Denomination Stances on Adam and Eve

[Willtor]

To be sure, most of us have views on the historicity of two individuals the Bible calls Adam and Eve. But regardless of personal views:

1. What is the official position of your Church or denomination? Does it take one?

2. What is the general stance of the clergy/laity? Probably, most people can't speak to this on anything more than a local level, but that's okay.

3. Do either of these things not sit well with you, personally?

 

[laptoppop]

1) denomination's view: Historical people
2) local church's view: Historical people
3) sits fine with me (of course )

 

[Willtor]

1) denomination's view: Historical people
2) local church's view: Historical people
3) sits fine with me (of course )

Thanks.

Your icon says you're non-denominational, though. Does non-denominational mean something different from what I thought it was?

 

[laptoppop]

Great question. What defines us -- where we attend, where we want to attend, what we believe? I go to a church which is part of the Fellowship of Grace Brethren churches. Small little conservative denomination - lots of good stuff. However, I also tend toward neo-charismatic practice, ala non-denominational Calvary Chapels. I believe that the Spiritual gifts, including the "sign" gifts are active today -- but also that services should be held in an orderly manner. Fortunately both groups believe in a historical Adam and Eve. I'm involved in my local church, but I don't know how much I'd identify myself as part of the denomination. My pastor is a good, good friend and he allows folks to follow their own conscience on various things.

 

[Willtor]

Great question. What defines us -- where we attend, where we want to attend, what we believe? I go to a church which is part of the Fellowship of Grace Brethren churches. Small little conservative denomination - lots of good stuff. However, I also tend toward neo-charismatic practice, ala non-denominational Calvary Chapels. I believe that the Spiritual gifts, including the "sign" gifts are active today -- but also that services should be held in an orderly manner. Fortunately both groups believe in a historical Adam and Eve. I'm involved in my local church, but I don't know how much I'd identify myself as part of the denomination. My pastor is a good, good friend and he allows folks to follow their own conscience on various things.

I'm in a similar boat. I go to a "non-denominational" Chinese Christian Church, and I'm still not entirely sure what "non-denominational" means. I was raised Baptist, but I don't really identify with all of the teachings. I'd have no qualms attending a Baptist Church, to be sure, but you get the idea.

Personally, I don't know whether Adam and Eve are historical individuals, or whether they represent a society, or whether the story doesn't have 1:1 correspondence with historical events, or what. I'd like to understand what particular Churches take stands one way or the other and why. Also, (as indicated by question #3) I'd like to know what people think about the stands their Churches have (or haven't) taken.

 

[Gwenyfur]

My husband's church (baptist)
1-Historical People
2-Historical People
3- sits fine with us both!

My denomination it depends on the Rabbi

 

[Willtor]

My husband's church (baptist)
1-Historical People
2-Historical People
3- sits fine with us both!

My denomination it depends on the Rabbi

That's interesting. Do individual Rabbis generally take firm stands one way or another (or does this vary from person to person)? Is there something like an ecumenical council of Rabbis that decides on essential doctrines and statements of faith?

 

[Gwenyfur]

The (nearly) local messianic rabbi's I've spoken with for short periods seem to hold to YEC for the most part...taking the word literally...
Though I'm given to understand that this appears to be a minority amongst messianics...if I understood right ... (remember, this gray hair was once blonde ) I was told that the closer to rabbincal teachings a congregation moves, the more secularized the position on origins...OEC, TE etc... I hope that answers your question

 

[Mandrake]

I don't think that my denomination (the United Church of Canada) has ever officially made a statement about it.

However, I also don't think that I know anyone in a position of leadership, nor anyone among the laity, who believes that Adam and Eve were historical figures.

I'm quite comfortable with both of these facts. We try to focus on the things we believe are more important, so our statements on Biblical authority and interpretation tend to reference issues like slavery and the subjugation of women.

 

[vossler]

Ditto the above:

1. Historical people
2. Historical people
3. If they didn't see them as such I'd be very concerned.

 

[Melethiel]

1. No stance
2. Wide range

 

[Willtor]

1. No stance
2. Wide range

Do you think it should take a stance, one way or the other?

 

[Melethiel]

Do you think it should take a stance, one way or the other?

No.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To be sure, most of us have views on the historicity of two individuals the Bible calls Adam and Eve. But regardless of personal views:

1. What is the official position of your Church or denomination? Does it take one?

2. What is the general stance of the clergy/laity? Probably, most people can't speak to this on anything more than a local level, but that's okay.

