Most people today do not realize how unique or original the idea of creation is. Generally people are on one side or the other in the debate over evolution. However, both sides generally assume that the universe came into existence at some point. This is remarkably different from the ancient (and even recent) world with its two predominant views of the universe. One approach was that the matter of the universe is self-existent and eternal and it has reached its present state by a gradual evolutionary process. This is called materialistic Monism. On the other hand there were those that asserted that the universe was an emanation from a divine being or that the divine being and the universe were essentially the same (Pantheism). Into this environment came the obscure Judeo-Christian world view boldly declaring that the universe was created by God ex nihilo. The long Latin expression for this is productio totius substantiâ ex nihilo sui et subjecti (don’t worry I can’t pronounce it either). It means the act by which God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence. For centuries, Christians have had to take a lot of grief about this view because the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe pointed to the “Beginner” of the universe—this has not been a popular idea in many circles. However, it seems that most people have come to the conclusion that at some point in the past the universe came into existence from nothing. Score one for the Judeo-Christians!

History in the Bible

While we take the idea of creation for granted, this concept would likely have never entered the mind of man apart from the revelation of God’s Word. Some ancient philosophers developed a high view of a god that was the supreme ruler but they did not finish drawing the circle of reasoning to see Him as the real cause for the existence of all things.

The Old Testament, however, begins with the majestic statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Think about it, what an amazing insight! The Scriptural teaching continues as God alone is declared to be the Self-Existent One (Ex. 3:14) that cannot be compared to any one or any thing else (Isa. 40:17). Both Old and New Testaments affirm that God is the beginning and the end of all things (Isa. 48:12-22 and Rev. 11:36) and that all things in creation are from Him, by Him and are sustained by Him (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col 1:16). God, of course, in the Bible is declared to be the sovereign ruler of all things (Ps 49:10-15; Isa. 44:24 and Heb. 1:10). The biblical description of God as Creator and sustainer of the universe is so explicit as to be almost too obvious to mention.

On the other hand, some have bickered with the statement in Genesis 1:1 regarding the Hebrew word bara (“created”) contending that it doesn’t necessitate an ex nihilo creation. On this point, the authoritative Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar says: “The use of this verb [bara] in Kal, the conjugation here employed, is entirely different from its primary signification (to cut, shape, fashion); it signifies rather the new production of a thing than the shaping or elaborating of the pre-existing material. That the first verse of Genesis teaches that the original creation of the world in its rude and chaotic state was from nothing while the remaining part of the chapter teaches the elaboration and distribution of the matter thus created, the connection of the whole section shows sufficiently clearly." Others such as Mühlan,Volck, Dillmann and Delitzsch concur.

How’d He do That?
Since no human was there at the creation, when we try and answer the “how” question we must do some speculating. However, based upon biblical common sense, we can say the following with some degree of certainty.
● The creation did not cause any change in God.
● Since nothing can be co-eternal with God, all things have been created by Him including the “stuff” we call matter and energy. He didn’t build the universe from some pre-existent matter, He created it.
● Creation spoken of in Genesis 1:1 could not have been a gradual process starting first within God and then coming to its term in the creation. There can be no motion or succession in God; therefore, creation must have been instantaneous.
● God still sustains and supports His creation. He has not left us alone but gives us “rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides (us) with plenty of food and fills (our) hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17).

How Things fit Together in God

When we begin to think about God it is important to realize that certain insights about Him hang together and mutually interrelate. Ronald H. Nash in "The Concept of God" puts it this way, (God’s divine attributes) “must fit together logically; the entire cluster of divine attributes must be logically consistent.” The first of these to consider is that God is the only Necessary Being. To be a necessary being God cannot not exist and His existence does not come from anything prior to Him. Because God is the Necessary Being He can give existence to all things. This is why God is called the First Cause. All temporal things (those things that exist in time) must have a cause; but God is Uncaused and is the First Cause. However, if the First Cause was rooted in space and matter, He could not be the cause of space and matter because it would already exist (in Him). In other words, it is impossible to bring something into existence that already exists. In the same way the First Cause must be eternal to cause the existence of time—if time existed before God, He couldn’t create it. Simply put, the First Cause must be non-spatial, immaterial and eternal to cause the space-time continuum (Isa. 43:10; 44:6). John Gill in "A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity" states, “God is an uncreated Spirit, was before all time, so not bounded by it, and was before space or place were, and existed without it, and so not to be limited to it and by it. He is the “first Being” and from whom all others have their being.”

Eternity

Thomas Aquinas made a helpful distinction between eternity and forever. Eternity, he said, is timelessness; forever is endless time. Eternity is not rooted within a temporal framework whereas forever is. "Eternity is a now; time has a now and then." John Gill puts it this way, “Eternity, …is that which is without beginning and end, and is without succession, or does not proceed in a succession of moments one after another; and is opposed to time, which has a beginning, goes on in succession, and has an end …” God is eternal.

