Thursday, October 01, 2015

Craig on the Fall


On the one hand:

...lies in your mistaken conviction that “the main core” of the Christian worldview is “the fall of man,” where the fall of man is apparently understood to imply, not only the doctrine of original sin, but also the origin of human disease and death as a result of human sinfulness. 
This is a horribly distorted view of Christianity. Not even the doctrine of original sin is essential to Christianity, as the example of Eastern Orthodoxy plainly shows, since Orthodoxy does not accept the Catholic doctrine of original sin and yet is one of the major branches of Christendom. You protest, “If there was no fall of man, what sin is there to save us from?” That’s easy to answer: every man’s own sin. You hardly need to believe in the doctrine of original sin in order to recognize that all men have sinned and are therefore in need of God’s forgiveness. Indeed, this is the message that is emphasized throughout the Bible, not the doctrine of original sin. 
Moreover, the idea that human physical death and disease is the result of sin or the fall, though championed by Young Earth Creationists, cannot be found in the biblical text and is widely rejected by many committed Christians (including me). 
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-a-darwinian-be-a-non-christian#ixzz3nHsWzif2

On the other hand:

21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:21-22). 
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come…17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man… (Rom 5:12-13,17).

7 comments:

  1. I think Craig is coming to the conclusion that a historical Adam is untenable for scientific reasons. I even have to admit that I hold a young earth view in spite of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is, however, improper for him to state that Scripture takes no position on the origin of human death.

      Delete
    2. True, I was noting his apparent change in tone. At one time he seemed to be firmly in the OEC camp, but now it looks like he is flirting with biologos style neo-Darwinism. And that is why I tend to lean in a YEC direction. It is a more coherent reading IMHO.

      Delete
  2. Of course the philosophy of science is problematic, so I have an uncomfortable relationship between faith and evidence in this area. I don't think that the various attempts to get around Genesis 1-11 are convincing, so in all honesty I think the YEC interpretation is the best (even if it does miss somethings), but the scientific evidence so well put together at the Natural Historian blog is pretty overwhelming. At least from what I can see as a layman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay Wile is one of the more interesting YEC bloggers. Are you a regular reader of Uncommon Descent and Evolution News?

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I like Jay. I also like Todd Wood. They raise interesting questions, but a lot of my issues comes with the human migrations into Africa after Babel (on the YEC scheme). Seems difficult for me to square a lot of the facts on the ground with a YEC interpretation of Genesis. I kind of hold the two in tension. I think that what has been proved by ID and YEC Christians is the fact that DNA is code, and code requires intelligence. So, they have done a bang up job showing how it is simply impossible to derive code from physical laws. We are good there, but the problems with the text remain. I have read your stuff on the flood, and I really want to accept a local flood interpretation, but I can't do it.

      As far as the Hominid remains go, I can go either way on Naledi. Doesn't seem to matter all that much. What is concerning is many of the strained interpretations of fossil evidence from YEC's. I would direct you to Natural Historians posts on the geological context of hominid finds. It is rare that YEC's deal with the context of the finds, but it seems to me that is exactly what needs to be dealt with.

      Delete
  3. For the record, I believe in a historical Adam and Eve (kind of required by the text).

    ReplyDelete