sign in sign up
<<
Home , Endowment (Mormonism), Fall of man, Original sin

Original & Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 Moral Awareness, and the Atonement Tanner Gregory Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University

I will explore how evolution impacts the Christian notion of The , and, ultimately, the atonement. Various theories of atonement in the generally assume universal and individual sinfulness in humanity. In some cases, this sinfulness is thought to be the result of a distinct moment of rebellion against God, and is transmitted to all of the descendants of . Here, atonement involves ’s as the means liberate humanity from the bondage of our sinful nature. Evolution collides with these traditional models. Instead of a creation originally void of death and later corrupted by sin, evolution suggests that the very development of all life is attributed to a process driven by death and struggle for survival. By contradicting traditional views of The Fall, evolution has a secondary effect on the nature of the atonement: by asserting that humans are derived from previous species, rather than an individual special creation, evolution casts a shadow on the traditional mechanism used to explain how humanity became morally aware and responsible and calls into question what is meant by being created in the image and likeness of God. Despite these apparent contradictions, many have proposed models that attempt to reconcile evolution and theology. This paper will explore several of these proposals and will end by asserting that humans possess a unique, God-given capacity to discern morality, and therefore have a unique need for the atoning work of Christ.

Mainstream have the important claim that all humans are in historically held to the belief that original need of a Savior. Because we have “gone sin, human depravity, and Christ’s atoning astray,” we need to be returned to the right work on the cross are among the most path. This claim is the basis for most of the important doctrines of the . Many theories of atonement that have been Biblical scholars argue that all of Scripture accepted by Christians throughout the points to Christ and his redemptive work on history of the . When thinking about the cross. Isaiah 53 is a passage that is this assumption in light of evolutionary widely believed to be a prophesy of the biology, however, problems arise. The coming of Christ. In it the prophet describes mechanism for humanity’s attainment of the atonement almost 500 years prior to the morality, and our fall into depravity, must be birth of Christ. He writes, “But he was carefully re-examined to potentially pierced through for our transgressions, he reconcile the differences between was crushed for our iniquities; the evolutionary biology and the atonement in a chastening for our well-being fell upon him, meaningful way. and by his scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us Atonement Theories has turned his own way; but has Various theories for how the caused the iniquity of us to fall on him” atonement actually works have been (NASB). This well-known passage makes proposed throughout the history of the

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 1

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 Church. I will only mention three. The and Scripture. It is evident in Scripture that ransom theory asserts that the souls of God created man with the unique ability to humanity, because of sin, were held captive discern morality. God commands them not to either or God. The blood of Christ to eat from a certain tree, and holds them then served as a ransom that freed these responsible when they disobey. Evolution, captive souls from bondage (Hosea 13:14; however, asserts that man is a continuation Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6). of previous species. Indeed, some The satisfaction theory of atonement claims evolutionists claim that humans, along with that the sin of humanity invoked the animals, lack a true objective sense of vengeful wrath of God, and must be morality.1 In this case, human morality is a punished. By dying on the cross, Christ subjective, adventitious evolutionary exhausted God’s wrath against sin so that development for living in a structured none is left over for humans who place their society. For example, Wilson and Ruse faith in Christ. This theory finds support in claim that our moral behavior and awareness Scripture from Romans 5:9. The penal can be fully explained as a product of substitution theory, otherwise known as evolution, and not the result of divine action: substitutionary atonement, has been one of Morality, or more strictly our belief the most widely accepted theories of in morality, is merely an adaptation atonement in the Church. Because the wages put in place to further our of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and all of reproductive ends…Ethics is a humanity has sinned (Rom. 3:23), all shared illusion of the human race. If humans are deserving of death. In order to it were not so it would not save us from this death, Christ died as our work…Ethical codes work because substitute. To support this view, proponents they drive us to go against our selfish often cite 2 Corinthians 5:21. “[God] made day-to-day impulses in favor of a Him who knew no sin to be sin on our long term survival and harmony and behalf, so that we might become the thus, over our lifetimes, the righteousness of God in Him” (NASB). multiplication of our genes many Penal substitution has been one of the more times. Furthermore, the way our commonly-accepted views, at least by the biology enforces its ends is by Western church. making us think that there is an objective higher moral code, to Human Morality which we are all subject.2 The above theories of atonement differ to varying degrees, but they all make While this is a plausible claim, it is the important assumption that humans are certainly not without problems. The morally aware and culpable. In fact, without goal of organisms, according to evolution, is the moral responsibility of humans, any sort to survive and reproduce. An organism will of atonement resembling the above theories therefore act in such a way to improve its would be unnecessary. All of these theories reproductive fitness in hopes of proliferating state that man must be saved from the wages its genes. Proponents of this view would of sin, thus implying that humans have the have to claim that such as murder, moral awareness and responsibility that theft, and adultery are wrong merely would give us the opportunity to sin. This is because they are not evolutionarily the first point of tension between evolution favorable. There are times, however, when

