Open Theism Discussion Board

I think it is possible to posit the view that for the sake of the theology Paul treats the Genesis account as historical, hence his language is very certain as to the historicity of Adam and Eve. There was no reason why he should not have spoken this way when he was talking theology. There was no need for him to parenthetically add, "Well, we all KNOW that this isn't a true account of history, that Adam and Eve aren't really literal people." Paul's language is clearly set in the concept of a literal Adam and Eve, as it should have been, in order to give growth to the theology birthed in Genesis.

True, this view leaves unanswered the question of how Adam and Eve came to possess the image of God (for that matter, who Adam and Eve were), and it does affect the concept of conservative views of inerrancy--perhaps not a bad thing when we entertain an Ancient Near East context of origin for Genesis. Inspiration, and the theology born it, is left, however, unaffected. For Paul, evil and death (both spiritual and physical) are theologically out of sorts with God's original plan for man. Theologically, life should rule without death nor evil.

Paul's hamartialogy in Romans five is not directed at physical contamination but spherical contamination; man was immediately removed out from under God's life, the source and sustenance of man's existence. Upon eating the fruit, Adam and Eve are "dead"; they are no longer in the same sphere of existence where God is. All of Adam and Eve's children are thrust into this same sphere, like it or not. All have sinned because all are outside of life with God and are automatically subject to the god of this world rather than the God of life. A baby is not exempt from this sphere. Within Paul's theology, the baby does not have to commit a specific sin order to be called a sinner ("All have sinned"); it is a sinner the moment it comes out the womb. It doesn't even know that when it is selfish or hurtful toward another it is exhibiting sin, a result of existing within the sphere of evil, of darkness and death. The baby is a "sinner" because going out the womb the baby is already "dead"; and will, without power to deter, exhibit the influence dominating it. It is born into a sphere in which there is no life to protect it.

The theology of Genesis--and, thus, Paul's theology--demands that somewhere in our past, there must be people who, somehow and in some way, were removed from God's life, love and peace--the end of the protection God's grace offered within His sphere of existence. Further, the pedagogy of Paul is not disqualified because the narrative genre of the Genesis account of creation might be myth. Paul's theology is firm because the (inspired) theology of Genesis is firm. Further, Paul's theology is not wrong: death is an enemy of God. But what exactly is "death"? Theologically, with regard to people, it is placement outside of relationship with God (spiritual) that exhibits complementary effects by the evential cessation fo the body's existence. A cell or plant that ceases to function, whithers up and turns to dust is exhibiting the ramification (the affect) of theological death, but in and of itself does not experience (the effect) of theologically death. Thus the creation can groan, but this is so because it was made subject to this sphere of evil. It, however, has not passed into "death" as humans do.

Well, we are still left to struggle with the venus fly trap and T-Rex, aren't we! I find it hard to think that God created, or allowed for the creation of, the existence of venus fly traps and T-Rexes after the Fall (a post-mutation or biproduct of some sort). On the other hand, I find it impossible to believe in pre-Fall carnivores, as if (in keeping with Paul's theology in mind) it would have been perfectly natural and acceptable for T-Rex to down a camp-full of men (the women would have been far too smart to stand around waiting for the beast to find dinner!). If it wasn't natural, then something is wrong, and we have created a bigger problem than what we are trying to solve.

As Paul's theology demands that somewhere and some how man must have moved out of the sphere of existence where life was found by being in relationship with God, so, too, Paul's theology demands it unacceptable to posit a pre-Fall carnivore environment; his theology, as does the theology of Genesis, prohibits physical death if the fruit is not eating. If T-Rex could have come along and eaten Adam, that would not necessarily mean that Adam would be without life (for he would still be in relationship with God), but the implication in God's word to Adam is that God was personally protecting His creation; physical life was paramont to effectively demonstrating spiritual life. Allowing for T-Rex to eat Adam would be an act against God's created order that theologically would not be allowed to happen prior to the Fall. I do think, however, that there is room to hold to a pre-fall death; death that is not of Paul's theological concern but is that which happens when a cell stops functioning, a peice of skin (a living organism) is peeled off and left to decay, a plant that withers and turns to dust. This may even include an animal that dies, in that we use the term "death" when the animal ceases to function.

For some mysteries we may never solve,

Starkman