In the last few years I’ve started thinking about what happens to Christian theology in the absence of a Fall. I agree that from a biological point of view it appears that we are designed to learn from mistakes, and were never morally perfect nor intended to be.
It would be possible to regard the fall as a myth, but one pointing to the reality that we are all unacceptable to God because of our moral imperfections, but I think there’s another approach that’s more consistent with Scripture as a whole.
It seems that in the OT righteousness didn’t mean perfection. It meant living with reasonable fidelity to the laws, and repenting when one makes a mistake. In Jesus, of course, the emphasis moves from laws to intent and general principles. But the overall approach of not expecting perfection seems still to be there. Despite out-of-context citations of Rom 3:10, the Bible calls lots of people righteous without any indication that it’s unusual.
In Jesus’ teaching, salvation has two meanings. It is used sometimes for people who changed from being opposed to God to being his follower. But I don’t see any implication that everyone has to be converted in this way. He also used it of final salvation, that is, eternal life.
This all seems consistent with the general Protestant view that we are not justified by having perfect works, but by faith. In order to maintain consistency between Jesus and Paul, I understand faith as a general orientation of our lives, not just intellectual belief. Remember that pistis actually can be translated faithfulness as well as faith.
Although I come from the Calvinist tradition, I now regard traditional Reformed exegesis of Paul rather unconvincing. When he says no one is righteous, this is pretty clearly in the context of criticizing a righteousness of works, which for him would require an impossible perfection. (Jews, of course, never expected or required moral perfection, but he’s not arguing against Judaism, but rather a group of Christians with whom he disagreed.)
This perspective allows for a natural treatment of the difference between children and adults. Most Christians (including Reformed) assume that all infants and children are “saved.” For Reformed, that’s not because they are morally perfect, but because they see evidence in the NT that God makes allowances for them. In order to adopt the traditional theology we have to assume that at some point the way God deals with us reverses, original sin falls on us, and we have to convert to avoid damnation. I have to ask whether Scripture really teaches the God is predjudiced against adults.
My sense is that children are mostly accepted, and this continues as they mature, but that for some people something goes wrong and they morally and spiritually defective. Maybe God eventually rescues them, as Paul’s writings suggest, or maybe they do not share in eternal life. But this is not the default situation of mankind. It’s a degeneration.
I don’t want to suggest that God doesn’t care about what people do. He certainly does. Jesus talks about that a fair amount (though I can’t help suspecting the Matthew may have magnified it somewhat). I do expect t be held accountable. But except for those who are lost, I believe 1 Cor 3:12 is the likely form.
The usual response from traditional Protestant theology is “you are teaching works righteousness.” In fact the most consistent teacher of works righteousness is Jesus. But neither Jesus nor I suggest that we any sense merit acceptance by God through works. We don’t need to. Jesus teaches that God loves us. That’’s grace, not works.
When someone becomes an enemy, I don’t think it’s just a matter of his bad deeds outweighing his good. I think it reflects the overall direction of his life, and is thus faithlessness as well as disobedience.
