What evolutionary ideas are damaging to Christianity?

[Willtor]

Read Romans 5 again, one man is pretty central. One man brought death and one life. One trespass and one act of rightousness. IMO a literal Adam, as well as a literal Jesus are pretty central to the theology in these passages.

I could just as easily tell you that the name, "Adam," was pretty central to the theology. You'll have to make the case that the role of one man is unable to be filled by one blood or one ethnos.

 

[charvel]

Maybe the evolution theory. Proven to cause a major feud every time.
The Adam and Eve theory has been a great debate with some agnostic pals I have.

 

[charityagape]

I could just as easily tell you that the name, "Adam," was pretty central to the theology. You'll have to make the case that the role of one man is unable to be filled by one blood or one ethnos.

I may just be stupid, but you're going to have to rephrase the portion in red.

 

[Willtor]

I may just be stupid, but you're going to have to rephrase the portion in red.

No, you're not stupid. If I say something that is difficult to parse, it's probably my fault.

My argument was that if one man (Adam) represents many, it doesn't affect the role of Adam. The Genesis story uses one man, so Paul uses one man. But what was the factual sequence of events that the fall account represents? Did it involve a population? Perhaps. I really don't know. At any rate, sin was brought into the world, and we all inherited it. If the role of the one man to whom Paul refers was filled by one blood or one ethnos, it doesn't change the fact that sin entered the world and none of us were free from it except by the grace of Christ.

Now, if it was actually some group of people, there are implications for the group of people. There are things we must believe about them if we are to keep to Paul's text. But Paul's discussion is not refuted by these possibilities.

 

[charityagape]

Ah, that's better. I feel from the text "adam" has to be one man, one blood, the father of all people everywhere. Not just one group, too many problems arise from that. Sin entered through one man, life entered through one man.

That is name is Adam or Bob is not terribly important, except for the fact the bible calls him adam and not bob, so his name is Adam.

 

[Willtor]

Ah, that's better. I feel from the text "adam" has to be one man, one blood, the father of all people everywhere. Not just one group, too many problems arise from that. Sin entered through one man, life entered through one man.

This is parsimonious and I don't have a problem with Adam being one man. Frankly, I think the whole thing is largely unimportant. However, I find the fact that some people make it important, itself important. As such, like Augustine in "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis," I am trying to keep the interpretation somewhat open and not become married to a particular take on it. As always, further discoveries may support or attack one or more of these views.

That is name is Adam or Bob is not terribly important, except for the fact the bible calls him adam and not bob, so his name is Adam.

But if we are talking about an historical person, his name wasn't Adam. Adam is what Moses called him, but it's probably not what Eve called him. It's like saying Jesus' name is Jesus. It isn't. It's probably something like Jeshu or Jeshua (with the 'J' pronounced like a 'Y'). But I say Jesus. If you say Jesus I know who you are talking about. But rest assured that none of the Apostles called him Jesus.

The point is that all language is figurative. When you or I say, "literal," we are arguing that a particular type of reasoning can be applied to the text, and that other types of reasoning probably cannot be applied. My discussion about Bob was that Bob identified himself as Bob, but that Moses identified him as Adam. Who was right? Both. Moses is not refuted because Bob called himself Bob. But if we want to know his name - if we want to know what he called himself, it wasn't Adam.

 

[jereth]

I feel from the text "adam" has to be one man, one blood, the father of all people everywhere. Not just one group, too many problems arise from that. Sin entered through one man, life entered through one man.

Perhaps you'll find my conceptualisation helpful:

I like to think of there being 2 Adams. The first Adam was the first ever human being, who lived in the order of 1 million years ago in Africa. At some point in the ape-human lineage, there had to be a being who God considered "human" and no longer "ape" right? (In actual fact, there probably would have been a small group of contemporaneous beings who were the first humans.)

This "Adam A" in some way or other chose to live a life of self-worship i.e. what we call "sin". He subsequently led the rest of humanity (i.e. his small tribe) into a sinful, self-serving, God-forsaking lifestyle. Humanity has been sinful ever since; sin has truly been present in the human race since its inception (as both YECists and TEs agree.)

"Adam B" was another man, who lived in Mesopotamia at the time of the neolithic revolution -- around 10,000 years ago. He was the great-great-great....-great-great-great grandfather of Abraham. "Adam B" is the "Adam" at the start of the genealogy in Genesis 5, and the father of Cain, Abel and Seth. He was a literal, historical man.

Which Adam is Genesis 3 and Romans 5 referring to -- Adam A or B? I believe that this "Adam" is actually a conflation of them both. He is, on the one hand, the literal historical "Adam B" whose genealogy can be traced to Abraham (and through him to David and Christ). But he is also the "generic Adam" (Adam A), the man who led humanity into sin a long time before. We can say that "Adam" was a literal historical man because he was (Adam B). But he is also a figurative man, in the sense that he is the representative, or federal head of sinful humanity. Please note that either way, sin did indeed enter through "one man" (as Paul teaches).

Does this make things clearer?

 

[Assyrian]

No discomfort?

Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



1 Corinthians 15:20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.



No discomfort whatsoever?

These are very central passages that according to TE must compare a very literal Jesus with a very imaginary Adam.

It is easy to forget that Paul was a first century Rabbi whose way of thinking and exegesis is very different from ours. Sure if we read this through modern literalist glasses it is obvious Paul considered Adam just as literal and historical as Christ. But is that what he was saying?

I think Paul was comparing Christ and Adam on an allegorical level. Adam... was a pattern of the one to come. Adam is a figure of Christ.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. OK if we believe Adam was a real person, he has long since died and, as Genesis tells us, returned to the dust. So how can people continue to die (present tense) 'in Adam'? Could Paul have been talking of two great apocalyptic figures that sum up all of humanity, 'Adam', fallen humanity, and Christ ie 'the body of Christ' the church?

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners... We weren't made sinner by Adam's disobedience. It is our own sin that makes each of us a sinner. Instead the story of Adam and Eve declares us guilty before the judgment seat of God, because it is our story.


Assyrian

 

[charityagape]

Hm, interesting , but I disagree.

 

[Willtor]

Hm, interesting , but I disagree.

Agreement is not as important as understanding, IMO. If we disagree but are each able to see whence the other comes we are at least in a position to discuss it. And we'll find out who (if either) was right sooner or later.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What evolutionary ideas are dangerous to Christianity?


apparently anything to do with a liberal education endangerous some people's idea of the faith.

They have also raised questions that cut to the heart of Christian higher education, such as: Can a Christian find truth in the writings of non-Christians? What role should the Bible play in the classroom? Should a Christian college student grapple with the same philosophers and the same issues as any other student? Or are certain ideas too worldly to address?

The controversy has pitted the college's president and founder, Michael P. Farris, against many of its professors. He has challenged their fidelity to a biblical worldview, and they have challenged his commitment to the liberal arts. "When he accuses us of not buying into the vision of the college, we have to scratch our heads," says M. Todd Bates, an assistant professor of rhetoric, who is leaving after this semester. "We came here because of the vision. The question is: What has happened to that vision?"

from an excellent article at:
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i37/37a01001.htm

It is more than the usual fragmentation we have learned to expect from strongly opinoned people. Something about this brand of Christianity doesn't get along with inquiry of most any type.

 

[Willtor]

What evolutionary ideas are dangerous to Christianity?


apparently anything to do with a liberal education endangerous some people's idea of the faith.


from an excellent article at:
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i37/37a01001.htm

It is more than the usual fragmentation we have learned to expect from strongly opinoned people. Something about this brand of Christianity doesn't get along with inquiry of most any type.

Along these lines there is an NPR interview of Michael Farris.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Deleted because it would have only fallen on deaf ears.

 

[Scholar in training]

I'm still surprised that many YECists reject not only the theory of evolution, but also the big bang theory. If anything, the big bang theory is actually accomodating to a creator, whereas other scientific theories are not. It is odd that YECists will accuse science of operating on secular principles while ignoring the fact that science accepts the big bang theory.

 

[jereth]

I'm still surprised that many YECists reject not only the theory of evolution, but also the big bang theory. If anything, the big bang theory is actually accomodating to a creator, whereas other scientific theories are not. It is odd that YECists will accuse science of operating on secular principles while ignoring the fact that science accepts the big bang theory.

Oh, you're asking for trouble there!
(with all due respect for YECists of course)