Evolutionary psychology vs. Original sin

[Tom_of_Assisi]

I am curious to know how the people who believe in the theistic evolution of all life on Earth can explain the theories of evolutionary psychology within a Christian theological framework.

The theories of evolutionary psychology (formally known as sociobiology) assert that all elements of our personalities and behaviors (all aspects of human psychology) are genetically determined and are acted on by evolutionary processes. Everything about human beings are **evolved **including our minds. There is no soul according to these theories.

There is no such thing here as original sin; our actions and behaviors are merely the result of our genes functioning as they should–as they naturally evolved to (and not distinct at all from any other animal). Our modern behaviors are rooted in genes that developed over millions of years as our ancestors lived in small tribes in the Savanna. The behavior of all animals are completely determined by the evolution of their genes.

How do the Catholics who believe in evolution still maintain a belief in oriinal sin?

 

[PhilVaz]

TomA << I am curious to know how the people who believe in the theistic evolution of all life on Earth can explain the theories of evolutionary psychology within a Christian theological framework. >>

I’ve heard of evolutionary psychology, never studied it, so don’t know anything about that.

Yes, I understand what you have stated is the atheist Daniel Dennet kind of evolution, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, that evolution must be read into everything, it is a “universal acid” that eats away at every area of life, including psychology, meaning, etc.

Naw, I keep science and faith separate. I don’t read evolution into anything but biology and natural history (what little I understand of that).

TomA << How do the Catholics who believe in evolution still maintain a belief in original sin? >>

First, I’ll let you know that I accept evolution and original sin both. In case you weren’t sure after 4.5 billion posts

Original Sin Explained and Defended (from 1997, using the Catechism and Ludwid Ott, so quite orthodox)

Several solutions can be offered and accepted (or rejected) that still “jives” with what we know about science and human evolution:

Everything from God inserted (and perhaps even specially created from scratch) a single couple, Adam and Eve with souls, into the train of already existing humanity, they fell, and the rest of the hominids (not quite humans without souls) died off…

Evangelical Dick Fischer represents this view in his articles In Search of Historical Adam and I assume his book (which I don’t have yet) The Origins Solution

This page represents that view and many other “conservative” positions in the creation-evolution controversy

To Catholic theologian John Haught’s view (some would say more liberal or “modernist”) that human consciousness and the soul arose with the evolution of humanity and God oversaw the process. He also re-interprets original sin. Haught is a bit more sophisticated and cryptic here so I need to get his fuller books God After Darwin and Deeper Than Darwin to be fair to him.

I don’t have a complete answer to the theological objections. However, here are some solutions to this I’ve seen listed on an old discussion list (evangelical mainly I think) that specialized in the creation-evolution debate:

continued in next post…

 

[PhilVaz]

THE QUESTION:

*"The whole traditional teology that is taught in our seminars and churches is based on some basic principals. One of the most important is the principle of the Fall. The teology considers the existence of a definite point in space and time where the man, by his own will, decided to sin. This principle has a lot of theological consequences, as the Original Sin Theology, etc. This point of view is very confortable for the YEC’s [young-earth creationists], since this has nothing against their assumptions. But I, like many of you, do not believe in the evidences presented by the YEC’s (I would be very thankful if anyone could give me a name of a scientist who believes in the YEC’s and is not a Christian).

“Considering the current scientific evidences, I am a evolutionist. That puts me in a very confortable position in relation to the current science, but certainly also puts me in a very unconfortable position in relation to theology. How can I consider the notion of the Fall in the ‘paradigm’ of evolutionary creationism [or theistic evolution] ? When, and how did the man became a real man, in the theological view? What feature makes him a real man? Please, give me your opinions.”*

THE POSSIBLE ANSWERS:

This is a very important question. Even though a number of people have thought and written about this question, it’s difficult to find material. The Christian books, magazines, and e-mail groups which might discuss this question are pretty obscure.

For now, I’ll quickly summarize 11 ideas which I’ve encountered in various books and articles. All of them are suggestions for dealing with the biological and paleontological evidence while maintaining the doctrine of Original Sin and the need for a Savior. For this post, I’ll just list the ideas and won’t comment on which ones I believe probable or improbable, acceptable or unacceptable, or the scientific and/or theological problems faced by each idea. Maybe others in this group will want to start that discussion.

