to a matter of record. The same course seems to have been followed WRT a merger of any-desire with lust.





Look at a woman and find her desirable - temptation.

Act (inappropriately) in response to that desirability - sin.

Between the first and second, there are a few or maybe even several other steps: somewhere among them, the line between desire and lust is crossed.

[Sparko]

By creation, do you mean the earth or the universe?

I am guessing the entire universe.

How was creation changed by the first human’s disobedient act?

You will have to ask God how he did it.

If sin was already extant (via Satan), how was the creation—whether the earth or the universe—not already “changed”?

Satan had not interfered with God's creation until then. It did cause a change in heaven, so that Satan and his demons were ultimately cast out of heaven.

[tabibito]

IIRC, in "Confessions," Augustine actually backed away from the concept of original sin, attributing his prior misunderstanding to a flawed translation of the text into Latin.

It was confessions, and Romans ch. 5 is the relevant point of error.

per Christian History Institute Magazine (about which I know nothing, so I'm making no assessments of the quality of the site's content more generally, nor its theological positions.)

[box]A critical error


Unfortunately, Augustine’s Greek was not very good either, and he struggled with the biblical text. Sometimes he even got it wrong, as in Romans 5:12, which he translated to say that the human race sinned in Adam, and not merely because of Adam. Augustine took the verse to mean that every human being was spiritually present in Adam himself, and therefore directly responsible for Adam’s sin, whereas the apostle Paul was merely saying that, as a result of Adam’s sin, death came into the world and we have all suffered as a result.

The mistranslation had an unfortunate effect on Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, making it harsher than it should have been and leading some modern critics to reject it altogether. It just goes to show how important a correct understanding of the text can be![/quote]