3. Do either of these things not sit well with you, personally?

PCA. (OPC as well)

historical Adam and Eve required for elders, even a historical stance that makes Adam the result of evolution or anything other than the special creation from the dust is grounds for removal.
see denominational trial at:
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/general_assembly_actions.html

teaching elders are allowed to be OEC or framework at ordination exams, but there is a continuing movement in the church to eliminate this option. At least one Presbytery has threatened to leave denomination if their position of not allowing anyone but YEC to be accepted into their Presbytery is overturned at GA.

i personally don't know any elders that are anything but YEC with historicity of Adam and Eve key, essential and very important. I don't think anyone can conceive of federal headship without a historical Adam.

the question is well above my paygrade, however i've come to the conclusion that i am not called to teach Sunday School as a result of thinking about these issues, i recently told my Pastors this and took my 3 Sunday School classes offline.

 

[Servant222]

So what race were Adam and Eve? Does not the present ethnic make-up of Earth's people demonstrate at least some kind of evolution?

 

[laptoppop]

Evolution is not just variation within a "kind". (I know, the definition of "kind" is slippery at best - kind of like a wet bar of soap.) The different races do not represent evolution -- we are all the same species, etc. There is an interesting issue for YECs like me in terms of human variation after the flood -- from the limited group of people to what we have now in just a few thousand years. I'm still chewing my way through that one -- but its much easier to see adam & eve --> Noah & family.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is not just variation within a "kind". (I know, the definition of "kind" is slippery at best - kind of like a wet bar of soap.) The different races do not represent evolution -- we are all the same species, etc. There is an interesting issue for YECs like me in terms of human variation after the flood -- from the limited group of people to what we have now in just a few thousand years. I'm still chewing my way through that one -- but its much easier to see adam & eve --> Noah & family.

Actually, they do represent evolution. The production of a new species is the end-point of evolution. Most evolution takes place inside a species without necessarily generating a new species.

What the ethnic/racial differences in human populations show is that to the extent a population is relatively isolated, it will acquire/preserve traits unique to that group. Some of these differences may be adaptive to their environment. It is theorized that the predominance of dark skin colour in tropical environments and fair skin colour in northern environments may be such a trait. Another example are the adaptations found in places like Tibet, Nepal and the high Andes that allow local populations to respire more efficiently than we low-landers do. No doubt many of the differences are neutral in terms of fitness and are just interesting variations. But wherever these variations are identified with a particular lineage, that is evolution.

What has also happened in human populations though is that no human group has been so thoroughly isolated from others for such an extended period of time as to develop problems in inter-breeding.

But new species are not the only thing evolution is about. Just the most dramatic consequence of evolution over the long term.

 

[laptoppop]

I could be mistaken - but I thought full "evolution" required
1) beneficial variation within a population which can be passed on
2) natural selection to select just the enhanced traits
3) repeat, repeat, repeat

I see human variation in this case as neutral variation - not beneficial, and I don't see any example of natural selection and further variation. Pretty much everyone will acknowledge that there are variations within populations. Pretty much everyone will acknowledge the functioning of natural selection. It is the *repeated beneficial sustainable* variations that are in dispute.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I could be mistaken - but I thought full "evolution" required
1) beneficial variation within a population which can be passed on
2) natural selection to select just the enhanced traits
3) repeat, repeat, repeat

I see human variation in this case as neutral variation - not beneficial, and I don't see any example of natural selection and further variation. Pretty much everyone will acknowledge that there are variations within populations. Pretty much everyone will acknowledge the functioning of natural selection. It is the *repeated beneficial sustainable* variations that are in dispute.

the word beneficial is particularly slippery in this context. what is beneficial really depends on the environment, which will be different for different individuals in the species.

take the issue of HgS. to an American of african ancestor it is detrimental, but to someone in a malaria zone in Africa it may very well be the difference between living to adulthood to reproduce and pass on the gene and an early death.

speciation does not require beneficial mutations, neutral ones which are the heart of genetic drift can in isolated populations make it so that they can not breed with the original parent stock.

mutations that cause differential reproductive success between individuals are the root driver for TofE, making the process directional(species are improving because of accumulation of beneficial mutations), other than a better fit to the environment, appears to be legacy of the progressivism of late 19thC society.

 

[laptoppop]

Right, but variations alone, especially the ones in this example, are not sufficient to be labeled evolution. They might be considered a part, but just a part, not the whole.