(1) God used evolutionary creation of plants, animals, and some hominids; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, the parents of all modern humans, in a literal Garden of Eden several tens of thousands of years ago.

(2) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden of Eden.

(3) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special selection of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden.

(4-6) The same as 1-3 above, except the Garden of Eden story is an allegorical re-telling of some other historical event. The historical details of The Fall are unknown, but it involved revelation from God, choice, and rebellion.

(7) Same as #1 above, but occurring 5.5 million years ago with the Genesis flood (a local flood) corresponding to the filling of the Mediterranean basin; Abraham is a modern person.

(8) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens. The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden is an allegorical version of some actual historical event, in the distant past, where God revealed Himself to a group of humans (perhaps more than two), and the humans rebelled. The Fall was not inevitable, but a choice. Original sin “spread” from this group who received the first “revelation” outward to eventually include all humans.

(9) Same as #8, but the story of the Fall is a telescoping of multiple events of revelation and rebellion in human pre-history.

(10) Same as #9, but taking into account the slow development of hominid intelligence and self-awareness over time. (Analogous to the gradual development from the ordinary self-centeredness of an infant into the sinful selfishness of a toddler.)

(11) Same as #10, but the eventual sinful state of humanity was inevitable, given the number of opportunities for it to happen.

That seems a fairly exhaustive list, though I’ve probably missed a few.

from a post by Loren Haarsma on an old creation-evolution List I found

Phil P

 

[TheGarg]

Tom of Assisi:

I am curious to know how the people who believe in the theistic evolution of all life on Earth can explain the theories of evolutionary psychology within a Christian theological framework.

The theories of evolutionary psychology (formally known as sociobiology) assert that all elements of our personalities and behaviors (all aspects of human psychology) are genetically determined and are acted on by evolutionary processes. Everything about human beings are **evolved **including our minds. There is no soul according to these theories.

There is no such thing here as original sin; our actions and behaviors are merely the result of our genes functioning as they should–as they naturally evolved to (and not distinct at all from any other animal). Our modern behaviors are rooted in genes that developed over millions of years as our ancestors lived in small tribes in the Savanna. The behavior of all animals are completely determined by the evolution of their genes.

How do the Catholics who believe in evolution still maintain a belief in oriinal sin?

Maybe your forgetting one important thing. HUMANS have rational thought, so yes, our “basic” behavior is programmed, (perpetuate the species, feed, need for acceptance, socialize with our own species, survive, etc…I may have taken liberty with "id"functions and combined them with “ego” functions), but unlike other animals, we have rational, intelligent thought, and we have the choice to be consumed by our “instincts”. ( We also have opposable thumbs which is nice ).

Therefore our actions are not programmed, they are a direct result of choices we make, therefore we can be held accountable. I am by far no expert in anything, all this comes from psychology 110 from 3 years ago, but the point i make is valid. Choice is the one of the many differences between us and every other “animal” on earth.
Oh, that and a soul

 

[Benadam]

Tom of Assisi:

I am curious to know how the people who believe in the theistic evolution of all life on Earth can explain the theories of evolutionary psychology within a Christian theological framework.

The theories of evolutionary psychology (formally known as sociobiology) assert that all elements of our personalities and behaviors (all aspects of human psychology) are genetically determined and are acted on by evolutionary processes. Everything about human beings are **evolved **including our minds. There is no soul according to these theories.

There is no such thing here as original sin; our actions and behaviors are merely the result of our genes functioning as they should–as they naturally evolved to (and not distinct at all from any other animal). Our modern behaviors are rooted in genes that developed over millions of years as our ancestors lived in small tribes in the Savanna. The behavior of all animals are completely determined by the evolution of their genes.

How do the Catholics who believe in evolution still maintain a belief in oriinal sin?

I’m no expert but I’ve got a pretty good understanding of psychology and I’ve spent some time thinking about consciousness whether animal or human.

There is evidence that people of ancient cultures not long before written history, lacked a full awareness of self. Their awareness was more identified with their group or clan. I read this was 20 years ago and I haven’t researched the subject since.

