Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[mark kennedy]

What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology. I have covered these Scriptures and issues over and over again, it seemed like it was time to put them all in one thread. Before the advent of Darwinism this simply was not an issue, other aspects of Genesis and the Pauline doctrine of original sin were but not our lineage.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.​

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)​

From Noah to Abram:

8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)​

These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mindlight]

What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology.......

Excellent summary- the scriptures are clear. What happened with Lyle and Darwin was the assertion of new naturalistic assumptions to replace those of miraculous interposition. The consequence has been a deep blindness to what the scriptures actually say. Arguably this blindness now extends into other areas of scriptural interpretation also.

But the problem with adopting naturalism as your starting point is that what can be seen was made out of what is not seen by a word of command from God. So it's a false assumption and however consistently scientists argue on the basis of this assumption their conclusions will also be jeopardised by it.

I think the Western world is already moving away from the hard core atheistic materialism of the original Darwinists towards a more New Age agnosticism and a greater appreciation of the unseen realm. Hard core scientists may not have noticed yet but their status is already eroding. I have mixed feelings about this as I do not know if it will necessarily lead to a proper biblical interpretation but more likely to a new paradigm of scientific thinking just as bad the previous macro-evolutionary one but with an occultic dimension to it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Then why do we find figurative interpretations of Genesis in the Church Fathers?

 

[Assyrian]

One of my favourite old commentators, Albert Barnes was tried for heresy over his 1835 Commentary on Romans and an 1829 sermon "The Way of Salvation" where he denied the imputation of Adam sin and the tradition that we all sinned in Adam. Apparently Darwin's malign influence on the church started before Darwin even got back from his Beagle voyage, decades before he published The Origin of Species. In the end Barnes was acquitted. Apparently denying we all sinned in Adam is not as heretical as Mark thinks and has nothing to do with Darwin. Either that or the rot spread much faster than anyone could imagine.

 

[shernren]

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'.

Even Darwin himself didn't think that Darwinism was one long argument against special creation.

But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us ... On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance ... The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence.
Cretinism or Evilution?: Darwin Quotations on Design​

Darwin was not interested in eliminating design; rather, he was interested in locating it properly. And Christians today operate in much the same way in life. When I fall sick, for example, I am hard pressed to see evidence of design and beneficence in my falling sick - but that does not make me an atheist! Rather, I see regular biological principles at work which, though they may inconvenience me in this particular, are in general expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresees every future event and consequence.

And so some of us Christians see regular biological principles at work also in the way that the biodiversity of this world was, and continues to be, generated. Now you may not be convinced of these principles; fair enough. You may not be convinced that the human brain could evolve in the span of so many million years, while I am.

But that is a disagreement over what nature can do; it is no theological quarrel, and it is certainly not worth calling your evolutionist brethren all-but-atheists as you are so wont to do. Your belief that the brain couldn't evolve does not make you any more Christian or theistic than me. (After all, Harun Yahya and Fred Hoyle would agree with you.) And my belief that the brain could evolve does not make me any less Christian or theistic than you. (John Stott, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins would agree with me, as would Pope John Paul II if his opinion matters at all to you.)

... as shernren said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast.

You are still forlornly quoting the debate we had two years ago as if you won it, and you are still extracting my words without understanding the rest of what I said:

We do not each sin on our own, we drag each other down in sin, and we are all dragged down in sin in a network which ultimately traces back to Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. (And I have at points almost disagreed with other TEs on this very matter.)

However: have all sinned? Certainly. Have all fallen short of the glory of God? Definitely. Is their future in their natural condition eternal perdition? There is no other option. Can any person save themselves without God’s help? In no way. And is Christ the only way to human freedom and restored relationship with God? Absolutely. And this persists throughout all of the settings I described earlier, whatever the age of the universe is, whatever the age of the Earth is, whether man evolved or was created supernaturally, whether the story of Adam and Eve literally happened or is just a retelling of the same fundamental truth of sinfulness for less modern (though no less intelligent) minds.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7305187/ (post 3, part 2)
​

(For those interested, the paragraph mark put in the OP was copied wholesale from his final post. Resubmitting your own work without indicating so isn't a good idea in academic circles ... )

Look, mark, you say yourself that it isn't important how exactly we inherit man's fallen nature. So here's my question for you:

Is it possible that man's fallen nature is not inherited biologically?

 

[ActuallyThinking]

Then why do we find figurative interpretations of Genesis in the Church Fathers?

It's interesting that the TDs always combat scripture, the word of God, with what the early church fathers said, the word of men.

Are the early church fathers prophets whos words we must adhere to? Or should we focus on what the bible said instead?

 

[shernren]

It's interesting that the TDs always combat scripture, the word of God, with what the early church fathers said, the word of men.

Are the early church fathers prophets whos words we must adhere to? Or should we focus on what the bible said instead?

The point was being made that we TEs were doing "grave injustice" to "Christian scholarship for the past 2000 years". Since Christian scholarship was a subject of that accusation, bringing up the Church Fathers is a valid counterargument.

On the other hand, when I debated mark kennedy on whether accepting human evolution was a rejection of Christian orthodoxy, I quoted the Scriptures at length, whereas mark kept himself only to a few proof-texts.

 

[Mallon]

It's interesting that the TDs always combat scripture, the word of God, with what the early church fathers said, the word of men.

Are the early church fathers prophets whos words we must adhere to? Or should we focus on what the bible said instead?

Why is there such utter disdain among anti-evolutionary creationists for using lessons learned from history to inform our interpretation of the Bible? It isn't the Bible that's under question; it's how we interpret it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's interesting that the TDs always combat scripture, the word of God, with what the early church fathers said, the word of men.

Are the early church fathers prophets whos words we must adhere to? Or should we focus on what the bible said instead?

The ECFs are part of the foundation of Christian theology, like it or not. Much of the theology we have today is taken directly from or derived from the Church Fathers. They are not infallible, but they were students of the apostles and students of the students of the apostles. They had a much better handle on what early Christianity was like.

Your personal interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily the "word of God." I don't adhere to Sola Scriptura anyway. It's a fallacious position with foundations in circular reasoning that has done more damage to Christianity than any single theological innovation that came before it.

All of that being said, that is for another thread. shernren is correct about what I said. There are figurative interpretations of Genesis by the Church Fathers, so that kind of throws his point out the window. Obviously none of them thought the world was 4.3 billion years old, but that's irrelevant if we're only talking about figurative vs literal interpretations.

 

[mark kennedy]

One of my favourite old commentators, Albert Barnes was tried for heresy over his 1835 Commentary on Romans and an 1829 sermon "The Way of Salvation" where he denied the imputation of Adam sin and the tradition that we all sinned in Adam. Apparently Darwin's malign influence on the church started before Darwin even got back from his Beagle voyage, decades before he published The Origin of Species. In the end Barnes was acquitted. Apparently denying we all sinned in Adam is not as heretical as Mark thinks and has nothing to do with Darwin. Either that or the rot spread much faster than anyone could imagine.

Your just incorrigible, I'm waiting for the part where you expound on how Albert Barnes denied original sin. I'm very fond of his commentaries as well and he is explicit in his description of Adam being both our first parent and the originator of sin. Many philosophical theories had arisen on the mode of sin which made the whole subject more complicated then it needs to be.

As far as I can gather at this point the issue was man's responsibility following Adam's sin that cursed us all. I don't know that for sure but since you provided none of the quotes, links or substantive issues I am left to search it out on my own. This is what Albert Barnes taught concerning Adam in Romans 5:

First, the simple, straightforward, originally intended meaning:

The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this— to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith...​

That's an inextricable link to justification by faith which makes the subject matter essential doctrine. Later he speaks to the nature of the comparison and the contrast:

As. (wsper). This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison is deferred to Ro 5:18. The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations, (Ro 5:13-17.) "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils."​

That's original sin in no uncertain terms, now to the historic sense of the passage in Genesis:

By one man, etc. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well-known historical fact, (Ge 3:6,7) without any explanation of the mode or cause of this. (Barnes, New Testament Notes)​

Two things are clear, Adam was our first parent and the Genesis account is not presented as allegory but as historic fact. In describing the reason for the need for justification Paul attributes it to Adam. This is what Albert Barnes taught.

Now he would have had to do a radical turn around in order to have contradicted his simple statements regarding Romans 5 and Genesis 3. He may well have strayed from the total depravity doctrine but that is just a guess at this point. The more important issue at stake is the historicity of Genesis 3 and it's relevance to Origins Theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Then why do we find figurative interpretations of Genesis in the Church Fathers?

They interpreted many things in Genesis figuratively, Adam and Eve were not one of them. This is just for starters:

TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)

And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)​

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)​

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)

EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)​

ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)

In no other way could sin and condemnation be destroyed, except by that same man's being CREATED ANEW -- he of whom it was said: "Earth you are, and unto earth you shall return" [Gen 3:19] -- and by his undoing the sentence which, BECAUSE OF HIM [Adam], had been pronounced upon ALL. Thus, just as IN ADAM ALL DID FORMERLY DIE, so again in Christ, who put on Adam, ALL ARE MADE TO LIVE [1 Cor 15:22]. (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins or On Chastity 3:6)​

More can be found here:

Original Sin Explained and Defended

The point being that they all considered the Fall of Man in Genesis 3 to be historical, not figurative.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Verticordious]

I agree with you that Adam was a real person, however I disagree with some other things you said:

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

You conveniently forgot Romans 5:12, again. Paul is saying that Adam was the first to sin, and that everyone became sinners because they sinned. Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible, teaches any kind of original sin. Sin came first, then the results of sin came.

You also, again, conveniently leave out the second half of Romans 5:18: "even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.". Paul is directly contrasting Adam's actions to Christ's actions. If Adam's sin necessarily makes us sinners, then Christ's righteousness necessarily makes us righteous. Unless you're claiming universalism, then your interpretation is clearly inconsistent.

8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

The death that is a punishment for sin refers to the separation from God. As Jesus said, to have eternal life is to know the one true God, and thus the opposite, spiritual death, is to be alienated from God. Christ's sacrifice saves us from our alienation to God that resulted from our choice to sin. Again, as Romans 5:12 says, death spread to all mean because all men sinned. Not "death spread to all men because Adam sinned" or "all men sinned because death spread to all men".

 

[mindlight]

The ECFs are part of the foundation of Christian theology, like it or not. Much of the theology we have today is taken directly from or derived from the Church Fathers. They are not infallible, but they were students of the apostles and students of the students of the apostles. They had a much better handle on what early Christianity was like.

Your personal interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily the "word of God." I don't adhere to Sola Scriptura anyway. It's a fallacious position with foundations in circular reasoning that has done more damage to Christianity than any single theological innovation that came before it.

All of that being said, that is for another thread. shernren is correct about what I said. There are figurative interpretations of Genesis by the Church Fathers, so that kind of throws his point out the window. Obviously none of them thought the world was 4.3 billion years old, but that's irrelevant if we're only talking about figurative vs literal interpretations.

Most of the ECFs who had a more allegorical approach to scripture held to a view of instantaneous creation. So I am not sure they are any help as an historical foundation for a macro-evolutionary reading of Genesis.

 

[Greg1234]

I agree with you that Adam was a real person, however I disagree with some other things you said:


You conveniently forgot Romans 5:12, again. Paul is saying that Adam was the first to sin, and that everyone became sinners because they sinned. Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible, teaches any kind of original sin. Sin came first, then the results of sin came.

As the governing body, the television is invented against warning. By law of inheritance and usage, televisions are distributed and the effect on the inventor is inherited by all. Depicting man created as man, an interpretation in line with the evidence.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Most of the ECFs who had a more allegorical approach to scripture held to a view of instantaneous creation. So I am not sure they are any help as an historical foundation for a macro-evolutionary reading of Genesis.

That's irrelevant. The point is that they interpreted Genesis allegorically, not that they interpreted Genesis allegorically in any certain way.

They interpreted many things in Genesis figuratively, Adam and Eve were not one of them. This is just for starters:

TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)

And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)​

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)​

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)

EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)​

ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)

In no other way could sin and condemnation be destroyed, except by that same man's being CREATED ANEW -- he of whom it was said: "Earth you are, and unto earth you shall return" [Gen 3:19] -- and by his undoing the sentence which, BECAUSE OF HIM [Adam], had been pronounced upon ALL. Thus, just as IN ADAM ALL DID FORMERLY DIE, so again in Christ, who put on Adam, ALL ARE MADE TO LIVE [1 Cor 15:22]. (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins or On Chastity 3:6)​

More can be found here:

Original Sin Explained and Defended

The point being that they all considered the Fall of Man in Genesis 3 to be historical, not figurative.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Right, so, what about the allegorical interpretations of the creation week? As mindlight said, there are several ECFs that interpreted creation as occurring instantly. Others (I think) interpreted it as some form of OEC where each day was 1,000 years. Either one throws quite the wrench in a literal interpretation of the creation account.

Literalness of Adam and Eve is not really an issue I'm concerned with (because of the lovely monogenism hypothesis). But if it were, I could simply support that position by saying that the ECFs are not infallible.

 

[Assyrian]

They interpreted many things in Genesis figuratively, Adam and Eve were not one of them. This is just for starters:
...
ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)​

Actually Origen was quite figurative in his interpretation of Adam and Eve.

the subjects of Adam and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the nature of man in general. For “in Adam” (as the Scripture says) “all die,” and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. Origen Contra Celsus Book 4 Ch 40​

Are you sure Origen was speaking literally in the passage you quoted? A little bit earlier in that section Origen was being his usual figurative self:

The Lord who made the earth in his strength, who set right the inhabited world in his wisdom, and in his prudence he stretched forth the heaven. And we need the strength of the Lord with respect to our earth (for it is written regarding Adam, You are earth), for without the power of God we are unable to accomplish what does not concern the mind of flesh.​

The problem is, if you take everything literally yourself, you may not realise when people are speaking figuratively.

 

[Assyrian]

One of my favourite old commentators, Albert Barnes was tried for heresy over his 1835 Commentary on Romans and an 1829 sermon "The Way of Salvation" where he denied the imputation of Adam sin and the tradition that we all sinned in Adam. Apparently Darwin's malign influence on the church started before Darwin even got back from his Beagle voyage, decades before he published The Origin of Species. In the end Barnes was acquitted. Apparently denying we all sinned in Adam is not as heretical as Mark thinks and has nothing to do with Darwin. Either that or the rot spread much faster than anyone could imagine.

Your just incorrigible, I'm waiting for the part where you expound on how Albert Barnes denied original sin. I'm very fond of his commentaries as well and he is explicit in his description of Adam being both our first parent and the originator of sin. Many philosophical theories had arisen on the mode of sin which made the whole subject more complicated then it needs to be.

As far as I can gather at this point the issue was man's responsibility following Adam's sin that cursed us all. I don't know that for sure but since you provided none of the quotes, links or substantive issues I am left to search it out on my own.

It was a short reply to a silly ad hom about Darwin, it hardly needed detailed references.
It is easy enough to Google: Albert Barnes heresy trial
and find out what the issues were. Sounds like you discovered what I said was true too, hence your attempt to switch from the issues Barnes was tried for heresy over: denying the imputation of Adam's sin and that we all sinned in Adam, and asking me instead to show Barnes denying original sin. Barnes didn't deny original sin, though his interpretation seems a lot closer to papias and shernren's federal headship. but that is not the issue. My point was that the traditional understanding of Romans 5 was being questioned and challenged before Darwin.

This is what Albert Barnes taught concerning Adam in Romans 5:

First, the simple, straightforward, originally intended meaning:

The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this— to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith...​

Which is pretty much what I have been saying all along, the big problem is people reading their philosophy and theology into Romans 5 rather than looking at what it actually says. It is sad to see you continuing on the 'indefatigable efforts' to read all sinned in Adam into this passage when Paul says nothing of the sort.

That's an inextricable link to justification by faith which makes the subject matter essential doctrine. Later he speaks to the nature of the comparison and the contrast:

As. (wsper). This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison is deferred to Ro 5:18. The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations, (Ro 5:13-17.) "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils."​

That's original sin in no uncertain terms, now to the historic sense of the passage in Genesis:

By one man, etc. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well-known historical fact, (Ge 3:6,7) without any explanation of the mode or cause of this. (Barnes, New Testament Notes)​

Perhaps you should have read down a bit

(3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that men sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4.) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners.​

Barnes may have believed in original sin, but not as you understand it and proclaim it. If he did he would have been put on trial for heresy.

Two things are clear, Adam was our first parent and the Genesis account is not presented as allegory but as historic fact. In describing the reason for the need for justification Paul attributes it to Adam. This is what Albert Barnes taught.

Now he would have had to do a radical turn around in order to have contradicted his simple statements regarding Romans 5 and Genesis 3. He may well have strayed from the total depravity doctrine but that is just a guess at this point. The more important issue at stake is the historicity of Genesis 3 and it's relevance to Origins Theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I never suggested Barnes interpreted Genesis allegorically or denied the historicity of Adam. My point was that he searched the scriptures to see what Paul really said and challenged traditional interpretations when the traditions did not fit what Paul actually said about Adam. And yet he did all that before Darwin came along, completely uninfluenced by The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man.

 

[mindlight]

That's irrelevant. The point is that they interpreted Genesis allegorically, not that they interpreted Genesis allegorically in any certain way.

The ECFs interpreted from the perspective of what they thought God was capable of doing and brought their own "Grecian" readings of the text into that interpretative task. Let us not forget the heresies born out the Alexandrian school as a whole arguably many of them products of allegorical thinking.

Macro-Evolutionists are similiar in that they also bring their own assumptions to the reading of the text, when they create their allegorical interpretative frameworks, but their assumptions relate to a naturalistic reading of the creation event rather than a theological one. That is a perspective that no ECF I can think of would have shared.

 

[shernren]

The ECFs interpreted from the perspective of what they thought God was capable of doing and brought their own "Grecian" readings of the text into that interpretative task. Let us not forget the heresies born out the Alexandrian school as a whole arguably many of them products of allegorical thinking.

Macro-Evolutionists are similar in that they also bring their own assumptions to the reading of the text, when they create their allegorical interpretative frameworks, but their assumptions relate to a naturalistic reading of the creation event rather than a theological one. That is a perspective that no ECF I can think of would have shared.

So can you name me an ECF who didn't use "Grecian" categories of thought to organize their theologies? Oh well, I suppose the Nicene Creed was a waste of time and effort, what with its pontificating over such (boo! hiss!) Greek words as "homoousian" and "homoiousian".

As a matter of fact, all Christians bring their assumptions to the reading of the text. Many modern YECs, for example, have a hidden veneration of science in which they believe that science proves truth, which is why they are so preoccupied with making science support the Bible. (And if you doubt me, just ask any YEC whether they have a well-developed theology of divine action in natural processes, or in short of providence. No? That goes to show that their YECism isn't so much about an accurate theology of creation - which would of course necessitate thinking about providence - as it is about an accurate physical science of creation.)

Or take mark kennedy, for example. He has this presupposition that original sin must be transmitted through biological parentage - a presupposition so deeply ingrained that he does not even recognize when he is implicitly using it. In the entire history of my discussions with him, he has never once even considered the possibility of there being an Adam with whom we are in non- (or not necessarily) biological solidarity with in sin. He has taken it as self-evident that if there is an Adam, then of course we must be descended from him in order to inherit his sin.

To put it quite simply, if sin is transmitted spiritually, then our natural parentage has zero impact on the spiritual transmission of our sinful nature and condemnation. This one sentence demolishes the whole point and argument of the OP, a fact which mark kennedy still refuses to accept.

But I digress. The fact is that we all bring our interpretations to the Bible. We can see this even in the conservatives of America, who in their rage against "socialism" seem to forget that the Torah advocates complete debt cancellation once every fifty years and universal unemployment once every seven! (The socialists in their turn seem to forget the creational virtue of work, even hard work.) But if you think macro-evolution, as an unquestioned presupposition, drives a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, you only need to look here and see that quite a number of TEs came to interpret Genesis non-literally before they even heard of evolution.

Or do you suppose that people can be predestined to have their worldviews warped by evolution before they have even learned of it?

 

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

Or take mark kennedy, for example. He has this presupposition that original sin must be transmitted through biological parentage - a presupposition so deeply ingrained that he does not even recognize when he is implicitly using it. In the entire history of my discussions with him, he has never once even considered the possibility of there being an Adam with whom we are in non- (or not necessarily) biological solidarity with in sin. He has taken it as self-evident that if there is an Adam, then of course we must be descended from him in order to inherit his sin.

But also realize that a single, literal, Adam, who brought original sin, who is the literal ancestor of us all, is fully consistent with theistic evolution (ask if you'd like a description).

Mark has claimed that a main reason for him to reject evolution is because he needs to keep a single, literal, ancestor Adam to keep the doctrine of original sin, but when it is (repeatedly) pointed out to him that he can keep that with theistic evolution as well, he still rejects that evolution occurred.

Mark wrote:

My issue with TOE is not whether or not bacteria accumulate beneficial mutations, the age of the universe or whether or not amphibians became whales and dolphins. My core issue is whether Adam and Eve were specially created and our first parents, there is no other doctrinal issue at stake.

from: his post #19, here http://www.christianforums.com/t7505537-2/
​

It seems clear that Mark clings to creationism for some additional reason that he is not telling us.

Papias