1 Ruse and Wilson, 1993, p. 310-311 2 Ibid.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 2

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 these crimes could result in an increased he rejects that there ever existed a historical evolutionary fitness. In these instances, Adam and who lived in a Wilson and Ruse could not claim them to be garden. Instead, represent wrong using their criteria. Since we would both all of humanity and, more specifically, not evolve to view evolutionarily favorable the first hominids that had the capacity for behavior as “,” there must be some other self-consciousness and moral awareness. explanation for our sense of morality. Garte Along with this self-consciousness, Collins writes, “We must, as previous generations of claims, came an understanding of God and enlightened thinkers have done, admit that his will for them.6 the issues of morality, beauty, thought, love, Collins’ Historical/Ideal view is art, and culture are not approachable by attractive to many because it stays true to scientific methodology or tools, or we risk modern science while also respecting a losing a huge part of our human critical of the Genesis account. It of special (if not divine) genius.”3 acknowledges that morality was obtained Based on the assumption that human supernaturally (e.g., God makes himself moral awareness and responsibility may aware to these hominids), but the have some other origin than evolutionary explanation does not sacrifice evolutionary development, our inclination is to look to a biology in explaining how this could have supernatural source. Many Christians hold occurred. Furthermore, Collins’ view sheds that the Genesis stories indicate that light on another point of tension between morality was supernaturally imparted to the traditional and modern first two humans upon their creation. Other evolutionary biology, . This Christians have proposed ways to account paper has thus far touched on the for origin of human morality naturalistically mechanism by which man attained morality while taking the Scriptural witness and because moral awareness is a prerequisite church tradition seriously. It this case, moral for a fall into sin. Assuming now that man awareness would have developed during the supernaturally received morality and became process of evolution. Allister McGrath morally responsible, we can discuss what explains this dilemma by saying “How do the Fall might have looked like. Thinking we understand that phrase ‘the image of about the Fall is crucial in understanding the God’ if we accept a narrative of biological atonement because Christ’s death, at least evolution? We have to say that at some point according to the most traditional views of humanity became sufficiently distinguished atonement, was a response to the Fall. from the rest of the natural to be able to have this relationship with God.”4 Since The Fall it is impossible to precisely locate the point Various theories for the Fall have at which this occurred, some scholars simply been presented in an effort to try to maintain claim that the “first hominids” gained this a traditional meaning of the atonement while moral awareness.5 staying true to evolution. The notion of a Robin Collins attempts to reconcile creation without death prior to the Fall, as the differences regarding the mechanism for traditionally understood in Genesis, has the human attainment of morality while several problems when considered in light of staying true to science, the biblical witness, evolutionary theory. Ronald Osborn and reason. In his “Historical/Ideal view,” highlights one such problem. The study of

3 Garte, 2013 5 Collins, 2003, 470 4 McGrath and Polkinghorne, n.d. 6 Ibid.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 3

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 animals reveals that some are reliant on something objective, the Fall would have predation for survival. Osborn writes, “The had to destroy something objective. natural world is filled with creatures that are Other ideas suggest that God chose anatomically ‘designed’—in their internal two Homo sapiens once they had become organs, their instincts, and practically every morally aware and placed them in a garden. fiber of their physical structures—to exist by Once they were in the garden they consuming other creatures. Some of these disobeyed God’s command and ate of the animals would have to be classified as . Since these Homo sapiens irreducibly predatory.”7 How then could represented all others, the entire human race creatures “built” for predation survive in a fell under a curse as a result of their sin. world in which there was no death? Some This idea could be taken even further by have tried to answer this question by saying claiming these specially chosen Homo that after the Fall of Adam; God gave over sapiens (e.g. Adam and Eve), were uniquely the animal kingdom to natural laws. As a created without direct biological relationship result, behaviors and structures necessary for to the other Homo sapiens. They alone predation evolved over time to form the represented the rest of humanity and thus creatures we see today. Another option is humanity shares in the curse resulting from that God supernaturally modified certain Adam’s Fall.9 These theories are appealing animals after the Fall of humanity to create to some because they affirm both the predators.8 Unlike the first, this option evolutionary idea of physical death prior to invokes supernatural manipulation, and is man’s rebellion, and the historicity of the the furthest removed from science. biblical account of the Fall.10 They are not Despite these attempts to explain without their faults in attempting to maintain how predation developed after a Fall from a a somewhat literal interpretation of Genesis paradisiacal state, most scientists and many while acknowledging modern science. theologians have opted to trust observation Another prominent view of the fall is and concede that there must have been death the idea of a “fall upward.” This is the view in the world prior to the formation of man held by Charles Birch and John Cobb and (and therefore prior to a Fall). This forces described by Denis Edwards.11 Birch and the question: what actually changed after the Cobb suggest a link between evolution and Fall of man? The idea of a spiritual death the fall by saying the Fall is the unfortunate resulting from the Fall is a popular option. result of evolutionary development. This permits an affirmation of evolution by Evolution has resulted in the advancement conceding that physical death (even of of humanity, but this advancement must be humans) could have existed prior to the Fall. accompanied by suffering. “Animal life, Spiritual death, on the other hand, was human life, cultural evolution, Neolithic brought about by man’s rebellion against culture, urban civilization, the industrial God. It is clear that in order to accept both revolution may all have opened up new evolutionary biology and retain a possibilities and brought new freedoms. But meaningful atonement in the traditional each liberation brings new sufferings and sense, a Fall resulting in spiritual death is new possibilities of enslavement.”12 necessary. In order for Christ’s Daly, like Birch and Cobb, views the Fall as substitutionary atonement to accomplish an advancement of one stage of evolution to