I can’t imagine how the faculties that distinguish the human soul from animal souls could evlolve… I see how those faculties can be placed and require stimulation in order to come to fullness

personally I feel a lower state of life must be lifted up by a higher one in order to transfigure to the higher. Like what is happening to the christians in relation to Christ.

Good topic… I look foreward to reading and participating in the thread

 

[Benadam]

In order to understand original sin one has to explore original innocence. that state of consciousness has to be agreed on or there can be little discussion of an original sin.

Perhaps a dialogue to resolve that would come first.

 

[JimO]

Tom of Assisi:

I am curious to know how the people who believe in the theistic evolution of all life on Earth can explain the theories of evolutionary psychology within a Christian theological framework.

How do the Catholics who believe in evolution still maintain a belief in oriinal sin?

Tom,

I’m a life-long 44-year-old orthodox Catholic. I love Jesus and faithfully adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father. My wife and I are homeschooling our four boys (ages 6 to 13) and are wrestling with how best to handle this question with them. I am also a geologist with a master’s degree who works in the field, so I am surrounded by atheists with whom I often debate on the topics of evolution and creation, among other things. Therefore, your question hits home with me.

First, being a geologist, I see clear scientific evidence that: 1) the world is ancient; 2) many species have existed and became extinct; 3) many periods of life on earth were dominated by now-extinct species long before man came to be; 4) the fossil evidence strongly suggests biological evolution as the driving force behind the diversity of life on earth - past and present. I cannot ignore the scientific data.

However, I also find that there are gaps in the fossil record so that evolution from one kind of animal to another (as opposed to changes within a kind) is not documented.

Therefore, the bottom line is, I don’t know the answer. However, I would consider myself a theistic evolutionist for the very simple reason that I do not believe, and the Church does not teach, that Genesis was intended as a scientific or historical text, but it established that God created. It was not intended to tell us how or when or over what period of time God created, but why He created and that He did create. Therefore, I cannot agree with the creation scientists who try to force the scientific data to fit into Genesis. But, evolution cannot and never will address the spiritual. A spirit cannot evolve from a physical being; therefore, regardless of how our physical bodies came to be, God had to create the first soul - Adam. His “breathing life into Adam” may very well be the moment when God infused the first human with a soul.

I have a good analogy that I used with my oldest son. On his grandmother’s birthday, my wife took the kids to the store, bought all the ingredients for a cake, baked the cake, decorated it and surprised here with it. I told my son that when someone reads Genesis and then tries to reconstruct how God created life on earth, it would be like him writing the day’s activities relating to his grandmother’s birthday in a diary - “Went to the store, bought cake ingredients, made cake, decorated cake, gave it to grandma.” Then, 1,000 years later someone who does not know our customs and does not speak our language takes that diary and tries to bake a cake.

Regarding original sin, once you establish that there is a soul and the self-awareness that comes with it, the theology of the fall and original sin works. If one doesn’t acknowledge the spiritual or believes that the human soul evolved from some rudimentary state of self awareness, then they won’t buy the fall or original sin.

Therein lies the problem with discussing this topic with atheists who are knowledgeable in evolution. If the atheist does not believe in a spiritual side to human existance, then there is no common ground for discussion. Also, “creation scientists” - those who try to argue biblical creation from a scientific perspective get clobbered by the evolutionary biologist because the scientific data do not support the position. If someone wants to believe in strict creation science, that’s their prerogative; however, they are wasting their time arguing with atheists and evolutionists who won’t take them seriously.

Sorry to go on so long. I hope thinks helps in some way.

Blessings

 

[Benadam]

Jim,

I noticed in your post that your concept of soul was attached to consciousness and that premise for it’s definition lead to the error that souls are unique to humans. That isn’t so. The soul is the life principle of all living matter. Plants have soul, bugs have soul and animals have souls. What distinguishes them is the powers that define their physical manifestation. A plants soul has the powers that offer the plant regeneration and growth. An animals soul adds to that and offers the powers of emotion and memory. Human souls add to that and offer the powers of Intellect reason and will. The power of intellect allows man to apprehend eternal or spiritual realities that are not subject to observation for proof so the faculty of reason is required to organize and incorporat those realities into a definition of experience. Having the ability to draw from two orders of reality that defines a single experience requires choice which is accomplished by a will served by reason informed by intellect. This originally wasn’t intended to grapple over moral choices but was meant to be a aprt of a creation that made visible the Mystery of God and make visible the Mystery of God as well. A self determining species within a species. The final step in speciation?

