Evolution and Original Sin

A Weblog Series published on An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution

Contributors:
George Murphy
Terry Gray
Denis Lamoureux
David Congdon

Edited by:
Steve Martin

Document Version: 1.1

Last Updated: April 7, 2009

This document is a compilation of works by several authors; the individual articles remain the property of the
individual authors. You are free to share, copy, or distribute this document in full within the limitations of the
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view copies of these licenses,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/2.5/ca/.
 Evolution and Original Sin

Table of Contents

I. Overview of the Series and Contributors ..........................................................................................................3

II. Evolution and Original Sin: Series Introduction ...............................................................................................4
III. Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin: A Brief Survey by George Murphy ........................................................5
IV. That Old Time Theology Revisited: Response by Terry Gray .........................................................................7
V. Challenging and Reshaping Historical Approaches to Original Sin: Response by Denis Lamoureux .............9
VI. Further Reflections on Genesis 1-3 and the Nature of Sin : Response by David Congdon ...........................11
VII. Evolution and Original Sin: George Murphy Replies (Part 1) .......................................................................13
VIII. Evolution and Original Sin: George Murphy Replies (Part 2).......................................................................15
IX. The Historicity of Adam: Q&A with George Murphy (Part 1) ......................................................................16
X. Pastoral Implications of Original Sin and Evolution: Q&A with George Murphy (Part 2)...........................18
XI. Evolution and Original Sin: Conclusion.........................................................................................................19

2
 Evolution and Original Sin

I. Overview of the Series and Contributors

A series of articles on evolution and Original Sin was published between October 16, 2008 and December 20, 2008
on the weblog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution.. The focus of the discussion was George Murphy's paper
Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin. The series included articles from 5 different
authors.

1. George Murphy is a physicist, theologian, and pastor and is the author of The Cosmos in the Light of the
Cross. He has written numerous books, articles, and columns on the interface between science and
theology. George contributed five articles to the series. These included:
 An article briefly surveying his paper was published on October 28, 2008
 Two articles replying to responses by other contributors. Part 1 was published on November
16, 2008 and Part 2 was published on November 19, 2008.
 Two articles replying to questions from blog readers. Part1: The Historicity of Adam was
published on November 24, 2008 and Part 2: Pastoral Implications of Original Sin and
Evolution was published on November 29, 2008.

2. Terry Gray is the webmaster for the ASA and has written several helpful articles on the creation / evolution
dialogue including Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist Criticism of
Irreducible Complexity. Terry contributed to the series with his article That Old Time Theology Revisited.
This response to Murphy’s paper was published on November 1, 2008.

3. Denis Lamoureux teaches at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, and is the author of
Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Denis contributed to the series with his article
Challenging and Reshaping Historical Approaches to Original Sin. This response to Murphy’s paper was
published on November 7, 2008.

4. David Congdon is a PhD student in systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. For an
introduction to David's writing, see his excellent blog series The Heresies of American Evangelicalism.
David contributed to the series with his article Further Reflections on Genesis 1-3 and Original Sin. This
response to Murphy’s paper was published on November 11, 2008.

5. Steve Martin wrote the series Introduction on October 26, 2008 and the series Conclusion on December 28,
2008. He publishes the weblog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution.