The question is how does God experience or relate to time? The answer is that God experiences time in two ways. God is both conscious of the succession of all the points in time and he is also aware of all those points simultaneously. God has access to the whole dimension of time as if it was one present moment. Just as there cannot be any place where God cannot be because He is omnipresent, there cannot be any time where He cannot be. He is outside of both time and space. A helpful illustration of God’s eternal relationship to time can be seen in a wheel with spokes. The spokes of a wheel move faster at the circumference, and not at all at the absolute center of the wheel. Consequently, God’s actions occur in a changing temporal world without him changing through time. This is how a timeless God can both experience and act in a temporal world.

God’s Knowledge and Free Choices

Some people believe that if God knows everything that will happen in one simultaneous instant then all our future actions must be predetermined and fixed. Therefore, this would mean that our freely chosen actions are not truly free. However, just because God knows with certainty what we will do does not mean the event itself cannot happen freely. The certainty of his knowledge about free events does not make those events necessary; rather, it simply means that his knowledge of free actions and events is infallible. A simple way to say this is knowledge is not causation.

As I have looked at the doctrine of Original Sin I have come to some personal conclusions that are the basis for this post. Here they are.

A Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin Must Do The Following

● It must take the Genesis 1-3 account of Adam and Eve seriously in order to be faithful to the grand narrative of the Bible and in order to establish a solid basis for divine salvation through grace as opposed to religious ritual or works.

● It must recognize the serious consequences of the Fall as described in Genesis 3. Whether this fall is understood as inherited, imputed or serious external consequences, these must do at least the following:

◊ Have caused men to be born into a world in rebellion against God.

◊ Be the root cause of why man is unable to save himself.

◊ Be the first cause of why mankind is caught in a downward cycle of sin and disobedience (Rom 1).

◊ Be the source of a fractured relationship between man and nature.

Regarding Man’s Nature after the Fall

In comparing Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant positions on Original Sin, one is struck by the differences regarding the effects on man’s nature. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic positions both work to preserve the essential (or ontological) goodness of human nature. The Eastern position does this by focusing on the corruption of society and the environment because of a downward moral trajectory caused by Original Sin and the accumulation of personal sin. The Eastern position uses the metaphor of moral illness to describe the corruption of Original Sin. Catholics focus on the withdrawal of God’s sanctifying grace (e.g. man is caste out of the Garden) which has left man’s nature intact but disordered. As with Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholics recognize the cumulative negative effects of man’s sin and the bondage caused by Satan; consequently, both positions emphasize the importance and need of a divine savior—Christ. Of the two, the Eastern position probably has a higher regard for the moral freedom of the human will.

The Reformed Protestant view strongly emphasizes the total dependency of man upon the grace of God and His saving work through the cross. Its great strength is to hold men accountable for their sinfulness and to knock the false props of personal effort out from under men in order to turn to Christ and His cross. The problematic issue with the Reformed position is its view of Original Sin tends to put God’s work of creation in an awkward bind. The Scripture clearly indicates that God has created all things “good” and that only “good and perfect gifts come down from above.” However, the Reformed position insists that man’s nature is now essentially sinful—not just damaged or disordered. The bind is that only God can create a nature—man cannot and Satan cannot—so this means that God must be the Creator of man’s sinful nature. Both the Eastern and Catholic positions are adamantly opposed to such a notion. Moderate Evangelicals seem to be very nervous about this bind as well.

Of the three positions, the Reformed position has the lowest view of man’s moral free will--Catholics stand somewhere between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox on this issue.

Personal Position

I have been teaching the Bethel Series Bible Study Program for over 20 years. Its first three lessons deal with man’s original state of harmony (Genesis 1-2) and man’s fall into a state of disharmony (Genesis 3). It is a Lutheran Bible study developed in the 1950’s. The crux of these studies is that it emphasizes that man’s sin in the Garden ushered in a “four-fold disharmony and estrangement.” Because of Adam’s sin man is now out of harmony with God, with himself, with others and with nature. The Bethel Series emphasizes the four-fold disharmony and notes that God promised even in Genesis 3 to one day reconcile man to Himself. In my opinion, Bethel does a nice job of laying out the important issues and avoiding the denominational pipe-bombs. However, that being said, though it is Lutheran, the Bethel Series has strong echoes of Thomas Aquinas (my good buddy). It casts Original Sin in the context of the withdrawal of God from an intimate relationship with man through the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden. This is an echo of sin as privation rather than a substance. The Bethel Series lessons also consistently speak of sin as the misuse of God’s good creation. I believe this rightly protects God from being cast as the author of sin or the Creator of a sinful nature. And, yet, at its heart the Bethel Series lessons point to the biblical promise in Genesis 3:15 that one day God would decisively deal with sin and Satan.

The bottom line is that no matter what one’s particular view of Original Sin, we all must come with empty hands and humble hearts to the foot of the cross. None is worthy, not one. But, amazingly, God gives grace to the humble.

A Stripped-Down History of the Doctrine of Original Sin

Patristic Period

In the early centuries in both the Eastern and Western traditions there was a general affirmation that Adam’s sin had ushered in physical death; however, those in the East tended to resist the idea that there was imputed to mankind a guilt from Adam. However, in the West there was some recognition that all humans shared in not only the consequences of disordered passions and personal death but also in some sense all share in the transgression of our first parents.

Augustine and the Pelagians

During the great Pelagian controversy, Augustine further clarified the doctrine of Original Sin by using Scripture, patristic tradition and the baptismal practice of the church. To some extent Augustine hardened and exaggerated his position in the heat of the controversy by developing the idea of a “massa damnata” (all humanity is a mass for damnation) because of Adam’s sin.

Later Catholic councils rejected the errors of Pelagius and accepted the basic tenets of salvation by grace and the reality of Original Sin without codifying all of Augustine’s views.

Medieval Period

During the medieval period the Catholic Church the Scholastics fine-tuned Augustine’s views and formalized Original Sin as a privation of sanctifying grace. About the same time, the Eastern Orthodox traditions were self-consciously rejecting the Western idea of imputed or inherited guilt.

Protestant Reformers

The Reformers picked up on Augustine’s full view of Original Sin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit an Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment they are conceived. This inherent sinful nature is the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. Consequently, men are in complete alienation from God and totally unable to be reconciled to God on their own. Humans not only inherit a sinful nature due to Original Sin, but Adam as the federal head of mankind causes inherited guilt to be imputed to all.

A Simplified Version of Three Views of Original Sin

Eastern Orthodox Church

Eastern Orthodox churches recognize that sin was introduced into the human race by Adam and Eve and has affected the world’s environment but they deny that there is an inherited guilt or a necessary essential corruption of human nature. They do recognize that human nature has been damaged and that we have a tendency to do evil, but each person is responsible for their own sins. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act continue and plague the world and; therefore, all sin and without direct divine intervention man could not be saved. The consequences of Original Sin are seen as a combination of a polluted spiritual environment and a spiritual illness. Furthermore, by entering into the life of the church a person’s nature is healed and it becomes easier to do God’s will while at the same time a Christian becomes more aware of his/her failings.

For a detailed presentation of this position with Scriptural references see: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php

Catholic Church

For the Catholic Church, the consequences of Original Sin are inherited by all men but the essence of human nature did not change after the Fall. Human nature has remained the same since the first sin but God has withdrawn His supernatural gift of grace (cast out of the Garden). This withdrawal of grace (a fall from a state of Original Justice) ushered in mortality, lack of self-control and a fracture of man’s positive relationships with others and nature. Now all humans are born into this state of privation. The fact that it is a state, not an act, it involves no personal responsibility; however, this state has given rise to consequences which have further harmed man’s natural powers, subjected him to ignorance, suffering, the enthrallment of Satan and a tendency to sin. Man, therefore, cannot reach is divinely appointed end (union with God) without God’s supernatural intervention through the cross and grace.

For a detailed presentation of this position with Scriptural references see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Protestant

Reformed Protestantism holds that the original nature of humanity was an innate tendency to do good; the special relationship Adam and Eve had with God was not because of a supernatural gift, but because their own natures were good. Therefore, the Fall was not the withdrawal of a supernatural gift, leaving humanity's nature essentially unchanged, but rather the corruption of that nature itself. Consequently, in Reformed theology fallen human nature is not good, but rather evil (although some good may still remain). Mankind’s Fall perverted human nature to such an extent that not even a trace of the good moral powers and abilities bestowed by the Creator remain in him, and all his desires are directed toward what is evil and sinful. Man, according to Martin Luther's expression, was turned into a pillar of salt, like Lot's wife; he became a soulless block and even worse, because a block does not act and does not oppose, while man opposes the action of divine grace. However, since the time of Luther, many Protestants have pulled back from such an extreme view.

Evangelical moderates and Evangelical Arminian’s (e.g. Wesleyan traditions, Charismatics, Calvary Chapel, etc.) hold that the unsaved man's will is not so corrupted and polluted as to prevent him from choosing to do what is right and good. This view maintains that if man were indeed radically corrupt and dead in sin, he could not be held responsible for not obeying the commands of God.

For a detailed presentation of these two Protestant positions with Scriptural references see: http://www.untothebreach.com/LibertasPeccatorum.html

For those interested in reading a scientific article about brain function and the validity of Original Sin, you can find it here: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/origsin.htm Please be aware that Professor G. Richard Jansen is a scientist who believes in the validity of evolution; however, putting aside this issue, it is a very fascinating article.

Next post: Compare, contrast and commit!