7 Osborn, 2014, 134 10 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 11 Edwards, 1999, 61 9 Stump, 2015 12 Ibid.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 4

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 another. He views this advancement as expectations for conduct, the fall upward humanity sacrificing one level of peace in idea leaves room for a subjective morality order to attain a higher level. In this sense, arising as the indirect result of evolution. he asserts, humanity moved forward through One of the best attempts to explain evolution while weighed down by the the Fall in light of evolution without instincts and desires of its evolutionary abandoning an objective atonement is past.13 Collin’s Historical/Ideal view. We have The question then becomes whether already discussed how Collin’s theory or not these primal instincts should be explains the human attainment of moral considered sin when they reassert awareness, but Collin’s goes further into themselves and gain momentary dominance describing the Fall. After the first hominids over a person. Should humans be punished gained self-conciseness, God supernaturally for actions that are necessary and right for revealed his will and purpose to them. Since the survival of nonhuman species? Some these hominids lived in a world that had not have suggested that sin is no more than the yet been polluted by sin and engulfed in uprising of previous primal instincts. Daly, spiritual darkness, they had a clearer however, rejects this by claiming that these understanding of God’s will for them than behaviors are not sinful because they come other humans. In this sense, they were in an from divine creation. He says, rather, that original state of holiness, and the stage for they can eventually lead to sin if they are not the Fall was set. Since God’s revealed will “healed by grace.”14 Daly therefore for them was at odds with their instincts, maintains some room for the atonement of they often times disobeyed. This Christ in his theory. Polkinghorne also disobedience can be viewed as the Fall.17 accepts a version of a “fall upward,” and Collins Historical/Ideal view of the uses Scripture as evidence. It was after Fall is attractive for several reasons. First, it Adam and Eve ate of the tree that they acknowledges evolutionary biology by gained the knowledge of . In replacing a literal Adam and Eve with a other words, the Fall gave them a new society of the first hominids. Second, it capacity of understanding that they claims that human morality arose from a previously did not have.15 Polkinghorne supernatural work of God, rather than a says, “The cost of development is a degree mere evolutionary development. Thus, of precariousness.”16 Collin’s acknowledges both the scientific One problem with the idea of a fall idea of humans and animals have a physical upward is that it comes close to the view continuity, and the religious idea that they (discussed previously) held by Wilson and have a spiritual discontinuity. This also Ruse that human morality can be explained intensifies and objectifies the Fall of man as solely on the basis of evolutionary a deliberate disobedience against the development. The idea that the Fall is the revealed will of God rather than an unfortunate bi-product of evolutionary unfortunate, indirect result of evolution. By development eliminates objective morality doing this, Collin’s model points to the need and therefore impacts the atonement of for an atonement similar to what has been Christ. Instead of human moral response- accepted through the centuries of the bility coming about from supernatural Church.