3
 Evolution and Original Sin
II. Evolution and Original Sin:
Series Introduction
This is the first installment in a guest-post series
discussing George Murphy’s paper Roads to Paradise
and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin.
For many Christians, the rejection of evolution is
simple logic. A) The Bible says God created Adam &
Eve on the 6th day. Therefore evolution is false. QED.
Or: B) Evolution contradicts many straight-forward
theological truths (eg. Original Sin). Therefore
evolution is false. QED.
For these Christians, the problem with evolution is not
the scientific evidence itself; in fact, very few have
even a basic appreciation for the evidence. The primary
issue is the perceived difficulty in reconciling the
scientific evidence with common methods of biblical
interpretation (eg. statement A) and some traditional
theological conclusions (eg. statement B). Although I
completely agree with Peter Enns’ observation in his
review of The Bible, Rocks, and Time that “deliberate
conversation between biblical scholars and scientists”
is sorely needed, I believe that the conversation
between orthodox Christian theologians and scientists
is even more urgently required. Evangelical biblical
scholars (like Enns) have provided us with an
abundance of resources to deal with fundamentally
flawed scientific claims based on equally flawed
biblical interpretation. However, good theological
resources to address the integration of modern science
and Christian theology are few and far between. So,
while is not that difficult for thoughtful Christians to
address claims like statement A, addressing theological
conundrums like statement B are much more
challenging.
George Murphy’s Theology
George Murphy has been very helpful in addressing
this challenge. Murphy is a physicist, theologian, and
pastor. He has written numerous books, articles, and
columns on the interface between science and
theology. Personally, I’d put his The Cosmos in the
Light of the Cross right up near the top with
Polkinghorne’s Science and Christian Belief for
resources that constructively examine the relationship
between science and orthodox Christian theology.
Where Polkinghorne conducts a wide-ranging
discussion of modern science in the light of the Nicene
Creed, Murphy conducts this same discussion within
the context of the Theology of the Cross (as espoused
by Luther among others). Murphy has described his
4
theology as an in-progress research program, and he
continues to expand that program. For example, in the
upcoming December 2008 issue of PSCF, he will be
publishing a paper on atonement. But it is an earlier
paper that I’d like to discuss in some detail here on my
blog , a paper that provides guidance on how to
reconcile evolution with the theological truth
mentioned earlier: Original Sin.
Personally Grappling with Evolution and Original
Sin
Back in the spring of 2006 I spent a lot of energy
investigating evolution and its implications for
Christian theology. (I even took a one-week “vacation”
from work to immerse myself fulltime tackling some of
the tougher issues – ok, not everyone’s idea of a wise
use of vacation time). Original Sin was one of those
issues, and I was excited to see that the June 2006
edition of PSCF had several articles on the topic. I
can’t say all of these articles resonated with me, but
one in particular stuck out as very important: Murphy’s
article entitled Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ,
Evolution, and Original Sin. Here was what I was
looking for: a theological framework that seemed
capable of fruitful exploration while remaining
grounded in the truth revealed in scripture and Jesus
Christ. No, not all the tough questions were answered
(if anything, I probably had more questions after
reading the article) but at least it was a good start. I
looked forward to further discussion of the article.
Unfortunately, that discussion never seemed to happen.
It has been more than two years since Murphy's paper
was first published, and I have yet to see a significant
discussion of the paper. Maybe I am not looking in the
right places.
So in the spirit of “Stop complaining and do something
about it yourself”, I’ve decided to launch a discussion
here on my blog. Since I have neither the theological
training nor expertise to lead this effort, I’ve invited
several guests who have both to participate in a guest-
post series.
The Series
Over the next several weeks, I will be publish a series
on evolution and Original Sin using Murphy’s article
as a focal point. The series will begin with Murphy
himself providing a short summary of his 2006 PSCF
article. Three other guests will then respond to the
article. Critique’s will be provided by Terry Gray from
Colorado State University (and webmaster for the
ASA), Denis Lamoureux from St. Joseph’s College at
the University of Alberta (Author of Evolutionary
Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution), and
 Evolution and Original Sin
David Congdon (A PhD Theology student at Princeton
Theological Seminary and publisher of the Fire and the
Rose Blog). (A quick teaser: the response-order has
been set as Terry, Denis, David to satisfy a quasi-
Goldilocks reaction to Murphy’s views: a theology
too-far, not-far-enough, and just-about-right).
Series Format
The following is the format for the series:
1. Introduction (this post)
2. Summary of the 2006 PSCF article (George
Murphy)
3. Response #1 (Terry Gray)
4. Response #2 (Denis Lamoureux)
5. Response #3 (David Congdon)
6. George Murphy replies to the three responses
7. George Murphy answers readers’ questions
8. Conclusion
Note that I’m trying an experiment here. Think of this
series as a debate/dialogue lecture in a comfortable
university lecture hall. George, Terry, Denis, and
David are on the stage and each will be given a turn to
speak, in George’s case twice. During their lectures
(posts), there will be no questions, remarks, or
criticisms from the audience. As such blog comments
will be disabled on posts #2 through #6. (And to show
respect to our speakers, please turn off all electronic
devices for the next few weeks).
Post #7 will be an opportunity for you the audience to
ask questions. The post will consist of readers’
questions, and short answers from George. This isn’t a
free-for-all. Questions must be submitted to the
moderator (myself) for review before access to the
audience microphone (questions published in post#7)
is granted. This is not about censorship, but about
quality discussion. I’m sure we have all been to
lectures where a good discussion was ruined by an
audience question that was longwinded, confusing, and
off topic.
How to Participate in the Q&A
If you would like to pose a question to George to be
answered in Post#7, please submit it to me via email.
You can do this at any time up until 2 days after post#6
is published. Please keep questions relatively short –
ideally 3 or 4 sentences maximum. Blog comments will
be open on this post – consider it the after-lecture
reception where informality (and sometimes heated
discussion) is the norm.
Let’s Go
So the lobby lights are flashing, and it is almost time to
5
begin. Finish that drink. If there is anything you would
like to say, say it now. (Actually, you have a few
minutes – these things never seem to start on time
anyways).
Otherwise sit back and enjoy the series.
III. Christ, Evolution, and
Original Sin: A Brief Survey by
George Murphy
This is a guest post by George Murphy, and is the
second installment in a guest-post series discussing his
paper Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ,
Evolution, and Original Sin. George is a physicist,
theologian, and pastor, and has authored numerous
articles and books including The Cosmos in the Light
of the Cross.
In this brief survey of my article “Roads to Paradise
and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin” I
focus on some basic concepts related to original sin
and the model I suggest for understanding the human
condition. Space limitations preclude treatment of two
questions that concern many Christians, the historicity
of Adam and Eve and the relationship between sin and
death. I refer those interested to the original article for
fuller discussion, and to Couldn’t God Get It Right?
for a discussion of the concept of God’s
“accommodation” in scripture.
Sin: The Concept
It’s important at the outset to be clear about some
concepts that are involved in a discussion of original
sin. First there is sin itself – fundamentally, violation of
the First Commandment, worshipping the creature
rather than the creator (Romans 1:25). The common
biblical terms for sin (Hebrew chata’ and Greek
hamartanō) have the sense of missing a mark. The
same idea can be seen in the Old Testament’s common
word for “repent,” shubh, which means to turn back or
return. God’s intended goal for creation is threatened if
part of it moves away from that goal.
Ephesians 1:10 speaks of God’s “plan for the fullness
of time, to gather up all things in [Christ], things in
heaven and things on earth.” Creation is for the sake of
Christ. Sin means that something has gone wrong with
that plan. Atonement – i.e., reconciliation - is needed
because creation is alienated from God, an alienation
revealed by human sin. In Romans 1 Paul emphasizes
that the refusal to acknowledge the true God as creator
is the basic human problem.
 Evolution and Original Sin
Sin threatens creation. Pride, the desire of the creature
to usurp the place of the creator, was traditionally seen
as the basic sin. Recently feminist theologians have
emphasized that in their experience resistance to God’s
will is often expressed in the opposite way, as failure to
be what God intended them to be. We may be tempted
to usurp God’s place, but may also be tempted to be
not much of anything, refusing the call to represent
God in ruling and serving the world. Our failure may
be the deadly sin of pride but it can also be the deadly
sin of sloth. And it may be falsehood, a willful denial
of the truth about God and the world. In all these forms
sin contradicts God’s will for creation.
Sin: A Universal Problem
The problem of sin is universal – all people are sinners.
This universality of sin is the reason salvation is
needed, salvation that is accomplished through Christ.
Contrary to the claims of some opponents of evolution
and critics of Christianity, an explanation of why all
people are sinners is not a sine qua non for belief in
Christ as savior. That “why” is an important question
to be explored here but the basic law-gospel message
does not require that it be answered.
Not only are all people sinners but they are that from
the beginnings of their lives. That is the idea of “sin of
origin.” Though the two are related, it is not the same
as the concept of “original sin,” which has to do with
the idea that the sinful human condition began with sin
of the first humans at some point in history. That
“original sin” (in the Christian tradition described in
Genesis 3) contrasts with the “original righteousness”
with which the first humans are supposed to have been
created. They were in a “state of integrity” in which
they could choose not to sin. The original sin and its
effects (somehow communicated to all later
generations) mean that no one can now avoid sinning.
Sin and Human Evolution
How are we to understand these ideas, and to what
extent can we retain their traditional forms, if we
believe that God has created humanity through an
evolutionary process in which natural selection was a
major factor? If that is the case then our prehuman
ancestors were members of their species who were
most successful in competition with others for survival
needs. They were not “sinful” because they killed or
deceived their fellows, were sexually promiscuous, and
did other things that would be sinful for us. But when
the first hominids who somehow were made aware of
God and God’s will for them came into being, they
would have had strong propensities for the same types
of behavior. They would have been powerfully
tempted to the basic sin, putting other things ahead of
6
God. Studies of our closest primate relatives show that
they do behave in ways that natural selection leads us
to expect.
Thus what we know of evolution and primate behavior
in particular makes it implausible that the first humans
lived in a sinless state of integrity for any period of
time. The traditional Christian concept most threatened
by evolution is not original sin but original
righteousness. How can we deal with this?
The Wrong Road
We focus on those first hominids (without deciding
how large that group may have been, or where or when
they lived) who had evolved to the point of self-
awareness, rational thought and linguistic ability. They
can in some way receive and faintly understand God's
Word and have some awareness of God's will for them,
though we don’t know how it may have come to them.
They are at the beginning of a road along which God
wants to lead them and their descendants to mature
humanity and complete fellowship with God.
They could follow that road but it would not be easy
because of inherited traits and learned behaviors that
enabled their ancestors to survive and pass on their
genes. Those traits predispose them toward selfish
behavior and away from the kind of relationships that
God intends for them. Sin is not “hardwired” into them
but tendencies toward it are strong. They can refuse to
trust God and disobey God's will for them.
That is what happened. History shows that from its
beginnings humanity has not trusted the God of Israel
and has been involved in continual conflict. That
historical reality corresponds to the picture of
humanity’s gradual departure from God in Genesis 1-
11, though the biblical story need not be seen as an
accurate historical narrative. The first humans took a
wrong road that led away from the goal God intended.
They and their descendants had soon lost their way.
This image of “taking the wrong road”, like that of “the
fall,” is a metaphor for the human condition, not an
historical narrative. It is not the condition of being on a
journey that is sinful. The problem is not that we are on
a metaphorical evolutionary road, but that we're on a
wrong road. Failure to make this distinction may result
in the work of Christ being seen only as one phase in
the creative process rather than a correction of
something that had gone wrong with it – a mistake that,
for example, process theology often makes.
 Evolution and Original Sin
Both Nature and Nurture Predispose us to Sin
Humanity is a “symbiosis” of genes and culture. Both
help to transmit to each person the essence of
humanity, but both can also contribute to deviation
from God’s intention for humanity. Our genetic
makeup, conditioned by natural selection, predisposes
us toward selfish behavior. The cultures in which we
are conceived, born and live exacerbate those
tendencies. We are born as members of a tribe lost in
the woods.
To say that there is a genetic component of original sin
does not mean that there is a “gene for sin.” Whether
or not an action is sinful generally depends on the
context in which it takes place as well as the action
itself. Genes may give us tendencies for certain
behaviors but do not force us to do those things.
To say that there is a cultural component of original sin
means that sin is in part a result of our environment, an
effect of “nurture” as well as “nature.” The effects of
our environment can be far more pervasive than mere
examples, as the analogy of fetal alcohol syndrome due
to a uterine environment suggests. They are not things
that we freely choose to accept or reject, but influences
that we take in “with our mother’s milk.”
Solidarity in Sin
There is solidarity in sin, so that, in a classic
Augustinian phrase, people make up a “corrupt mass.”
More modern language speaks of “structures of sin”
such as racism in human societies. A person born into a
racist society is not predestined to be a racist, but it
will be very “natural” to do so. Because of both genes
and culture, we all start our lives on that wrong road,
far from God, and are pointed in the wrong direction.
Thus we are “missing the mark” from the start. Our sin
of origin truly is sin. As Tillich put it, “Before sin is an
act, it is a state.”
Neither strict Augustinians nor determined Pelagians
will be satisfied with this model. Unregenerate people
are not compelled to sin but all people are sinners and
would need the saving grace made available in Christ
even if they could theoretically avoid “actual sins.”
This approach does preserve the essence of what the
western church has insisted upon without theories
about human history and the transmission of sin which
are now seen to be untenable.
7
IV. That Old Time Theology
Revisited: Response by Terry Gray
This is a guest post by Terry Gray, and is the third
installment in a guest-post series discussing George
Murphy's paper Roads to Paradise and Perdition:
Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin. Terry is the
webmaster for the ASA and has written several helpful
articles on the creation / evolution dialogue including
Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--
No! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity.
Charles Hodge, the nineteenth-century Old Princeton
theologian once boasted that a new idea never
originated in Princeton Seminary. Following Hodge, I
will argue that there is no compelling reason to
abandon traditional theological views and that there are
perfectly satisfying solutions for resolving the so-
called problems introduced by the findings of
evolutionary biology. Murphy exemplifies many who
seem to be so eagerly making peace with science by
radically reconstructing traditional and well-founded
interpretations of Scripture. The solutions that I will be
offering are nothing new; other “traditionalists” have
made similar suggestions. Admittedly, there are loose
ends, tensions, unresolved matters, mysteries, etc. I
readily acknowledge this and confess that on some of
these questions we see more dimly than we might
like—theologically, scientifically, and the two in
juxtaposition. Some will accuse me of concordist
tendencies. If concordism means a belief in the
fundamental unity of truth, then I will wear the label
proudly. “Anti-concordists” seek concord in their own
way, usually at the expense of Scripture (or at least
longstanding understandings of Scripture).
Three Concerns
I have three main concerns with Murphy’s proposal.
First, he much too readily abandons the
Augustinian/Lutheran/Reformed orthodoxy on the
historicity of Adam and Eve (and Adam and Eve’s
Fall). Second, and perhaps more seriously, he
abandons the notion of a state of innocence, an original
paradise, where human beings found themselves in
right relationship with God. Third, and perhaps most
seriously, but not nearly as explicitly, he adopts a
materialistic view of human nature. This comes to
expression in the apparent belief that human beings are
essentially the product of their evolutionary
development.
 Evolution and Original Sin

