Does sin require an historical/literal Adam and Eve to exist?

[AmericanChristian91]

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

Not really, don't get me wrong that's what the New Testament teaches but the fact that you are a sinner isn't an open question. How you came to be a sinner is the important thing here. Otherwise you have all the descendants of Adam having the same choice in effect. That leaves open the possibility that someone is going to choose to do the right thing.

The New Testament teaches that we all sinned in Adam, Romans 5 discusses this in depth. No, I don't honestly believe there has to be a literal, historical Adam in order to believe I'm a sinner. That's just what the Scriptures teach. The theology would have to be arranged somewhat but you still have the same basis even if Genesis is mythic poetry.

It should be understood that Creation is a New Testament doctrine. We understand Creation based on the witness of that Gospel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ChetSinger]

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

I think that's what Paul, in Romans 5, is describing. This is a big quote from it, but I think it's all relevant:

So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned –

for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.

Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!

And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification.

For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.

 

[Assyrian]

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

The story of Adam and Eve show what we all do sooner or later when faced with temptations, when we have to choose between following God and following our desires. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Eve didn't need original sin to follow her desires instead of obey God. Neither do we. Adam didn't even need to be tempted by his desires, he simply went along with Eve. The story is an indictment of the whole human race because it illustrates so clearly what we are like.

Paul is talking figuratively in Romans 5. Adam's sin and condemnation is a picture of our sin and condemnation, and he uses the story of Adam to contrasts with the redemption we have in Christ. As Paul put it, Rom 5:14 Adam is a figure of Christ.

 

[Papias]

Solider wrote:

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

My answer has two parts.

First - in agreement with mark and Assyrian, I don't think our sinful state is dependant on an historical Adam, for the reasons they state.

Second - and just as importantly - a real, historical, single person Adam can be fully consistent with all the findings of science. By accepting reality, we do not have to give up on a real, historical, single person Adam who's sin brought spiritual death on humans and set the stage for salvation through Jesus. Earlier, I wrote:

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including support from the Pope) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with all of modern science, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.
​

In His love-

-Papias

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Thanks for the responses guys.

 

[ebia]

Does the existence of sin upon humanity require an historical adam and eve sinning against God?

What are your thoughts on this?

No

 

[x141]

Adam is the story of us.