13 Edwards, 1999, 62 16 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 17 Op.cit. ref. 5 15 Op.cit. ref. 4

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 5

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 The Atonement Christ within substitutionary As Darwin’s theory gained atonement. If didn’t die in prominence during the 20th century, its order to overcome humanity’s implications towards the atonement became original sin, then why did Jesus die? an important topic. The traditional views of What is Jesus, the second Adam, atonement are predicated on the Fall of man attempting to restore with the cross, resulting in some sort of death. In addition, if not the sin of the first Adam? the occurrence of a human Fall is dependent Substitutionary atonement sees on the reality of human moral awareness. By original sin as a major reason for suggesting that humans are a continuation of Christ’s death. But macroevolution the animals, evolution casts a shadow on calls the doctrine of the fall and both human morality and the Fall. In order original sin into question. Thus to ease this tension some have redefined the evolution poses a significant atonement to fit in with modern science. challenge to substitutionary Joseph Bankard questions the atonement.20 validity of a substitutionary atonement on Bankard’s issues with substitutionary several grounds. First, Bankard asserts that atonement have driven him to adopt a model substitutionary atonement paints a picture of that resembles the “moral influence theory a God who is either lacking in power or of atonement.” Bankard, in alignment with unnecessarily cruel. If God could only this model, redefines the primary purpose of redeem humanity and reconcile sinners back the incarnation. Christians who hold to a to him by killing his own son, it seems as if substitutionary atonement (as well as the he is not truly omnipotent. On the other other traditional views) believe that the hand, if God is omnipotent and could have primary reason for the Christ’s incarnation atoned for the of humanity in some was to die to atone for sin. Bankard, on the other way, he could be considered cruel for other hand, argues that we should rethink the unnecessarily putting his son through a purpose of the incarnation. He writes, “Jesus miserable death.18 Another reason Bankard doesn’t become human to die. Jesus takes on questions substitutionary atonement is and bone to show us how to live, how because of the evil nature of the crucifixion. to be fully human.”21 This view, held by How could the atonement be both the will of others throughout history, closely resembles God and the result of human sin? This the moral influence theory. This view is would imply that God willed sin to occur convenient because it does not contradict and would be inconsistent with his character evolution in any way. By saying that Christ as presented by Scripture.19 Bankard also came into the world not to die, but to show critiques this theory of atonement from us how to live, the moral influence theory another perspective: eliminates the tension between evolution Sin created a divide between God and Scripture. There is no longer any need and creation. Jesus death was a to think about original sin in light of necessary sacrifice to bridge this gap. evolution because Christ did not come to However, if denying the historical atone for sin. fall calls into question the doctrine of Bankard certainly has a good point original sin, then it also calls into that the teachings of Christ are absolutely question the role of the cross of crucial for Christian life, but his view of the

18 Bankard, 2015, part 1 20 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 21 Bankard, 2015, part 2

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 6

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 purpose of the incarnation is at odds with God’s will for them following the evolution some understandings of 1 John 4:10 which of self-consciousness. The Fall of man is claims “In this is love, not that we loved another doctrine crucial to substitutionary God, but that he loved us and sent his son to atonement but impacted by evolution. If the be the propitiation for our sins” (NASB). It Fall is merely an unfortunate product of is evident that Christ was incarnated to evolutionary development, Christ’s work on reverse the curse brought about by the sin of the cross does not accomplish the objective the fist Adam by dying on the cross as the task of restoring a depraved humanity back second Adam. The moral influence theory is to God. In order to maintain a meaningful convenient in avoiding complications atonement, the Fall must be thought of as a between evolution and Scripture, but it fails willful rebellion against God’s revealed to recognize the vital importance of the standards that leads to the depravity of man. atonement (traditionally held by the Church Substitutionary atonement, despite its and some interpretations of Scripture). tension with modern science, seems to be the most clearly supported in the traditional Conclusion interpretation of Scripture. Verses such as 2 Evolution has serious implications Cor. 5:21, Titus 2:14, Gal. 2:20 and others on atonement doctrine because it calls into all point to an atonement that resembles question the reality and uniqueness of substitution. human morality, as well as original sin. If It is important to acknowledge human beings are a continuation of the natural revelation and take science seriously animals, morality would have had to be in an attempt to better understand the work either evolved or divinely imparted during of God. A scientific narrative that destroys some point of evolutionary development. the atonement cannot be accepted by one Since evolution cannot account for all who relies on the atonement for . If aspects of moral living, supernatural evolution is to line up with a substitutionary causation is likely. To accept both evolution atonement, it must leave room for a God- and divinely given morality, one must given morality unique to humans, and a Fall accept a narrative in which the first that resulted from disobedience. hominids were somehow made aware of

Literature Cited Bankard, Joseph. (2015). Substitutionary Atonement and Evolution. Biologos. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/substitutionary-atonement-and-evolution-part-1 Collins, R. (2003). Evolution and Original Sin. In K. B. Miller (Ed.), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company. Edwards, Denis. (1999). The God of evolution: A Trinitarian theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Garte, Sy. (25 Feb, 2013). Science and Scientism in Biology: The Origin of Morality. Biologos. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/science-and-scientism-in-biology-the-origin-of-morality McGrath, A. Polkinghorn, J. (no date given) The Fall. Retrieved from Biologos. http://biologos.org/resources/videos/the-fall Osborn, R. (2014). Death before the fall: and the problem of animal suffering. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 7

Original Sin & Atonement Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 Ruse, ., Wilson, Edward. (1993). The Evolution of ethics: Religion and the Natural Sciences. James Huchingson. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Stump, J. (4, Nov. 2015). Evolution and the Fall. Biologos. http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump- faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/evolution-and-the-fall

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2015-Spring 2016 |Volume 3 8