 

[Orogeny]

Benadam:

Jim,

I noticed in your post that your concept of soul was attached to consciousness and that premise for it’s definition lead to the error that souls are unique to humans. That isn’t so. The soul is the life principle of all living matter. Plants have soul, bugs have soul and animals have souls.

Interesting. Is this Catholic teaching? I couldn’t find any reference to animals and plants having souls in the Catechism.

Peace

Tim

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

TheGarg:

Maybe your forgetting one important thing. HUMANS have rational thought, so yes, our “basic” behavior is programmed, (perpetuate the species, feed, need for acceptance, socialize with our own species, survive, etc…I may have taken liberty with "id"functions and combined them with “ego” functions), but unlike other animals, we have rational, intelligent thought, and we have the choice to be consumed by our “instincts”. ( We also have opposable thumbs which is nice ).

Therefore our actions are not programmed, they are a direct result of choices we make, therefore we can be held accountable. I am by far no expert in anything, all this comes from psychology 110 from 3 years ago, but the point i make is valid. Choice is the one of the many differences between us and every other “animal” on earth.
Oh, that and a soul

accoring to current evolutionary theory you are mistaken, everything about us (and all living things) is determine by evolution. Read The Origin of Virtue by Matt Ridley for a short and quality overview of evolutionary psychology.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Orogeny:

Interesting. Is this Catholic teaching? I couldn’t find any reference to animals and plants having souls in the Catechism.

Peace

Tim

It is official teaching. St. Thomas explained the idea in the Summa I believe.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Interesting. Is this Catholic teaching? I couldn’t find any reference to animals and plants having souls in the Catechism.

Peace

Tim

Yes it is Catholic teaching. The soul is what animates the living. The difference between animal sould and human is immortality and made in the image of God…

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

JimO:

Tom,

I’m a life-long 44-year-old orthodox Catholic. I love Jesus and faithfully adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Holy Father. My wife and I are homeschooling our four boys (ages 6 to 13) and are wrestling with how best to handle this question with them. I am also a geologist with a master’s degree who works in the field, so I am surrounded by atheists with whom I often debate on the topics of evolution and creation, among other things. Therefore, your question hits home with me.

First, being a geologist, I see clear scientific evidence that: 1) the world is ancient; 2) many species have existed and became extinct; 3) many periods of life on earth were dominated by now-extinct species long before man came to be; 4) the fossil evidence strongly suggests biological evolution as the driving force behind the diversity of life on earth - past and present. I cannot ignore the scientific data.

However, I also find that there are gaps in the fossil record so that evolution from one kind of animal to another (as opposed to changes within a kind) is not documented.

Therefore, the bottom line is, I don’t know the answer. However, I would consider myself a theistic evolutionist for the very simple reason that I do not believe, and the Church does not teach, that Genesis was intended as a scientific or historical text, but it established that God created. It was not intended to tell us how or when or over what period of time God created, but why He created and that He did create. Therefore, I cannot agree with the creation scientists who try to force the scientific data to fit into Genesis. But, evolution cannot and never will address the spiritual. A spirit cannot evolve from a physical being; therefore, regardless of how our physical bodies came to be, God had to create the first soul - Adam. His “breathing life into Adam” may very well be the moment when God infused the first human with a soul.

I have a good analogy that I used with my oldest son. On his grandmother’s birthday, my wife took the kids to the store, bought all the ingredients for a cake, baked the cake, decorated it and surprised here with it. I told my son that when someone reads Genesis and then tries to reconstruct how God created life on earth, it would be like him writing the day’s activities relating to his grandmother’s birthday in a diary - “Went to the store, bought cake ingredients, made cake, decorated cake, gave it to grandma.” Then, 1,000 years later someone who does not know our customs and does not speak our language takes that diary and tries to bake a cake.

Regarding original sin, once you establish that there is a soul and the self-awareness that comes with it, the theology of the fall and original sin works. If one doesn’t acknowledge the spiritual or believes that the human soul evolved from some rudimentary state of self awareness, then they won’t buy the fall or original sin.