No Need to Abandon Dualism hominids began to advance culturally. They made

It is unfashionable today to be an anthropological their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is
dualist—to believe that human beings are composed of conceivable that God created Adam out of one of
a physical/biological body and a non-physical them. You may call them homo erectus. I think
component, traditionally called the soul. But dualism you may even call some of them homo sapiens,
has been the understanding of Scripture for nearly the for these are arbitrary scientific names. But
entire history of the church—certainly that which is Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a
embodied in the creeds of the church for the first phrase, the first man to whom may be given the
seventeen centuries. There have been critics, but these Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’.
have been largely outside the mainstream of Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was
confessional orthodoxy. However, today, for largely stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture
scientific reasons based on psychology and nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest
neuroscience, human nature is explained, even by that it includes rational, moral, social, and
Christians, in terms of biology. Consciousness, the spiritual faculties which make man unlike all
mind, and traditional attributes of the soul are seen to other creatures and like God the creator, and on
emerge from the complexity of the brain. Due in part to account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over
the diminishing influence of confessional traditions, the lower creation.
the monist theological viewpoint has become more
Stott dates this event in the Neolithic period, around
mainstream.
10,000 years ago congruent with the cultural depictions
in the early chapters of Genesis. Kidner in his Genesis
In many respects the run to monism mystifies me. A
commentary proposes that simultaneously all others in
non-physical/biological component to human nature is
the human population would have received the
no more detectable than God himself is in his
“stamp”. Note also that the pre-homo divinus humans
sustenance, governance, and providence of all things—
may have evidenced some marks of human behavior,
yet we believe that he is there and that the world would
the same way that we now recognize some aspects of
not exist without him being there. I simply cannot see
human behavior in other animals. This does not
how a neurophysiological explanation of human nature
necessarily diminish the force of the claim here.
is an argument against dualism. A dualistic
Interestingly, the period between 10,000 and 20,000
anthropology is rooted in Biblical teaching, particularly
years marks the beginnings of agriculture and other
in the way the Bible gives clues about a disembodied
uniquely human cultural activities. Secular writers, for
existence in the intermediate state. Don’t get me wrong
example, Niles Eldredge in Dominion, even recognize
here. Anthropological dualism can still maintain that
this dramatic transition.
the embodied existence is the creational norm for
human existence, that a resurrected body is the goal,
No Need to Abandon a State of Innocence
that there are intimate connections between body and
We can now transition into the second point. Murphy
soul, that behavior is influenced by physical/biological
suggests that if we are to take our human evolutionary
factors, etc.
history seriously, then we have to give up the notion of
a state of innocence. In my mind this strikes at one of
Homo Divinus and the Evolutionary Narrative
the central planks of Biblical teaching. In the Reformed
So, why is this important? If human beings “have”
tradition (and others) we speak of Creation, Fall,
both a physical/biological body component and a soul,
Redemption. The original Creation was good and
then it is unlikely that human origins can be completely
reflected God’s intentions, the Fall explains evil, and
accounted for with an evolutionary scenario (even a
Redemption is God’s defeat of sin and death in Christ
theistic one). The human body, the human biological
and his completion of his purposes in Christ. While
organism, has evolutionary roots. It is hard to dispute
most of the Biblical narrative is devoted to
that. John Stott, Derek Kidner, and others have argued
Redemption, the other two planks are critical to a
that the human biological form evolved, but that at
proper understanding of the world. The suggestion that
some point in history, God made humanity in the
things start “bad” seems strangely out of place and has
image of God and “gave” him a soul. Stott writes in
the practical implication of undermining a Biblical
Understanding the Bible (p. 63):
worldview. Creation, Fall, Redemption—historically
understood—are too central to my understanding of
But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical
scripture and the world.
is not incompatible with my belief that several
forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed
I suggest that the scenario outlined above for the origin
for thousands of years previously. These
of homo divinus undoes the claim that a state of

8
 Evolution and Original Sin
innocence could not have existed. State of innocence,
paradise, etc. does not necessarily mean “golden age”
as Murphy has suggested. Neither does it necessarily
imply some kind of superpower Adam with fantastical
physical and mental powers. In the covenant theology
spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for
example, the state of innocence, was a probation.
Paradise was not the eschaton. Had Adam and Eve
passed the test, they would have been exalted into
eschatology glory, the glory that now is only attainable
as the result of Christ’s redemptive work. Clearly,
Adam and Eve were “able to sin”; as well the tempter
was there. Such will not be the case in the eschaton.
Eschaton transcends paradise—it’s not a return to
paradise. Finally, the state of innocence or paradise
does not necessarily imply anything about death before
the Fall. Paradise had to do with God’s relationship
with human beings and with human beings’
relationship to one another.
So, Adam was in a state of innocence. He communed
with God, enjoyed fellowship unspoiled by sin--
although without the eschatological perfection. There
was a pre-Fall Adamic covenant: do not eat of the tree
of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or you will die. If
you don’t keep this command, you will not enter into
the eschatological fulfillment. In this covenant, Adam
represented the human race. Such is what is taught by
the traditional understanding of Romans 5. There is no
reason that this covenantal role could not be played by
Adam even if there were others who received the
image of God when he did. He played the pivotal role.
He was to the whole human race in his probation and
Fall what Christ is to all who are in him. Whereas
Adam failed, Christ did not. Whereas Adam brought
death, Christ brought salvation. The Genesis account
gives the impression that the state of innocence was
short-lived (at least the part involving human beings).
If it was short-lived, there may be scant historical,
anthropological, or archeological evidence for
paradise.
No Need to Abandon a Historical Adam
This finally leads us to the Fall and the notion of
original sin. In the scenario described above, a
historical Adam who represented the whole human
race failed the test. As covenant head his failure had
consequences for all he represented: his posterity and,
perhaps, his contemporaries. The consequences are
legal and moral. We are sinners because we are in
Adam. This strikes the modern mind as unfair
(although free grace salvation in Christ does not). We
are also morally tainted. We enter this world children
of wrath by nature. Hardly any proof of the doctrine of
the universality of sin is needed. On this point I agree
9
with Murphy. How this moral dimension is propagated
is more speculative. A Traducianist view of the origin
of the soul (souls are derived from the souls of parents)
can readily explain this propagation. The Creationist
view of the origin of the soul (that God specially
creates each individual soul at conception, or between
conception and birth) has more difficulty with the
question because then God is creating spiritually dead
souls. Perhaps the guilty verdict that comes as a result
of our being in Adam is what produces spiritual death
as we enter this world. The New England Primer
captures the bottom line: “In Adam’s Fall, we sinned
all”.
Conclusion
The upshot of the matter is that if you are an
anthropological dualist and believe that the origin of
human beings as homo divinus is not the result of an
evolutionary process but the result of a special creative
act, then it is not that difficult to maintain the
traditional notion of a historical fall and the notion of
original sin. Clearly, the view expressed here has
abandoned the notion of common biological descent
from Adam, but it has preserved the theologically more
central notion of Adam’s covenant headship.
V. Challenging and Reshaping
Historical Approaches to Original
Sin: Response by Denis
Lamoureux
This is a guest post by Denis Lamoureux, and is the
fourth installment in a guest-post series discussing
George Murphy's paper Roads to Paradise and
Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin. Denis
teaches at St. Joseph's College at the University of
Alberta, and is the author of Evolutionary Creation: A
Christian Approach to Evolution.
It has been a pleasure to review George Murphy’s
paper. I have a few disagreements, but overall I quite
resonate with his views. In fact, I will be using his
paper with graduate students at Regent College
(Vancouver, BC) this semester.
George’s paper was published in an evangelical
science-religion journal (Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith), and he is miles ahead of the curve for
the evangelical community. A 2004 ABC TV study
reveals 87% in the pews believe that Gen 1 (creation in
six days) is “word-for-word” history. For biologists in
evangelical schools (CCCU), 25% describe themselves
 Evolution and Original Sin
as young earth creationists, 48% as progressive
creationists, and 27% as theistic evolutionists (Science,
1 Jul 05, p. 51). For those who are evolutionists, most
would “tack on” an Adam at the tail end of evolution
(see Darrel Falk, Keith Miller, et al), and most would
say that the condemnation of Adam to death in Gen 3
is “spiritual death.”
Categories
As much as I enjoyed George’s paper, I thought the
categories could have been defined with a bit more
clarity for those not familiar with the discussion. To do
this, let’s look at a classic approach to understanding
original sin. This comes from Pope Pius XII, “Humani
Generis (1950)” in which he takes the problem of
evolution and the traditional doctrine head on.
“There is question of another conjectural
opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the
Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the
faithful cannot embrace that opinion which
maintains either:
[i] that after Adam there existed on this earth true
men who did not take their origin through natural
generation from him as from the first parent of all
or
[ii] that Adam represents a certain number of
first parents.
Now it is in no way apparent how such an
opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled with that
which the sources of revealed truth [Bible] and
the documents of the Teaching Authority of the
Church [Tradition] propose with regard to
original sin,
[1] which proceeds from a sin actually committed
by an individual Adam and
[2] which through generation is passed on to all
and is in everyone as his own.”
Though there are many spins and nuances on original
sin throughout Church history, it features two central
ideas:
[1] the first sin by a real person, named Adam
[2] transmission of Adam’s sin to everyone.
Note the hermeneutical “loop hole” and possibility to
reconsider the traditional idea: “Now it is in no way
apparent how. . .”. In other words, if we can propose a
hermeneutical approach to Gen 1-3, we can
reformulate/reshape/modify/challenge the historic
notion of original sin.
10
Hermeneutics
I basically agree with George, but I wish he had been
more forceful. Gen 1-2 is an ancient origins account.
Typical of these in the ancient world, origins is De
Novo (quick and complete). The ancients saw a cow
give birth to a cow, give birth to a cow, etc; and they
logically extended this phenomenological experience
to an original cow [termed “retrojection” It’s what we
do in geology]. Similarly, a human gives birth to a
human, who gives birth to a human, etc, Ergo, who is
Adam? Ancient science. He never existed.
Therefore, if Adam never existed, then he never
sinned. And if he never sinned, then his sin was never
passed down to us from him. End of story.
So what’s happening? The Holy Spirit is
accommodating. NOT LYING, BUT
ACCOMMODATING. Therefore, don’t go to Gen 1-3
to find out how the world was created, or how human
history began—it’s not there.
What we must do is separate (not conflate as most
through history and today have done) the Holy Spirit
inspired Message of Faith (inerrant & infallible) from
the INCIDENTAL ancient origins science (the science-
of-the-day). In the case of Gen 1-3, Adam is an ancient
vessel that transports the spiritual Truths: humans are
created in the Image of God, humans are sinful, and
God judges us for our sins. Worrying about where
Adam fits in the paleontological record makes about as
much sense as trying to figure out where in the
firmament NASA sends its spacecraft.
Of course, freeing yourself of concordism (or scientific
concordism) is very counterintuitive. But with practice,
you will get there.
What About Paul?
Paul definitely believed in the historicity of Adam. But
that was the science-of-the-day. He also believed that
the universe was made up of three tiers. Phil 2 states:
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
[1] in heaven and
[2] on earth and
[3] under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Note that the Greek for “under the earth” is actually
katachthovios: underworld. kata: down; chthovios
underworld, chthonic realm. Thus, the more accurate
 Evolution and Original Sin
translation would be: the beings living in the
underworld (see Matt 12:40 and Jesus’s visit there).
So, just as we separate ancient astronomy from the
Message “Jesus is Lord of the universe,” we should
separate Paul’s belief in Adam’s existence from the
Message "humans are sinners".
I believe Christians err with what I called the
conferment or bestow argument. It goes like this: "Paul
believed in Adam, therefore Adam must exist".
But do Christians want to argue: "Paul believed in a 3-
tier world, therefore the 3-tier world must exist"? I
doubt anyone wants to go there.
Spiritual Death
This is my only complaint with George’s argument. He
says on page 117 that Adam suffered spiritual death
not physical death. Why the “reverse” concordism
George? You were doing so well. Gen 1-3 has an
ancient understanding of the origin of life; it is only
consistent that it has an ancient understanding of the
origin of death, too. And of course, there is no debate
in the fossil record—death existed prior to humans by
100's of millions of years.
Death in Gen 3 is physical—“dust you are and to dust
you shall return” is physical. It is also part of the
Cosmic Fall (introductions of weeds, pain, legless
snakes etc). And it is in Rom 8 with the “frustrated,
groaning and decaying creation.” Note that George
didn’t touch Rom 8 in his paper.
Like all origins accounts, Gen 3 is etiological. The
ancients asked, "Where did death and suffering come
from?” The ancients connected these harsh realities to
evil/transgression - think of ancient medicine and its
reference to demons; eg. epileptic kid in the NT).
Gen 3 is a recycled lost idyllic (golden) age motif used
by the Holy Spirit to reveal He judges our sins.
Hebrews were late in the ANE; motifs like de novo
creation, lost idyllic age, great flood, and tribal
formation were in place for a long time. Under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit they were freed of their
pagan theology and given instead life changing
Messages of Faith.
The Evolutionary Carcass
Yes, we do have one. But we also have come to a place
in which we can decide whether or not we follow our
evolutionary impulses. When Jesus said to pluck your
eye out for lusting, it makes a lot of sense from the
perspective of evolutionary psychology. We are
11
evolved “beasts” who bear God’s Image and are
accountable. And by God’s grace, we can transcend
those impulses.
Sin of Origin
Finally, there is no need for George’s so-called “sin of
origin” which I must confess confused me (and even
irritated me). Why George? Not justification to
maintain a ritual, I hope?
I trust this brief review has been helpful. For those who
wish further details, I discuss these ideas more fully in
my book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach
to Evolution (2008).
VI. Further Reflections on Genesis
1-3 and the Nature of Sin :
Response by David Congdon
This is a guest post by David Congdon, and is the fifth
installment in a guest-post series discussing George
Murphy's paper Roads to Paradise and Perdition:
Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin. David is a PhD
student in systematic theology at Princeton
Theological Seminary. For an introduction to David's
writing, see his excellent blog series The Heresies of
American Evangelicalism.
I would like to begin by thanking Steve Martin for
inviting me to participate in this dialogue. I would also
like to thank George Murphy for writing such a
compelling and interesting article. I have to start by
confessing up front that I basically agree with what
Murphy says in his paper. What I would like to do is
pursue some of the points raised by the essay in more
detail and attempt to offer some further reflection on
the nature of sin and the narrative of Genesis 3. My
comments will proceed by briefly addressing the
following questions: (1) what is original sin? and (2)
how ought we to read Genesis 1-3?
1. What is original sin?
While it’s not stated as clearly as I would like, I think
one could summarize Murphy’s thesis in the following
way: instead of a doctrine of “original sin” with a
corresponding doctrine of “original righteousness,” we
should reconceive these concepts in light of the biblical
witness by speaking of a “sin of origin” that affects
each person from birth and a corresponding
progression, by the grace of God, toward maturity,
righteousness, and fellowship with God. Based on
what we have learned from science, Murphy rightly
 Evolution and Original Sin
rejects the idea of an original human pair that spawned
the rest of the human race as well as a state of “original
righteousness” in which death was not yet operative in
nature. Instead of longing for some mythical past,
Murphy argues that we should construct a teleological
anthropology, in which the goal of humanity is not a
recovery of a perfect Eden but the redemption of the
new creation.
Original Guilt
Murphy’s insights are important, but some further
theological development is necessary. First, we need to
explore Augustine’s contribution a little further.
Murphy discusses Augustine in the context of the
debate with Pelagius. He says that Augustine argued
“that all are sinners from the beginning of life,”
whereas Pelagius turned Adam into a bad moral
example. While certainly correct, this does not account
for the true innovation in Augustine’s doctrine—viz.
the idea of “original guilt.” It’s not just that all people
“are born not only with a tendency to sin but actually
as sinners”; rather, it’s that all people are born guilty of
the original sin. That is, each person is born as if he or
she actually committed the sin of Adam and Eve.
This doctrine of “original guilt” constitutes a central
divide between Western and Eastern hamartiologies;
the latter keeps “original corruption” but has no
conception of “original guilt.” While I think the East is
the better of the two on that point, both the East and
the West remain far too mythical in their respective
views on the transmission of this sinful corruption. On
this point, the two sides essentially agree: the act of
sexual intercourse is the agent by which the corruption
of the parents is transferred to the child.
Reconceiving the Theological Priority of Sinful
Being and Act
As modern Christians, we no longer hold to this notion
of sexual transmission of corruption, at least not in the
ancient form presupposed by Augustine and Maximus.
Moreover, as a theologian shaped by the later Barth’s
actualistic ontology, I have serious problems with the
traditional priority of nature over act. Whereas the
tradition says that we inherit a sin nature first before
we commit any actual sin, I would argue instead that in
our entrance into history with birth, we intrinsically act
as individuals “curved in upon ourselves” because of
our social environment. “By nature” we act in
opposition to those around us. And in this “original”
act of sin, we actualize our “sin nature.” Sin as act
precedes sin as nature. We do not participate in
Adam’s guilt, nor do we receive a corrupt essence from
Adam by virtue of reproduction. On the contrary, we
enter into a corrupt environment in which sin as
12
incurvatus in se is inescapable. We are born into
corrupt social relations that make it impossible for us
to achieve perfection through the force of will.
Augustine and Pelagius were both right in their own
ways: Augustine was correct to argue that we are
slaves to sin who depend upon grace alone, but
Pelagius was right to argue that sin is primarily an act
before it is nature. Against Pelagius, though, I would
say that such acts are inevitable by virtue of our
historical situatedness. In a very real sense, therefore,
history began with the fall, and history as we know it is
the continuation of “fallen” acts.
An actualistic ontology means that being is determined
by act. This goes for both sin and salvation. As sinners,
we are what we do, viz. “sin.” As those saved by God’s
grace, we are what Christ did, viz. reconciled us to
God through his life of faithful obedience, his death in
God-abandonment, and his resurrection to new life in
the power of the Spirit. Theological anthropology is
grounded not in substances or essences which precede
human action. Rather, theological anthropology is
defined by human acts: the individual act of sin that
defines us as those “curved in upon ourselves,” and the
Christological act of reconciliation that defines us as
adopted children of God.
2. How should we read Genesis 1-3?
Barth argues in Church Dogmatics III/1 that the
“history-like” Genesis story should be read in the genre
of “saga” as a “third way” beyond the binary
opposition of myth and history. Against myth, Genesis
recounts a truly historical event: the event of creation.
Against history, Genesis recounts an event which, as
the editors of CD III/1 state in their preface, “cannot be
historiographically expressed.” The event of creation is
not unlike the event of the resurrection, in the sense
that science cannot penetrate what is a divine
occurrence, an event in the historical life of God that
cannot be read off the face of creation itself.
Etiological Myth
While I have no disagreement with Barth regarding the
theological interpretation of Genesis as saga, I do not
have the same aversion to the word “myth.” As a
result, I tend to speak of Genesis 1-3 (though not only
these chapters) as an “etiological myth” (or “etiological
saga,” if you prefer). “Etiology” refers to the study of
origins or causes, and here I think the opening of
Genesis was crafted by the Israelites over a lengthy
period of time for the purpose of narrating the nature of
created existence and the cause of human sin and
suffering in the context of their covenantal relationship
 Evolution and Original Sin
with Yahweh. The creation narrative serves the
Israelite self-understanding as those brought into a
covenantal relationship with God. What all this means
on an exegetical level is the Genesis story has to be
read as the history-like, mythological introduction to
Exodus. The creation account provides the necessary
prelude to the account of Israel’s deliverance and
establishment as God’s chosen people.
In short, we need to read Gen. 1-3 with Exodus firmly
in mind. The story of creation has to be read in
relationship with the story of God’s de-construction of
Egypt and re-construction of Israel. The story of
Adam’s sin has to be read in relation to Israel’s
confession of sin, their promise of covenant fidelity,
and their continual failures as a people before God.
The story of Eden and “original righteousness” should
be read as the mythological acknowledgment of
creation’s disruption through human sin and the need
for a covenant with God. The covenant is thus the
restoration of humanity’s relation with God. The myth
of humanity’s fall in the Garden of Eden is the
narratival introduction to the story of humanity’s
redemption in the exodus from Egypt. Egypt is the
literary foil to Eden, just as Pharaoh is the literary foil
to Yahweh: Egypt is a place of enslavement and
Pharaoh the one who enslaves; by contrast, Eden (and
later Sinai) is a place of freedom, and Yahweh is the
one who liberates.
Interpreting the Text
Just as I remarked above how the doctrine of creation
serves the doctrine of redemption, so too the text of
creation serves the text of redemption. Genesis serves
Exodus; creation serves the covenant. When we read
Genesis, then, we have to interpret the text in a
threefold context: (1) the theological context of the
doctrines of creation, sin, and redemption (the first two
serving the third); (2) the literary/textual context of the
Torah as the history-like narrative of God’s covenant;
and (3) the historical-cultural context of Israel as a
people living in exile from the land promised to them
by God. Finally, while these three contexts are
indispensable, as a Christian interpreter of Genesis, we
also have a fourth and determinative context: the self-
revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The creation account
must be read with the prophetic and New Testament
witness to the new creation, and the exodus story must
be read together with the story of the cross as the final
and definitive event of our liberation.
3. Conclusion
I have sought to reflect on the ideas and insights
touched upon by George Murphy in his fascinating
13
article. My disagreements are all rather minor. In a
larger version of this essay, I discuss the issue of
supralapsarianism. Further exploration of this topic
could be pursued along many different lines, but two in
particular stand out. The first is the account proffered
by Daryl P. Domning and Monika K. Hellwig in their
work on Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in
the Light of Evolution. While I have not yet read this
work, it seems to me that their project has the
possibility of being a very interesting theological
proposal, one that retains continuity with the tradition
while incorporating the scientific insights of
evolutionary biology. I would like to see future
discussion of this topic engage this particular study.
The second is a theological reappropriation of
Schleiermacher’s theology. Though he is often
dismissed as a 19th century liberal who is no longer
worth reading, such an attitude is greatly mistaken.
Schleiermacher is a profound thinker of the highest
quality, and his theology, particularly his doctrine of
creation, offers substantial room for incorporating the
insights of evolutionary science. It would be exciting
to see what a post-Barthian appropriation of
Schleiermacher and contemporary science might look
like for a doctrine of creation.
This concludes my essay. I wish to thank Steve and
George again for the invitation and the article,
respectively. I look forward to reading the dialogue
that follows.
VII. Evolution and Original Sin:
George Murphy Replies (Part 1)
This is a guest post by George Murphy, and is the sixth
installment in a guest-post series discussing his paper
Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution,
and Original Sin. George is a physicist, theologian,
and pastor, and has authored numerous articles and
books including The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross.
It’s more than a formality for me first to thank the three
respondents. As Steve has noted, my article was part of
a broader research program. Criticisms and suggestions
are helpful in this ongoing work.
The Theological Task
The source of the theology in whose context science –
and evolution in particular – is to be placed is
scripture. I attempt to read scripture as a theologian of
the church, with awareness of the Christian theological
tradition. We try to understand scripture in its original
 Evolution and Original Sin
cultural settings, but must also take seriously (though
not uncritically) the ways in which our ancestors in the
faith understood it. It seems to me that Lamoureux is
too willing to depart from some aspects of this tradition
for reasons that are inadequate, while Gray is too
insistent on maintaining secondary aspects of the
tradition. Congdon is closer to a “just right” position
here.
Sin of Origin: Some Clarifications
Congdon and Lamoureux note my use of a concept of
“sin of origin,” the latter with puzzlement. That phrase,
in distinction from “original sin”, is not completely
standard but I explained my usage in the article’s note
16. To quote Wiley more extensively, what I mean by
“original sin” is “peccatum originale originans,
‘original sin as originating’ ... the historical event of
Adam and Eve’s sin” while “sin of origin” is
“peccatum originale originatum, ‘original sin as
originated’ ... the condition of sin in humankind caused
by the transmission of Adam and Eve’s sin to all.”
I don’t want to replace the concept of original sin with
that of sin of origin, as Congdon suggests. The sinful
condition of all people from the beginning of life is,
however, the crucial teaching. It is the fact that we are
all sinners that calls for atonement, and thus is the
presupposition of the gospel. Concepts of “original sin
as originating” provide explanations of why we begin
life in that condition. Such explanations are needed but
of secondary importance. That is why I think Gray is
mistaken in insisting upon a traditional form of
explanation.
Do I speak about sin of origin just “to maintain a
ritual”, as Lamoureux asks? I assume he means
baptism, and the answer is “No”. Augustine’s
argument went in the opposite direction. His teaching
on original sin was not a justification for infant
baptism, but the reality that infants received baptism
“for the forgiveness of sins” (Nicene Creed) meant that
infants had some sin to be forgiven. Further discussion
of baptism would take us too far afield. Suffice it to
say that I hold with the catholic tradition that baptism
is a means of grace and can be administered validly to
infants.
Sin of Origin: An Emphasis on the Universality of
Sin
The real question here is whether or not we take the
universality of sin seriously. Are all people in a sinful
condition from the beginning of their lives or do they
just start to be sinners when they reach “the age of
reason” or something like that? Scriptural texts that
14
speak of the universality of sin make no such
qualification.
We should distinguish between a doctrine of the
universality of sin as something we “believe, teach and
confess” and “theological opinions” about how that
condition originated historically and eventuates in each
person’s sin of origin. Differences about the latter need
not be church dividing. Denial of universal human
sinfulness is a much greater problem. It immediately
suggests the possibility that unredeemed humans aren’t
really dead spiritually but just wounded, that they can
do something about their condition on their own – i.e.,
some type of semi-Pelagianism.
The Origin of Sin: An Important but not Central
Question
I turn now to the question of the historical origin of sin.
Lamoureux thinks that we don't need to address that
question, and can be content to say, "Humans are
sinful, and God judges us for our sins.” I do not agree.
It is true that for some important purposes we can
ignore questions about how and why sin originated
historically. In my article I emphasized that sin’s
universality, not its origin, is the important doctrine,
noting that “the basic law-gospel message is ... ‘You
are a sinner and Christ is your savior.” But a
theologian shouldn’t ignore such questions (though
that was popular in twentieth century theologies
influenced by existentialism). We have to deal with
them if the Christian message as a whole is to be
coherent. How does it make sense to say that we are
good creatures of God and that we begin our lives as
sinners? Is God the creator of sin? These questions are
sharpened if our theology is to encompass what science
has shown us about human origins.
The Origin of Sin: Discussing Theological Options
What “theological opinion” should we hold about the
origin of sin? Gray wants to maintain major elements
of the traditional scenario, a “state of innocence” for an
historical Adam and Eve. “State of innocence”
suggests a weaker claim than does “state of integrity.”
The latter term means that the first humans were not
only free from sin but also from any bodily defect or
vulnerability. (Calovius does use both terms.) In its
strongest sense this includes physical immortality.
Existence in such a state would not necessarily require
a “golden age” but would mean that the physical
properties of the human body and the world were
different before the Fall. I find that implausible.
I have not, however, “adopt[ed] a materialistic view of
human nature,” even implicitly. While I think that
 Evolution and Original Sin
arguments for some type of non-reductive physicalism
are strong, I also see problems with such a view. I
remain agnostic about the possibility that at some point
in evolutionary history God added something (rational
soul etc.) to our ancestors in a way that can’t be
accounted for by the sciences. I do insist, however, that
our evolutionary history isn’t cancelled out by
whatever special divine action may have taken place in
making us human. That evolutionary history is the
story of how God chose to create us, and any
“superadded” feature God gave us does not remove the
genetic and behavioral predispositions which evolution
has produced.
Gray joins with some others in suggesting that
something like a traditional view can be maintained by
embedding the biblical Adam and Eve in a population
of pre-Adamites. To a certain extent this strategy can
succeed simply on the level of historical concordism.
But the idea that the sin of such an historical Adam
could be responsible for the sinful condition of people
who had no biological relationship with that Adam
encounters a serious problem. In the second part of this
response (to be published later this week) I will discuss
this problem. I will also highlight areas of my
argument that may need further work or articulation.
VIII. Evolution and Original Sin:
George Murphy Replies (Part 2)
This is a guest post by George Murphy, and is the
seventh installment in a guest-post series discussing his
paper Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ,
Evolution, and Original Sin. George is a physicist,
theologian, and pastor, and has authored numerous
articles and books including The Cosmos in the Light
of the Cross.
In the first part of my response I dealt with the
important idea of “sin of origin” as a statement that all
people are sinners from the beginning of life. We then
began a discussion that continues here of the important
but secondary question of the historical origin of this
human condition.
The Imputation of Adam’s Sin
Gray makes use of the idea of an imputation of Adam’s
sin to explain how a fall of an historical Adam could
have been responsible for all humanity’s sinful
condition even for those who weren’t descended from
him. This idea of the imputation of Adam’s sin to
others is questionable. The oft-claimed theological
parallel between it and the imputation of Christ’s
15
righteousness to sinners encounters a serious problem.
God’s creative word does what it says, and in declaring
sinners righteous it makes sinners righteous:
Sanctification follows justification. (This is not the
Roman Catholic concept of “infused” righteousness on
account of which God then declares the sinner
righteous.) If God imputes Adam’s sin to others then
God makes people into sinners. To say that God is the
immediate cause of the general sinful condition of
humanity may be acceptable for some but it poses a
serious challenge to the goodness of creation. Cf.
Article 19 of the Augsburg Confession.
Sin: Yes, there was an Origin
On the other hand, Lamoureux’s reading is consistent
with the oft-expressed view that the Adam and Eve of
Genesis 3 are every man and every woman, and he
wants to leave it at that. But while the story of Adam
and Eve is our story, it is also more. In scripture it is a
story of the first human beings and of how sin came
into the world.
We need to consider the likelihood that in inspiring
various parts of scripture the Holy Spirit
accommodated the message to the state of
understanding of the world that existed in the cultures
of the time. (Again see my “Couldn’t God Get It
Right?” .) But we should be careful not to attribute to
accommodation what is actually part of the theological
message – that we don’t throw out the baby with the
bath (or manger!). It’s one thing to say that early
Genesis is accommodated to the idea that humans first
appeared a few thousand years ago perfectly formed in
mind and body, and quite another to say that the idea
of “firstness” itself is accommodation. The
accommodated message might have been in the form
of a story that began “Once upon a time there were a
man and a woman ...,” with no reference to their origin,
but that’s not the way Genesis reads.
Death and Guilt
It’s helpful for a scientist or theologian to acknowledge
weaknesses in his or her theories, and I recognize that
my discussion of sin and mortality has some problems.
It was certainly the belief of some biblical writers,
including Paul, that the physical death of humans is a
consequence of sin. Lamoureux is right that we
shouldn’t simply qualify death as “spiritual” in their
writings. But there are qualifications and nuances that
he ignores.
a) Sin and Physical Death
In the day that Adam and Eve eat of the tree, they don’t
die physically. It is not even certain (as the western
tradition has generally thought) that the writers of
 Evolution and Original Sin
Genesis had original immortality in view. Some
currents of Greek Christian thought seem to picture
humanity as being created biologically mortal,
although not subject to spiritual death if they remained
sinless. (In addition to the passage from Athanasius,
note these lines from the Prayer Book’s burial service
[http://bcponline.org/ , pp.481-482 ] from an Orthodox
source:
“Thou only art immortal, the creator and maker
of mankind; and we are mortal, formed of the
earth, and unto earth shall we return. For so thou
didst ordain when thou createdst me [N.B.],
saying, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return.’”)
We should also bear in mind the view of Barr to which
I referred, that Genesis 2-3 is not a story of humanity
losing immortality but of humanity losing the
possibility of immortality.
But even if we grant that physical death is seen
uniformly in scripture as a result of sin, is it only
physical death that’s in view? Is death an evil, “the last
enemy,” for biblical writers simply because it means
that earthly life stops? Or is it because it threatens
separation from God? (Cf. Psalm 6:5) Of course a
biblical view of human death is multifaceted and there
is considerable development from the earliest strata of
the Old Testament through the New. But we can’t
really separate the reality of physical death from its
psychological and spiritual affects. In what I once
called rather mouth-fillingly “hermeneutical
retrocausality,” sin gives new meaning to dying that
was a reality even before humanity came on the scene.
b) Original Guilt
Congdon notes that I don’t refer to the concept of
“original guilt.” I should have done so and explained
why I don’t use it. We could say that we were guilty of
Adam’s (or the first humans’) sin if “in Adam’s fall,
sinned we all,” but that rests upon Augustine’s Latin
text of Romans 5:12, in quo omnes peccaverunt – “in
whom all have sinned” (DRC). It’s generally agreed
that this is not a very good rendering. (NRSV is
“because all have sinned.”) (In addition, I’ve tried to
avoid legal terminology – not because it’s wrong or
unbiblical but because I’m trying to take another
approach.)
To that extent the Orthodox are right. However, as
people who begin our lives in a sinful state (cf.
Tillich), alienated from God, we are spiritually dead,
enemies of God, and unable to do anything to save
ourselves. This is the case even before sinful acts have
been committed – not because of our “natures” but
16
because of the condition in which we find ourselves.
Our social environment strongly encourages sinful
behaviors, including those to which our genetic
endowment may incline us. Where Augustine - and
Luther and Calvin - were right and where the Orthodox
tend to be weak is the seriousness of our original sinful
condition.
Closing Remarks
A number of points deserve further comment. I’ll
continue to reflect on them and, I hope, deal with them
adequately at some point in the future. Thanks again to
the three respondents for their helpful comments. I
look forward to questions and comments from readers
of this series.
IX. The Historicity of Adam: Q&A
with George Murphy (Part 1)
This is a guest post by George Murphy, and is the
eighth installment in a guest-post series discussing his
paper Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ,
Evolution, and Original Sin. George is a physicist,
theologian, and pastor, and has authored numerous
articles and books including The Cosmos in the Light
of the Cross.
This is the first of two Q&A posts. The first three
questions deal with various aspects of the historicity of
Adam.
Reader Questions #1-3
1. I wonder if there could be some additional
commentary about the seeming parallelism in
Romans 5 - just as one man's sin led to the
condemnation of many, in the same way one
man's obedience led to the justification of many
(paraphrasing from memory). Christ was an
individual person and the first member of the
Race of Heaven, so don't we have to think of
Adam as an individual person and the first
member of the Race from Earth? That doesn't
mean he had no prehuman ancestors.
2. Apparently, the first part of the Hebrew text
uses the word adam in a non-personal way (i.e.
adam means "the man"). The personal syntax
only occurs at some distance into the narrative. I
have heard it argued that this does not
necessitate a belief in a literal man called
"Adam" in the early part of the narrative. What is
your opinion of this idea?
 Evolution and Original Sin
3. Hi George, thanks for a great article. You say
Jews at the time of Christ took Adam and Eve
literally and that Paul's statements about Adam
should be read in that context. But is that really
the situation historically? Certainly there were
those who took Adam literally, but we also have
first century Jews from as diverse background as
Philo of Alexandria and the Jerusalem priest
Josephus who understood Adam and Eve
allegorically. Paul actually tells us as he
compares Adam and Christ in Romans 5 that he
sees Adam as a figure of Christ (verse 14). Could
Rabbinically trained Paul have been talking
figuratively, an allegorical illustration of Christ
and the cross, rather than a history lesson about
Adam?
Thank you for your questions. I’m going to bundle my
answers to the first three which, in different ways, deal
with the historicity of Adam. I’ll mention that I’ve
dealt with this issue in more detail in my paper
“Chiasmic Cosmology and Atonement,” (published in
the December 2008 PSCF) than in the article discussed
in this series.
a) Historicity of Adam: OT View
As Questioners 2 and 3 suggest, we should not be
dogmatic in saying the biblical writers of both
testaments believed that there was an historical
individual named “Adam.” The Hebrew ’adham is a
generic noun for “human being” and the point in
Genesis where it becomes a proper name is debated.
(See Note 20) In addition, the fact that none of the Old
Testament’s recitations of salvation history begin with
Adam, but start at the earliest with Abraham, suggests
that Adam was not seen as an historical individual in
the same way as were Abraham, Jacob or Moses (Note
22).
On the other hand, Genesis 3 is a story about “the
man” and “the woman,” and while (as Lamoureux and
I agree) the idea of humanity beginning with a single
couple may be seen as divine accommodation to
cultural understandings, there is no indication that the
ancient Israelites did not see this story as indeed an
account of what happened to a real man and a real
women. Furthermore, the genealogy of Genesis 5
(which most critical scholars link with the first creation
account, 1:1-2:4a rather than 2:4b-4:26) begins with
Adam. That is clearly intended to be a personal name,
in the same way as the succeeding Seth, Enosh, etc.
b) Historicity of Adam: Inter-testamental View
In the inter-testamental period we do have a recitation
of salvation history that begins with Adam. Wisdom
17
10:1-2a begins a long commentary on divine Wisdom
in history. In the RSV it reads,
“Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the
world, when he was created; she delivered him
from his transgression, and gave him strength to
rule all things.”
The name “Adam” is not used but the text clearly
refers to Genesis 2 -3.
In this same period, in part because of Hellenistic
influence, allegorical interpretations of scripture also
gathered some popularity among Jews. We ought to
remember though that giving an allegorical
interpretation of a text does not mean that the events
portrayed in that text are necessarily non-historical.
c) Historicity of Adam: Paul’s View
We can’t absolutely rule out the possibility that Paul
had an allegorical interpretation of Adam in mind: Our
access to Paul’s thinking is, after all, only through
what he wrote. He does use allegory in a few places:
Mowry’s article “Allegory” in The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible lists I Cor.5:6-8; 9:8-10; 10:1-
11 and Gal.4:21-31.
In the first, third and fourth of these passages it seems
very unlikely that he rejected the historical sense of the
Old Testament texts (unleavened bread for Passover,
the Exodus and the story of Sarah and Hagar), and with
the second, where he questions the historical sense,
that very fact makes it clear that he is allegorizing. In
Galatians he says explicitly that he’s doing that. We
simply don’t have any such indication that he is
allegorizing, let alone rejecting the historical sense,
when he refers to Adam.
The Parallel between Christ and Adam
Does that conclusion, and the way in which Christ is
paralleled with Adam in Romans 5, then mean that we
should understand Adam as an historical individual if
we take scripture seriously, as Questioner 1 suggests? I
don’t think so.
To begin with, we should not overemphasize the
importance of Adam for Paul’s argument in Romans.
1:18-3:20 is an extended argument to show that “all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23
RSV). 3:21-4:25 then sets out God’s answer to the
problem of sin, Christ’s saving work made available
through faith to all. There is no reference to Genesis 3
or Adam here. Clearly Paul can express the basic law-
gospel message at some length with no reference to
Adam.
 Evolution and Original Sin
This does not mean that Adam is of no importance for
Paul. In Chapter 5 he sets up a parallel between the
figure of Adam, most likely understood as historical
(as above), and Christ in order to provide structure to
the story of sin and salvation. But he does this to
highlight the significance of Christ, not of Adam. As
James Dunn puts it in his Word Biblical Commentary,
Volume 38: Romans 1-8 (Word Books, 1988, p.290),
“[T]the effect of the comparison between the two
epochal figures, Adam and Christ, is not so much
to historicize the individual Adam as to bring out
the more than individual significance of the
historic Christ.”
I have argued that the fact that Paul accepted the
historicity of Adam need not mean that Christians must
hold that same view today. Whether or not that
argument can be accepted depends on (among other
things) whether the concept of the Holy Spirit’s
accommodation to cultural beliefs in the inspiration of
scripture is valid. I believe that it is, not simply because
it provides a way of avoiding conflicts between
scripture and modern scientific and historical
knowledge but because it is part of a fundamentally
incarnational way of understanding scripture and
God’s activity in the world in general. As the divine
Word chose to be limited to the human condition in
Christ, so the Holy Spirit operates within the limits of
human understandings of the world in bringing about
the written witness to Christ. Peter Enns’ Inspiration
and Incarnation (Baker, 2005) is worth reading in this
connection.
X. Pastoral Implications of
Original Sin and Evolution: Q&A
with George Murphy (Part 2)
This is a guest post by George Murphy, and is the ninth
installment in a guest-post series discussing his paper
Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution,
and Original Sin. George is a physicist, theologian,
and pastor, and has authored numerous articles and
books including The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross.
The first 3 questions for George regarding the
historicity of Adam were discussed in part 1 of the
Q&A. Here is George's answer to question #4.
Reader Question #4
Theology shouldn't be an academic exercise only
– it should have practical pastoral implications
as well. In what ways do you think the view of
18
original sin articulated in your paper can be
helpful from a pastoral perspective?
Questioner 4 makes the point that “theology shouldn't
be an academic exercise only.” I couldn’t agree more.
If theology is to have any real value it must help to
inform, support and encourage the work of the church
in proclaiming the gospel, teaching, pastoral care and
action in the world. Too much work in the science-
theology dialogue has remained at the academic level,
and needs to be made accessible to pastors, other
church leaders, and congregations. The fault is not
entirely that of academic theologians, for many clergy
avoid these matters because of their unfamiliarity with
science or the controversial character of the issues. But
I digress.
How my suggested model of original sin and sin of
origin – or indeed, of any model - will inform ministry
will depend to some extent on the context in which
ministry is being done. In a conservative evangelical
congregation in which there is considerable hostility to
the idea of human evolution such ministry will differ
from that in the congregations of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church
in which I have worked as a pastor for twenty-five
years. (This does not mean , that members of those
“mainline” denominations all have “liberal” views
about evolution, the Bible, and other matters.) But
some general statements can be made.
To begin with, this model can help to alleviate the
concerns that many thoughtful Christians have about
evolution. Many are aware of the overwhelming
scientific support for evolution but are unsure about
how it can fit in with a Christian worldview beyond a
vague idea that “that’s how God did it.” Here churches
have generally failed in the educational task of helping
to understand evolution theologically. It is not enough
simply to say “a knowledgeable reading of the Bible
does not require early Genesis to be understood as
scientific or historical fact”;. there also needs to be
some positive view, if only a tentative one, of how God
actually has worked in the evolutionary process, and of
how our scientific understanding of human history and
human nature can be coherent with core Christian
beliefs. I think that what I’ve suggested is one such
model.
Understanding evolution in a Christian context is best
dealt with in educational situations rather than in
preaching. A relaxed classroom session, where
questions and discussion are possible provides the best
climate for enabling people to come to grips with
controversial issues. Such education needs to be
 Evolution and Original Sin

provided, in age appropriate ways, from children’s
Sunday School classes through adult forums. Of course
there are a number of practical issues that have to be
dealt with in order to provide adequate teaching and
leadership here.
If human evolution is dealt with well in educational
settings in a congregation, people will be better
prepared to hear the preaching of law and gospel. Here
of course the fundamental message is that all are
sinners and that Christ is the all-sufficient savior from
the guilt and power of sin. What I have said about
original sin (i.e., that sin had an origin in human
history) and sin of origin (i.e., that all people begin
their lives as sinners) helps this message to be
proclaimed with the necessary clarity.
An historical origin of sin, distinguished from the
origin of humanity itself, means that God is not the
creator of sin, and sin is not God’s intention for
humanity. We are, even as sinners, God’s creatures.
But sin of origin means that we are not able to avoid
sin, or deal with the problem of sin, by ourselves. We
cannot even contribute to repairing our relationship
with God because everything we do is tinged to a
greater or lesser degree by sin. All Pelagian or semi-
Pelagian notions that we can contribute to our own
salvation are closed off. With this understanding the
preacher can express, in words appropriate to his or her
listeners, what Luther said in his great Reformation
hymn.
A big thanks to all three responders.
 To David, who while acknowledging that his
interaction with science was of deep personal
rather than professional interest, showed no
hesitation in accepting the challenge. I found his
contribution very helpful.
 To Denis, who brought his characteristically
uncompromising style and message to this forum.
We need more Evangelicals like this. (For more of
the same, check out his recent interview with
Canadian Christianity)
 To Terry, who provided a compelling and succinct
critique of George’s paper that, I suspect,
resonated with many (most?) of this blog’s
readers. Terry agreed to do this (indeed, was the
first to volunteer) even though he understood the
format of the series was not set up to allow him
“equal time” to respond.
Finally, a huge thanks to George for taking the time
and energy to discuss his paper in this forum, to allow
others to critique it, to respond to reader’s questions,
and for continuing the task of making theology
relevant. As he indicated in the last post,
“If theology is to have any real value it must help to
inform, support and encourage the work of the
church in proclaiming the gospel, teaching, pastoral
care and action in the world”.

With might of ours can naught be don,
Soon were our loss effected;
But for us fights the Valiant One,
Whom God himself elected.
(The Lutheran Hymnal, hymn # 262, verse 2)
An absolutely crucial point to remember; articulating
the continuing coherence of the Christian gospel in a
scientific age is important, but if there is no
application, what is the point? Thanks George for
working towards making the gospel both coherent and
relevant.

XI. Evolution and Original Sin:

Conclusion
This is the tenth and last installment in a guest-post
series discussing George Murphy’s paper Roads to
Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and
Original Sin.

This ends our series on George Murphy’s very

important paper. I for one have found the discussion of
great value as I work through the theological
implications of evolution; as I’ve said in the past, the
origin of sin is (was?) the most difficult challenge for
me personally. I found the distinction between “Sin of
Origin” and “Original Sin” as discussed in this series
very helpful.

19