quote:
There is merit to that line of thinking. Paul wrote that because of the sin of Adam, all have sinned and require a savior. If Jesus is the "new Adam", that requires an "old Adam". If Adam was nothing more than allegory, then original sin and federal headship have no basis in reality and thus Jesus didn't have to come to take away sin and there is no basis for Him being a Christian's "federal head" (representative). Important Christian theology hinges on the reality of Adam.

I think this is the crux of the breakdown, because it applies a "sins of the father" concept that doesn't apply anywhere else.

If Adam's sin applies to me, why not Cain's? Why not Eve's? My own sins are okay, but Adam's are the ones that are problematic?

People are quite capable of sinning without Adam having ever existed. Needing forgiveness for something does not mean that someone else had to do it first before you.

I don't think God altered human genetics, plate tectonics, and radioactive dating methods to make people believe in either Genesis or science. The idea that God was either intentionally lying in the creation of the Bible, or intentionally misleading people by altering the world before discoveries could be made, does not sit well with me.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41869 posts

Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:56 am to skrayper

quote:
I think this is the crux of the breakdown, because it applies a "sins of the father" concept that doesn't apply anywhere else.

The guilt of Adam being applied to all humanity is the basis by which God can apply the righteousness of Christ towards those who haven't earned it, themselves. It's the entire point of the Gospel.

quote:
If Adam's sin applies to me, why not Cain's? Why not Eve's? My own sins are okay, but Adam's are the ones that are problematic?

Adam was created by God to be the perfect man and to live in perfect communion with God. This was only possible if Adam remained sinless. Once he sinned, God judged all of humanity with him who was the best possible representative we could have (he was not hampered with a sinful nature as we are, which is why we couldn't do any better than he did). Eve was created to be Adam's helper and Cain was Adam's son who came after "the fall". We inherit Adam's guilt because he alone represented humanity.

If Adam wasn't real and we didn't inherit his guilt, then Jesus' incarnation, perfect obedience, death, resurrection, and ascension were completely unnecessary. Yes, we sin by ourselves without the need of Adam's guilt, but if it's "unfair" for us to take on Adam's guilt, it's certainly "unfair" for us to take on Christ's righteousness which we inherit through faith in Him. Therefore, we would all be left alone to try to obey God perfectly (it's impossible for us) and thus we would all perish in our sins. In order to be saved from the penalty our own sins deserve, we have to have a representative that speaks on our behalf before God, and that representative is Jesus Christ.

quote:
People are quite capable of sinning without Adam having ever existed. Needing forgiveness for something does not mean that someone else had to do it first before you.

We didn't just inherit Adam's guilt, but a sinful nature, too. The creation was perfect and without blemish or stain, and certainly without sin. When Adam sinned, he caused the fall of the entire world. Death, disease, pain, and suffering are all the result of Adam's sin. When he sinned, all of his children received a nature bent towards sin, and since we all come from Adam, we all inherit that sinful nature. Because of that sinful nature, we will not obey God and we will not seek after God as He is. It's why Jesus had to become incarnate and fulfill the law's demands on our behalf.

So yes, without Adam, a lot of Christian theology goes out the window, including the concept of Jesus' federal headship and representation of sinners before God. If it's wrong and unfair for Adam to represent all of humanity with his sin, it's wrong and unfair for Jesus to represent the faithful with His righteousness.

quote:
I don't think God altered human genetics, plate tectonics, and radioactive dating methods to make people believe in either Genesis or science. The idea that God was either intentionally lying in the creation of the Bible, or intentionally misleading people by altering the world before discoveries could be made, does not sit well with me.

Who says it has to be either lying or deception through alteration? We put a lot of faith in men who are wrong a lot. We put a lot of faith in tools and methodologies developed by men who are wrong a lot. Over time there have been discoveries that have laid waste to all previous thought on those subjects and I believe in time the same will happen with our understanding of history (from a scientific perspective). I could summarize by saying that If the Bible is true, there are fundamental assumptions used in science that would skew the results towards an untruthful conclusion, even if said conclusion is entirely consistent with the assumptions that go into the study.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by crazyatthecamp

Member since Nov 2006

2111 posts

Posted on 2/9/18 at 11:58 am to skrayper

The major issue is Jesus and the resurrection. Christianity hinges on that.

Believe in the resurrection and then other items follow after that to various degrees.

Too many non believers get caught up in the origin of the universe questions and old testament stuff and get talked out of Christianity.

What is the most common non believer description of Jesus?
Liar or Lunatic or non existent?
How do they account for the apostles actions following the resurrection?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 2/10/18 at 11:16 am to skrayper

quote:
People are quite capable of sinning without Adam having ever existed

to be clear, we did inherit a sinful nature from adam however, part of the reason is because had we been in adam's shoes, we would have done (and still do) the same

quote:
intentionally misleading people by altering the world before discoveries could be made, does not sit well with me.

nor with me. that is why i am not favorable to the young earth position. it makes God out to be deceptive by making the world seem older than it actually is. while i respect the effort, i think flood geology is very ad hoc. and i feel A LOT better that billy graham was open to theistic evolution.