Therein lies the problem with discussing this topic with atheists who are knowledgeable in evolution. If the atheist does not believe in a spiritual side to human existance, then there is no common ground for discussion. Also, “creation scientists” - those who try to argue biblical creation from a scientific perspective get clobbered by the evolutionary biologist because the scientific data do not support the position. If someone wants to believe in strict creation science, that’s their prerogative; however, they are wasting their time arguing with atheists and evolutionists who won’t take them seriously.

Sorry to go on so long. I hope thinks helps in some way.

Blessings

solid and detailed answer. You and I seem to have somewhat similar backgrounds, I have a B.S. in anthropology and my wife is homeschooling our four kids.

Some questions I would like to get your answers to: in your opinion, did God personally manage and direct all the billions of benefiical mutations over the past four billion years to create all life? How is the evolutionary view of Earth able to be reconciled with the Biblical view of man being placed in a garden paradise?

Soooo, we have an almost human hominoid who gives birth to Adam one day (and God inserts a human soul in him–as he’s conceived I guess). Adam is raised by the pre-humans, but then he…what, just doesn’t live as good as he should, so that’s original sin? That’s why we need a savior?

What about the animals we will evolve into in the future? Do they need a savior?

You are correct: the Bible is not intended as a science book; God doesn’t have to write a new edition every few years…He got it right the first time.

Thanks for your time, and the detail of your answer.

 

[Orogeny]

Tom of Assisi:

It is official teaching. St. Thomas explained the idea in the Summa I believe.

Thanks.

Peace

Tim

 

[TheGarg]

Tom of Assisi:

accoring to current evolutionary theory you are mistaken, everything about us (and all living things) is determine by evolution. Read The Origin of Virtue by Matt Ridley for a short and quality overview of evolutionary psychology.

Where did you see me deny evolution??? I am merely stating that humans cannot be lumped into the same category as other “animals” when it comes to psychology. We have intelligent rational thought, which gives us a choice, they do not.
They react soley to instinct. They[non-human animals] do not feel sorry for the weak or the defenseless for example.
Why did God give man intelligent thought?? So they wouln't mount women's legs at cocktail parties .
We have to choose to sin, whether the compulsion to sin is programmed in or not, it is still a choice due to intelligent thought process.
Choice[intelligent thought] is where sin ‘origiantes’ from, Eve chose to bite the fruit, Adam chose to stand there and let her bite the fruit, knowing the Lords Commandment, and he chose to try to displace the blame to God, so he made a concious choice to defy God.

At least this makes the most sense to me, but what do I know? Just my humble Opinoin. I will never take away from the accountability we have to God and the consequence of disobeying him, by displacing the blame to something other than myself.

"Remember, when your pointing your finger at someone, there are three pointing right back at ya’! " —don’t remember, but it’s true

 

[oriel36]

JimO:

Tom,

Regarding original sin, once you establish that there is a soul and the self-awareness that comes with it, the theology of the fall and original sin works. If one doesn’t acknowledge the spiritual or believes that the human soul evolved from some rudimentary state of self awareness, then they won’t buy the fall or original sin.

Blessings

Sir

In Catholic tradition,original sin is nothing more than wilful prejudice.While the narrative of Genesis does not express this explicitly it was always discerned correctly by those who could extract it from the narrative of the fall of Adam.All Christianity ever says is that while we naturally know our physical nature from childhood,there is an inherent Spiritual nature that is just as spectacular and mysterious as the birth of the body.

Chapter 3

“What else did Adam do but this same thing? It is said, it was
because Adam ate the apple that he was lost, or fell. I say, it was
because of his claiming something for his own, and because of his I,Mine, Me, and the like. Had he eaten seven apples, and yet never claimed anything for his own, he would not have fallen: but as soon as he called something his own, he fell, and would have fallen if he had never touched an apple. Behold! I have fallen a hundred times more often and deeply, and gone a hundred times farther astray than Adam; and not all mankind could mend his fall, or bring him back from going astray.”

passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm

The narrative of Genesis is the process of recovery for those big enough to recognise that humanity is in the image of God and Christ when it gives and creates without thought of reward or celebrity.Are not the greatest monuments of Christian thought found in the works of Beethoven,Pascal,St Francis,Leonardo,Blake and all those who celebrated the Life of Christ.

Is not Adam representative of all those who have yet to find a way to express the image of God that lasts beyond their own existence be it in the smallest kindness or greater works.

Merry Christmas to all here.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

TheGarg:

Where did you see me deny evolution??? I am merely stating that humans cannot be lumped into the same category as other “animals” when it comes to psychology. We have intelligent rational thought, which gives us a choice, they do not.
They react soley to instinct. They[non-human animals] do not feel sorry for the weak or the defenseless for example.
Why did God give man intelligent thought?? So they wouln't mount women's legs at cocktail parties .
We have to choose to sin, whether the compulsion to sin is programmed in or not, it is still a choice due to intelligent thought process.
Choice[intelligent thought] is where sin ‘origiantes’ from, Eve chose to bite the fruit, Adam chose to stand there and let her bite the fruit, knowing the Lords Commandment, and he chose to try to displace the blame to God, so he made a concious choice to defy God.

At least this makes the most sense to me, but what do I know? Just my humble Opinoin. I will never take away from the accountability we have to God and the consequence of disobeying him, by displacing the blame to something other than myself.

"Remember, when your pointing your finger at someone, there are three pointing right back at ya’! " —don’t remember, but it’s true

I never said you “denied” evolution…I know that would be a big mistake on these forums–similar to calling you an idiot. I am pointing out that evolutionary psychology demonstrates that everything about us is evolved. That was what I was explaining to you. Evolutionary psychology also posits the idea that our choices in life are the result of our instincts. Current evolutionary theory holds that humans actually have more instincts (and more complex ones) than lower animals–we do not have a lack of them.

I know from reading other threads on the topic of evolution that educated people hold to their evolutionary beliefs very dearly, so the purpose of this thread is to ask how closely they adhere to evolutionary theory and specifically where they diverge from the typical evolutionary view and insert their theistic beliefs.

I know most posters here accept evolution…but at what point for most of them do they insert God?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

oriel36:

Sir

Chapter 3

“What else did Adam do but this same thing? It is said, it was
because Adam ate the apple that he was lost, or fell. I say, it was
because of his claiming something for his own, and because of his I,Mine, Me, and the like. Had he eaten seven apples, and yet never claimed anything for his own, he would not have fallen: but as soon as he called something his own, he fell, and would have fallen if he had never touched an apple. Behold! I have fallen a hundred times more often and deeply, and gone a hundred times farther astray than Adam; and not all mankind could mend his fall, or bring him back from going astray.”

soooo…because he “claimed” something he sinned…and we all own things so we sin…Is this the gospel according to Marx or what?

I thought we inherited sin as part of our human nature.

 

[Benadam]

Tom of Assisi:

.

I know most posters here accept evolution…but at what point for most of them do they insert God?

aaahhh, so that’s the theme. let me see.

I believe that for life at one stage or state to transfigure to a higher state, the higher state has to reach down and lift the lower stage of life up. With that in mind I believe that the higher state for animals is man, because we are animal too but of a higher order as well. For man that higher state I guess would be God but originally I think it was angels but some of them didn’t want to serve, so there was this tree in the Garden. For man the element of difference should be easily found. Evidence of Intellect and Reason.

Now if we hadn’t sinned I would say the same except we would find evidence of a free will or a species of self determining species that are determining themselves to a common end because they left no bones.

 

[oriel36]

soooo…because he “claimed” something he sinned…and we all own things so we sin…Is this the gospel according to Marx or what?

I thought we inherited sin as part of our human nature.

Sir

The Theologia and its historical influence emerges from a pivotal era in Christian history and with only a little effort,you can see why a split occured amid ideological differences that were heavily political but have little to do with the Spiritual message of that great work.The fact that you saw a political ideological message in the excerpt from the Theologia demonstrates that you missed the Spiritual point of that message .

Like all great Christian works of its kind,the Theologia is extremely balanced to the point of being exquisite and particularly in its ability to cut through the ‘sin’ jargon and present what it is that fell in Adam and rose in Christ in terms which are easy to comprehend and closer to the human condition.

passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm