The Apostle Paul and Adam

Paul Bruggink - #6403

March 10^th 2010

That was a very nice summary of a very significant issue in the creation-evolution debate. Thank you.
Joe Francis - #6404

March 10^th 2010

Peter,

Great video presence. (I think your a real organic person by the way and not allegorical)

In all seriousness however, where in the geneology from Adam to Christ do we say we have real organic physical people? Is it Eber? Is it Terah? What biblical textual clues help us determine this?
dopderbeck - #6405

March 10^th 2010

Well, Pete—I agree with you that “if no historical Adam, no historical Jesus” is a dumb argument. We don’t depend on Paul, much less Paul’s Adam-Christ parallell for belief in a “literal Jesus,” and very, very few scholars of any stripe doubt that there was a “historical Jesus” (though obviously there is wide disagreement about the events of his life, the Resurrection, etc.).

But the real problem is whether “no historical Adam” destroys Paul’s theological point about original sin and the atonement. Here I think you have a much, much harder case to make. Maybe that’s coming in another post or video? It is fair to say, I think, that doing away with original sin connected to the rebellion of a first set of human parents has to major theological problems in the past in liberal theology. And it seems unnecessary to me, if we understand that scripture speaks in different ontological categories than those of modern genetics and anthropology. Can’t we use accommodation wtihout doing away with essential historicity?
Pete Enns - #6406

March 10^th 2010

OK, my friend Mr. Dopderbeck, what is YOUR solution? Where do you get your first human pair from? And do you think that whatever answer you give would reflect Paul’s theology anyway?

Joe, I am relieved to be a historical Peter. Your question is a good one and not at all easily answerable, so I won’t tother than to say tha the genealogies in Genesis are likely highly “stylized” (or whatever word we want to use), as are for that matter all biblical genealogies, including the genealogies of Jesus in Matt and Luke. As for Israelite genealogies, later Israelites tracing back their lineage was a theological/nationalistic exercise more than an historical one as we would think of it today.

Thanks for your comment, Paul
Gregory Arago - #6407

March 10^th 2010

It is not apparent that ‘non-literal(ness)’ is the same as ‘non-historical.’ To claim a ‘non-literal’ Adam need not mean the same thing as ‘non-historical’ Adam.

I fear that Dr. Enn’s bid to heal the ACE churches of ‘literalism’ may also damage them with anti-history and anti-logic.

Logically, going back to Aristotelian philosophy, up through Aquinas, to the present realist philosophers, to say “there must have been a first” is non-controversial. This ‘first’ is something that happens *in history*. Such logic relates to human beings as it does to any other ‘created’ or ‘evolved’ thing in the universe. Without a *First* then there *is* no *is*!

A *first* ‘human’ is a reality. We call this ‘first human’ by the name of ‘Adam’; a flesh and blood, real, historical person.

Why must Enns go against logic just to protect against ‘literalism,’ from which most Christians (e.g. Catholics and Orthodox) around the world do not suffer?

How the real, historical ‘adam’ and/or ‘Adam’ is presented by pastors, theologians, Jewish, Christian and Muslim scientists, including especially anthropologists, is another topic for discussion.
John VanZwieten - #6408

March 10^th 2010

Peter,

Why is it necessary to make Paul’s Adam “non-litteral” or a non-historical figure?

I certainly see the need to separate Paul’s Adam from the common idea of Adam as the progenitor of the human race if we are to accept modern science and anthropology—but who throw him completely overboard?

At least as I read Romans 5 at least, Paul’s emphasis on Adam is that he is the first lawbreaker. While other humans sinned, until Moses there was not a law for them to break so their sin would not have resulted in condemnation. Yet Adam’s lawbreaking was put to the account of all who sinned. Thus all “died” or came under judgement and condemnation (the linguistic parallels between “death” and “condemnation” are impossible to miss in Romans 5).

It’s hard to follow Paul’s reasoning in Romans 5 if there wasn’t an historical person who broke God’s law with consequences for all of us. It’s easy (for me at least) to follow Paul’s reasoning if Adam is the first person with whom God made a covenant—apart from whether (as seems likely) or not Paul understood Adam as progenitor.
John VanZwieten - #6409

March 10^th 2010

correction—2nd paragraph “why” not “who”
Norm - #6410

March 10^th 2010

Joe,

I think that is the important question to focus on. Is Abraham the literal father or did the Jews think their history went deeper into antiquity. I have much in agreement with Peter but there is this lingering question on just how the Jews who wrote Genesis understood their own history and what their idea of Adam was intended for. I also am not totally convinced that Paul viewed Adam as a real person especially with the strong evidence that he applied Adam as a kind of euphemism for Israel. However though he does see him as the originator of the Jewish dispensation just as he sees Christ as the originator of the new dispensation and that infers a historic person just as Christ was historic.

Could it be that Paul had a very loose and symbolic but historical view of Adam? What Peter is bringing up gets to the heart of the purpose of Genesis and Paul reads it more often than not in a symbolic mode and appears to be in lockstep with the original intent. Of course some scholars think Paul invented his theology while Paul defends himself as preaching nothing but the prophets and Moses. (Acts 26:22)
Pete Enns - #6411

March 10^th 2010

Folks,

Read Romans 5. Through one man death entered the world through sin and so death came to ALL. What do you all think Paul means by that? Do you think “all” means every human (as most Christians have understood it)? Or do you think it means “all who sinned”? And what about the “all” on the Jesus side of the analogy? Are the two “alls” different? If Adam’s “all” is universal, does that make Jesus’ “all” universal, too? If Jesus’ “all” is limited to those who are in Christ, does that mean Paul’s “all” is limited someone as well? All of which is to say, what exactly IS Paul’s logic? What was he assuming? What is he trying to get across? And more importantly for this series of posts, how does all of this square with scientific models of human origins?
JHM - #6412

March 10^th 2010

dopderbeck,

Exactly! That is the question which I’ve been struggling to bring out in the comments of Part 1, and haven’t done nearly as well as you just did.

We might use the argument that because Paul believed both Adam and Jesus were literal/historical and we know from other sources that Jesus was literal/historical, there is some reason to think that Adam was literal/historical. If it turns out that Adam is *not* literal/historical, then that doesn’t affect the claim that Jesus was literal/historical because Paul is not our only source for that claim.

However, the historicity of Adam and the Fall is important theologically, which is why we’re discussing this at all really. I think a real fear for many of us conservative Evangelicals on the edge of this debate is that once we begin down this road we end up at the liberal theology we’ve pushed against.
dopderbeck - #6413

March 10^th 2010

Pete—neither I nor anyone has a complete answer—but that is true for many problems both in theology and in the natural sciences. What I would want to suggest is this: (1) what makes us ontologically “human” is more than our physical natures (i.e., I am a holistic dualist); (2) science, therefore, cannot determine when the “first human pair” existed; (3) although all humans alive today result from a population that evolved from earlier primates and hominids—i.e., our genetic makeup derives from far more than a single original pair—there is no scientific reason at all why all humans alive today cannot be geneologically connected to one pair of ancestors (indeed, it is scientifically established that all humans living today have at least one common ancestor in the matrilineal line); (4) if ancient people thought in terms of geneology rather than genetics, then it is not necessarily a problem that “Adam and Eve” are not the sole genetic progenitors of all humanity; what is required is a geneological connection.
dopderbeck - #6414

March 10^th 2010

ran out of space, continuing… (5) the mechanism of the transimission of “original sin” is a matter of speculation, but it should be noted that both genetic mutations and viral parasites can rapidly propogate through a population. It should also be noted that an Augustinian realism requires an ontological connection between Adam and present humanity, but not necessarily a “genetic” connection. In this regard, metaphysical dualism is important. We are more than our bodies, and we might participate in Adam’s sin in ways other than biological (here, Augustine—and the WCF—would have been wrong in the specific theory of transmission; perhaps Origien was closer to the truth here). The same, of course, is true for our participation in the life of Christ. “Abiding” in Christ is not a physical state. Therefore, yes, I do think the outlines of this proposal are entirely consistent with Paul’s theology. It may not be consistent with Paul’s “science”—I agree with you there—but it seems to me we can get beyond Paul’s “science” without jettiisoning his theology.
Norm - #6415

March 10^th 2010

What Peter is bringing up concerning Adam and Christ in relation to the “all” is spot on. It sharpens the focus that there can be no doubt that Paul’s understanding of the “all” is built around the concept of the faithful or Covenant “all”. Paul spends most of 4 chapters before 5 building his premise for whom the all encompasses. He appears to clarify his use of “all” in places like Rom 9 when he says not all are Israel to separate the nonfaithful to Christ from the remnant faithful from Abraham’s faith seed.

Rom 9:6 … For NOT ALL who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

This also though frees us from having to look to Adam as the progenitor of the human species but only as the progenitor of the faithful ones just as Gen 4:26 declares. Humanity is already in place when God raises up Adam and Christ as the two dispensational covenant heads. The Jews weren’t looking to Adam as the beginning of the human race it seems clear and neither was Paul.
dopderbeck - #6416

March 10^th 2010

BTW, for more on the science behind geneological common ancestors, see Rhode and Chang, Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of all Living Humans, Nature. 2004 Sep 30;431(7008):562-6.
dopderbeck - #6417

March 10^th 2010

Norm—there have been various proposals that Adam is only the progenitor of the Jews floating around for centuries. See, e.g., the book “Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion and the Politics of Human Origins” by David Livingstone. The big problem you run into here is that many of these proposals result in restricting the “image of God” to those in the covenant line, making everyone else less than human. This has unfortunately often been used historically to justify slavery and racisim.
Norm - #6419

March 10^th 2010

Dob,

We are all human and are mortal without God and that is the premise of scripture which is to establish us beyond the mortal realm into the immortal one. That is the assertion of Christianity is it not?

Ecc 3:18-20 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. (19) For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. (20) All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

God has opened up the avenue for all men to seek immortality but not All will choose it. The Image of God is the Immortal state of our being as clearly implied in the NT concerning Christ bringing us that Image.

2Co 3:17-18 … the Lord is the Spirit, …And we all, … are being transformed into the same image

I think you are holding on to a misconception that is driven by political correctness to a degree. Most Christians don’t mind holding to the idea that we are a chosen people in Christ with His Image but how does that transfer biologically to those who seek not the eternal gift?
Joe Francis - #6421

March 10^th 2010

I guess my question now is, if we are not sure of a historical Adam and our common descent from Adam is questionable, even in the face of written geneologies, then how can we be so sure of our common descent from pre-Adamic beings? Why is the written geneological data so easily dismissed in the face of scientifically implied geneological data?
Pete Enns - #6422

March 10^th 2010

Picking up on dopderbeck’s last point, I see Image of God as a Genesis 1 issue, and therefore universal. The second creation story is actually the older of the two and functioned as Israel’s creation story somewhat analogously to Atrahasis—sort of thinking universally but you get the feeling that the scope is more limited. With the final canonical form of Genesis, chapter 2ff. was enlisted to speak more specifically to Israelite geological origins. Of course, that is a theory as much as any other. One also wonders, with all this in mind, how Paul thought of Adam. On your earlier point, i agree we can keep Paul’s theology without his science, but Paul’s theology is informed by his science—which gets us into all sorts of Second Temple and Greco-Roman topics. Paul was not just “reading his Bible.” He was a man of his times engaging his tradition in view of the Christ event. All of which is to say—and think we will all agree here—this is not a simple topic of discussion at all. What theological vocabulary do we use today to address the deep problem Paul is articulating in his own idiom? (Your scenario above, dopderbeck, is one plausible and interesting attempt thought not without blindsides, as are any other.)
Gregory Arago - #6424

March 10^th 2010

Dr. Enns uses the word ‘common’ wrt the so-called ‘non-historicity’ of Adam. If it really is ‘common’ then he’ll have a host of references to recommend on this topic. People have been asking for them.

N.T. Wright says ‘historical,’ and so does Tim Keller in a BioLogos white paper.

Why not leave the door open and *not* insist on ‘non-historicity’, Pete? There may be other ways to promote de-literalism of the ACE church in America and to improve the image of ‘sciences’ (e.g. biological evolution) than this apparently ‘radical’ (to the roots) proposal.

p.s. what does ‘organic’ mean in this context?
Norm - #6425

March 10^th 2010

Peter,

Yes the Image of God is a Gen 1 issue and that is why it is important to determine what Gen 1 is all about. As per Walton I see Gen 1 as a 7 Day Temple creation culminating with God’s finished work. That work is a process that is ongoing from Adam to Christ with God entering into the Sabbath Rest and bringing His finished work into that Rest with Him. As Kline and Blocher like to say it is an opening prologue but unlike them I see it as a prophetic prologue covering the complete Creation process. Augustine speaks to this idea and although I don’t follow him completely he is on the right track here.

Tractate 9
“Thence down to the time in which we are now living are six ages, this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah;
“…the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; Colossians 3:10 …”

The earlier Barnabas Epistle reinforces this Image in regard to Christ from an even earlier period. The covenant is not universal to mankind and neither is the Image.
Dan - #6427

March 10^th 2010

According to the article: “Paul wouldn’t have had 21st century scientific discovery and knowledge available to him at his point in time.”

So Paul was factually and historically wrong about Adam being the first human, but that’s OK because it was “true” in his cultural context.

It must follow then, that Paul’s understanding of everything else is determined by his cultural context, so his theological understanding of the meaning of Christ may only have been true in his cultural context, but wrong in our modern context. His understanding of what is morally right and wrong may have been true in his context but false in ours.

This is clearly the path mainline liberal churches have taken - and it destroys historic faith by making modern scholarship the magisterial authority that reinterprets every word of the text. I’m not buying.
John VanZwieten - #6428

March 10^th 2010

Reading back through Romans, it seems the “all” of “death spread to all men, because all sinned” in 5:12 should apply to any human being with a conscience as per 2:14-15.

So however in the course of time God created consciencious men, once they have consciences they are capable of sin.

And because the first man with whom God covenanted broke that convenant, the consequences of sin (death/judgement/condemnation) are imputed to all “humans of conscience.”

I don’t see how restricting “all” to only those genetic descendents of Adam or Abraham catches Paul’s thrust, since he seems to go to great lengths to show how both condemnation and righteousness comes to the “non-covenant” peoples.
John VanZwieten - #6429

March 10^th 2010

Dan,

That’s an unfortunate non-sequitor to say that Paul must be right or wrong about everything or nothing.

The cultural context of Paul’s writings must be considered to properly understand his message (both the historical and theological aspects). That’s just proper exegesis and need not destroy anyone’s faith.
Gregory Arago - #6430

March 10^th 2010

Has anyone heard of/read this book?:

“Origin of the Human Species, a wide-ranging philosophical and interdisciplinary analysis of evolutionary theory, shows how authentic Christian teaching on Adam and Eve and Original Sin is fully compatible with legitimate modern science, without committing to young-Earth scientific creationism or a theistic evolutionism that compromises Christian belief.

Hundreds of books deal with evolutionary theory and human origins. The vast majority fall into one of two categories: (1) those that offer conventional natural science, but embrace either atheistic naturalism or a theistic evolutionism that fails to support basic elements of Christian theology, especially the historicity of Adam and Eve and the reality of Original Sin, or (2) those that try to sustain basic Christian beliefs about Genesis, but embrace a young-Earth creationism whose scientific credentials are suspect. Origin of the Human Species differs in that it shows in great detail how conventional human evolutionary theory is entirely compatible with sound Scriptural interpretation and traditional theology.”

http://drbonnette.com/
Norm - #6431

March 10^th 2010

John V- #6428

It started out as genetic concerning the covenant lineage but that was removed through the seed promise made to Abraham that he would be the father of many Nations though faith. That fulfillment through Christ removed the wall of separation between the Jew and Gentile bringing both into the one new Man with no regard to genetics, sex or standing.

Indeed the sin of Adam was imputed to “all” men who call upon the name of the Lord seeking him otherwise it is a moot issue regarding those who do not seek Him. Just as it is a moot point that “all” men are declared righteous through Christ in Rom 5:18-19 because that would infer universal salvation whether there is faith or not which contradicts Paul’s earlier thesis Rom 3:26.

Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for ALL MEN, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL MEN. (19) For as by the one man’s disobedience THE MANY were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience THE MANY will be made righteous.

Notice also how Paul moves from the “all” in 18 to the “many” in verse 19 which is not quite the inclusive language that “all” seems to infer.

Paul is indeed difficult to follow.
Martn Rizley - #6433

March 10^th 2010

Dr. Enns, I fail to understand why Paul would be incapable of understanding the concept of common ancestry because he was a “first century man.’ After all, some of the ancient Greek philosophers held to an evolutionary view of human origins. Anaximander, for example, believed that living beings developed gradually from moisture under the influence of warmth. He believed that men originated from animals, since if they had come into existence as human beings, they would need foserting care for a long time, and would not have been able to maintain their existence. His thinking shows that he was locked into the same ‘naturalistic’ assumptions as modern science, with all things developing in a naturalistic way from the beginning. So why would Paul be incapable of understanding the idea of common ancestry simply because he was a ‘first century man’? Paul did not believe in common ancestry because God had clearly revealed through the prophets that the human race began with a single human pair supernaturally created, and that all men were subject to reigning power of sin and death due to the sin of the first man.
Joe Francis - #6443

March 10^th 2010

Martn #6433,

Good point, Empedocles also talked about a form of human evolution. So the ideas would have been around.
Tim - #6444

March 10^th 2010

Whatever any ancient cultures believed (Greeks or others), there was no coherent scientific explanation of common ancestry, and certainly no mechanism that would cause the changes.

If we are going to be honest here, the idea of a young earth is as scientifically credible as a flat earth. The earth is not 10,000 years old, it just isn’t. This has nothing to do with “naturalistic assumptions” and everything to do with the empirical data. People who believe it is, have in my opinion, already shown that they are simply incapable of assessing basic evidence and ruled themselves out of being able to engage in any serious dialogue on related topics.
Joe Francis - #6448

March 10^th 2010

Hi Tim,

You are ruling out a lot of scientists who are active in science and a good percentage of the general Christian public?
Tim - #6456

March 10^th 2010

Anyone who has looked at the data and still thinks that the earth is 10,000 years old has, I repeat, demonstrated themselves to be incapable of assessing basic evidence. With respect to members of the general public such a belief can, to a large extent, be attributed to simple ignorance. Any scientifically-trained person who believes this should be ashamed of themselves and has, in my opinion, renounced all right to refer to themselves as a scientist (no matter how many qualifications they have). You cannot reject scientifically-established, empirically-based data for non-scientific reasons as still be doing ‘science’. Such people do not contribute to science (as they deny all of its conclusions, methods, and processes) and the only purpose they serve is for lay-creationists to be able to point to them and say “heh, look there are some people with PhDs who believe this, it must be scientifically credible.”
Gregory Arago - #6460

March 10^th 2010

Joe,

Please be more specific with your claim of ‘a lot’ and ‘a good percentage’. From my vantage point (as one who studies society’s views of science), ‘creation science’ and ‘young earth creationists’ who are ‘active’ in ‘scientific’ fields make up a *very small* percentage of ‘actual science’.

The ‘general Christian public’ is not something that biologists study as biologists (or as ‘scientists of God’s creation’)!

Let me repeat my question from another thread:
I still don’t see why you *need* a ‘young earth’ in order to promote your nuanced position, especially since you are not a geologist or cosmologist, which are the two main fields in discussing ‘age of Earth.’

If you don’t like the label ‘Creation Science/tist’ then simply refuse to wear it and stop promoting it!

Why not embrace a position that more people can stomach, especially if it does not *necessarily* compromise your view of Scripture? Is that why you’re visiting BioLogos, to find a meaningful balance? Or is it rather to proselytize to folks here who’ve already rejected a ‘young earth’?

(Please excuse, the latter two questions are rhetorical, not meant to be answered, but fair motive game in the academy where I tread.)
Joe Francis - #6461

March 10^th 2010

Tim,

I believe that basic biblical evidence suggests young universe. If we can speculate about whether Adam existed or not surely then we can infer a young universe from scripture. Isn’t scripure a more reliable form of evidence?
Joe Francis - #6464

March 10^th 2010

Greg #6460

I believe the number of practicing scientists who are young earth could easily be in the hundreds. If I wanted to sit down and work at it, I think I could list 200 or more that I know. Its probably not more than the ASA membership, that number I am told is larger.

I have spoken with some in the BioLogos leadership and they have made me feel welcome here.
Gregory Arago - #6465

March 10^th 2010

Joe #6464

In a 2001 survey of active scientists in the USA, the NSF’s data reports that there were 199,600 ‘physical scientists’ (out of a total of 2.157 million total ‘active scientists’).

That would mean that your ‘good percentage’ is 200/199,600 = 0.001% of total scientists accept a ‘young universe.’ If you’ll forgive me for saying it, I don’t call that a ‘good percentage” with which to defend one’s position.

I am glad you feel welcome. Surely you know that BioLogos aims to ‘convert’ you from YEC to accept an old earth and even perhaps to accept some aspects of evolutionary science as legitimate.

But you’ve already (if I haven’t mixed up my memory of participant names) admitted here that you accept *some* evolutionary evidence. And you’ve spoken of a new generation of ‘creation scientists,’ not stuck on outdated models, which spells good for the possibility of collaboration. : )
Nick Altman - #6466

March 10^th 2010

A few pot stirring questions.

Joe (reference #6461) - As goes epistemological assurance - Are you more certain and less doubtful in your own mind that WW2 actually took place or that Adam was a real person?

YEC’s in general - Do you have any issues with forensic science and its validity in general, or is it just when concerning the theory of evolution? How is it that DNA evidence and genetics can be so successfully wielded as a tool that together they can identify paternity, engineer modified foods, stop diseases and even be used as irrefutable proof of criminal action, so that we can execute a person based on them; and yet they fail so miserably when applied to common descent and evolutionary taxonomy?

Pax Christi…Nick
Joe Francis - #6468

March 10^th 2010

Nick #6466

Because I believe the Bible to be the most reliable form of written truth, then I am more sure that Adam was a real person than any other historical event which has taken place.

I don’t believe that DNA evidence or genetics fails miserably regarding common descent, I believe it supports polyophyly not monophyly. THere is a new young age creationism on the horizon which accepts common descent starting with a polyphyletic origin of species. However, where it supports monophyly, YACs do not have a good answer.
Joe Francis - #6472

March 10^th 2010

Greg you commented:

“In a 2001 survey of active scientists in the USA, the NSF’s data reports that there were 199,600 ‘physical scientists’ (out of a total of 2.157 million total ‘active scientists’).

That would mean that your ‘good percentage’ is 200/199,600 = 0.001% of total scientists accept a ‘young universe.’ If you’ll forgive me for saying it, I don’t call that a ‘good percentage” with which to defend one’s position.”

Greg, I am a fan of Lynn Margulis (of sorts), because I think symbiosis is a major force in nature. Yet her ideas were not widely accepted in the 1960’s 70s…in fact, outside of her SET theory, I still don’t think a lot of evolutionary biologists see her cooperation model for speciation as the correct model. Now SET theory is a major widely accepted theory. I am sure she might have been discouraged about being in the minority, but persistence paid off. You know as well as I that the minority view does not always mean that it is the wrong view or that it won’t be the accepted view in the future.
Joe Francis - #6473

March 10^th 2010

Greg,

It is my understanding that Margulis was accused of being a creationist…imagine that.
Chris Bloom - #6476

March 10^th 2010

Tim 6456—

I beg your indulgence, as I’m one of the “general Christian public” and have only an interested layman’s grasp of the science, but your statement that anyone who questions the old-earth model has “demonstrated themselves to be incapable of assessing basic evidence” seems to lack justification. I’m sure you’ll agree that there is evidence which simply doesn’t fit into the evolutionary framework; would I not be justified in dubbing anyone who dismisses it the same way? Has a scientist who refuses to consider that radiological dating methods may be unreliable “renounced all right to refer to themselves as a scientist”? Or is the only evidence that need be considered that which agrees with the a priori beliefs of the larger scientific community?

And frankly, your reference to “lay-creationists” is a bit insulting. Many of us have better grammar than that, if nothing else.

To get back to the original video, it’s hard to see how Paul can simply be dismissed on the basis of his antiquated beliefs. This strikes me as mere chronological snobbery; are we so certain that we perfectly understand the facts that we can throw out his logic so cavalierly? Future generations will likely judge us just as harshly.
Tyler - #6478

March 11^th 2010

Adam doesn’t, I think, have to be a real historical person who ate a real, historical fruit that caused him to be sinful. I’m Catholic, and I am speaking from that perspective (The Catholic Church teaches that Adam as a real person, as was Eve, though not necessarily literal as in Genesis). For the most part, it would seem that; Adam and Eve were the first humans, again, not necessarily literally as in Genesis but still organic beings, who chose not to follow God and to become sinners (represented by the Tree of Knowledge) and were forced to bear the consequences of their sin.
Kendalf - #6482

March 11^th 2010

“What this means is that Paul wouldn’t have had 21st century scientific discovery and knowledge available to him at his point in time. He wouldn’t have understood the theory of common descent, so he would have seen Adam as a historical figure.”

Reading this makes me think of the response of some of the Athenians to Paul’s message in Acts 17:31-32, “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.”

These particular Greeks scoffed at Paul’s message because their knowledge of medicine and physiology informed them that dead people simply did not rise from the dead.
Kendalf - #6483

March 11^th 2010

{cont} Today, the scientific opinion on people rising from the dead has not changed. But would this validate a non-historical understanding of the resurrection of Christ? Why then does Enns believe that our current scientific knowledge ~requires~ a non-historical understanding of Adam? It seems to me that the scientific evidence against the resurrection of dead people is even more conclusive than the “external evidence” that Enns cites against the view that Adam was a literal historical person, so if any belief should be rejected on the basis of science it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Where (and how) do we draw the line between the beliefs that we accept by faith, in spite of the fact that they go against our current scientific understanding, and the beliefs we reject because we are more scientifically informed?

I find myself asking the same question as Gregory Arago (#6424): “Why not leave the door open and *not* insist on ‘non-historicity’”?
Nick Altman - #6491

March 11^th 2010

Kendalf -

#6482 - “These particular Greeks scoffed at Paul’s message because their knowledge of medicine and physiology informed them that dead people simply did not rise from the dead”

Where did you get last part from textually - this seems like an ad-hoc insertion into the text?

Pax Christi…Nick
Nick Altman - #6492

March 11^th 2010

Kendalf

#6483 - “It seems to me that the scientific evidence against the resurrection of dead people is even more conclusive than the “external evidence” that Enns cites against the view that Adam was a literal historical person,”

I would disagree. The resurrection is a one time event 2000 years ago. Science cannot say anything about it because it leaves no empirical evidence. If a thousand years ago someone fell into a volcano, science can’t reconstruct that this actually happened (outside of perhaps attested writings) because there is nothing left to examine and test. Naturalistic philosophers (ala David Hume) can make philosophical arguments against miracles in general, but this is metaphysical naturalism, and it isn’t the same thing as “science” (methodological naturalism) something which I think everyone, YEC or TC/EC agrees on. Science just can’t speak about 1 time phenomenon, it only can talk about reoccurring patterns.

Thankfully this lack of evidence isn’t the case for common descent and the age of the universe. The evidence that these events let is overwhelmingly conclusive.
David - #6494

March 11^th 2010

Joe #6468,
Really? So, are you more certain that Adam was a real historical person than you are of, say, the historical event of your own birth or your having sat down at your desk to read this comment? Hermeneutical issues aside, that is a breathtakingly odd claim to make epistemologically speaking. I have to think that you don’t really mean that.
Joe Francis - #6496

March 11^th 2010

David,

It seems like we are creating absurd extremes here to show how someone’s view is non-tenable.

Lets put it this way, how do you know about your birth? How do you know that knowledge of your birth it is not some kind of tape implanted in your brain to make you think you were born? How is that idea, that ultimately, from a human perspective you cannot prove your birth, any different from the idea that we can come up with some human logic that Adam was not a real person? You hit it you on the head, that this is about epistemology. The Bible declares itself to be God’s truth. Therefore, it is the most trustworthy source of truth I know, and so in that sense, I am more certain of Adam’s existence, then my birth. Yet, at the same time, the Bible declares this reality to be “real.” And because life begets life, as C.S.Lewis put it, I am a son of Adam, and this flows from scripture also. So my birth is not totally non-biblical in that sense.
ktc - #6497

March 11^th 2010

One of the arguments for accepting modern science is God wouldn’t deceive us with
His natural revelation.

Well….what about Special Revelation (the Bible)? Are you willing to make the same argument there?

It is agreed Paul REALLY believed Adam existed as per the Genesis narrative. Fine.

However, if Adam didn’t really exist, then the Bible deceived/tricked Paul into believing he did.

How is it consistent to INSIST that in natural revelation God wouldn’t trick or deceive us into
believing something false, however, with the Bible (especially Gen 1-11) that’s exactly what He
did.

Paul and his belief in a “real life Adam who doesn’t really exist” is proof.
eddy - #6498

March 11^th 2010

“How Paul handles Adam does not determine modern scientific discoveries about the origin of humanity. Paul does not determine that for us. Paul is a first century man, and what he says about Jesus and Adam has to be understood in that context”,

These sorts of statements - especially when spoken by Christians - are really confusing. Now I understand why Coyne, Dawkins, et al., find this very thing really aberrant and creepy, at best.

If this is the middle ground that BioLogists want to establish between the evolution-creation debate, this is going extreme. You cannot easily dismiss Paul - at the heart of his ministry - about what he says on Adam or Jesus, in favor of a certain scientific theory and expect to be taken seriously.

Kendalph #6483 speaks it better than I would have said it myself.

This is not to say I hold a YEC position myself even though - for spiritual reasons - I sympathize with the position. But I feel that there is a much better middle ground along the evolution - creation spectrum than this anti-Christian position suggested by Enns.
Joe Francis - #6506

March 11^th 2010

Nick #6492,

So according to your logic science “can’t speak” about the big bang because it is a one time event. Yet the big bang is related to evidence about the age of the universe. This would then make the age of the universe more of a historical science rather than laboratory science and thus open for debate (?).
Daniel Mann - #6514

March 11^th 2010

Pete and BioLogos,

Your problem isn’t simply with Paul. Luke also regarded Adam as historical according to the genealogy that he recounts (Luke 3:38; also 1 Chron 1:1 and Jude 1:14).

Although Jesus didn’t mention Adam and Eve by name, He indisputably made reference to them as historical: “…at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:4-6 quoting Gen. 1:27 and then Gen. 2:24). Jesus then states that because God had joined man and woman together, they should not be separated.

Are you going to throw away everything in the Bible that doesn’t accord with the present scientific consensus? Where does it end? It might be easier to simply reexamine Darwin.
Gregory Arago - #6515

March 11^th 2010

That one’s a keeper! ; )

“I am more certain of Adam’s existence, then [sic] my birth.”

Some Protestants who go into Orthodox churches are stunned that believers line up to pray to/through and then to kiss icons. They superficially think these icons are ‘false idols’ based usually on their simple reading of Scripture. They are culturally imperialistic in judging other Christians about how to worship.

After reading some comments here, I can’t help but think that some Protestants are on another end of the spectrum wrt their idolization of Scripture.

The phrase ‘the Bible declares’ can be used as a powerful tool of Satan, sowing the idol of ignorance and lazyness, if one refuses to accept God’s truths which are *not* inside the Scriptures.

One thing I’ve learned from participating on the BioLogos blog is how difficult a project it is that they have taken upon themselves, both to educate people about actual science and also t demonstrate that literalism is more a dangerous ideology than a responsible approach to Scripture. Care and prayer for this great task is required!
Gregory Arago - #6517

March 11^th 2010

I researched Adam’s (non-)historicity before 6424, but the links made it look like spam. So, trying again…

~
Excellent points, David O. (#6413/4)!

@ Pete, Some ‘scientific models of human origins’ are a challenge, but not impossible, to reconcile with an ‘historical Adam.’

Whereas throwing Adam completely overboard (as John said) into *non-history* is much more problematic, difficult to reconcile with mono-theism, especially in this case, with Christian evangelicals.

Examples supporting Adam’s ‘historicity’:
<link>http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Adam.htm</link>
<link>http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-individual/</link>
<link>http://www.confessingevangelical.com/?p=2611</link>
<link>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution_contradict_genesis.html#intro</link>
<link>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/darwin_genesis_fairy_tale.html#T5oSIGQgmanh</link>

And a link related to Terry Gray’s ‘heresy’ story, recently referenced; heresy for denying A&E’s historicity: <link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy_in_the_20th_century</link>
Daniel Mann - #6520

March 11^th 2010

Pete and BioLogos,

If we are obliged to understand Paul, and consequently the other NT writers, as limited by the same worldview limitations and ignorance that plagued the people of their day, then what can we trust about the NT? Wouldn’t it have also been subject to the theological limitations and errors of its day? If we can’t trust what it taught about the physical/historical world, how can we trust its teachings about the spiritual?

Instead, it seems that you are limiting Scripture to merely a human understanding and fail to also understand it as the product of the Spirit:

• “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Consequently, it wasn’t merely Paul who regarded Adam as historical, but also the Spirit!
Gordon J. Glover - #6527

March 11^th 2010

“Are you going to throw away everything in the Bible that doesn’t accord with the present scientific consensus?”—Is this the sort of loaded statement that you use in the classroom, Daniel?

Nobody here want’s to throw any of Scripture away. When there are disagreements over how a passage is read and applied, it’s not helpful to characterize someone else’s position as “thorwing away everything in the bible”—but I guess that is just the sort of scare tactic used by literalists.

I come from a theological tradition that has great respect for the Old Testament Law. Yet, there is so much of the Law that is not literally observed today—not because we have “thrown it away” but because the circumstances surrounding those passages have changed, and thus our understood and appication of those passages have changed. Much of God’s law, especially the ceremonial aspects, are “put out of gear” (as the late Greg Bahnsen used to say). But that is quite a different approach than throwing away the bible.

Nobody can take you seriously when you spout off that kind of rubbish. Think before you type.
Gordon J. Glover - #6528

March 11^th 2010

Daniel Mann said, “If we are obliged to understand Paul, and consequently the other NT writers, as limited by the same worldview limitations and ignorance that plagued the people of their day, then what can we trust about the NT?”

Exactly! That’s why we have biblical scholars and learned theologians who are willing to roll up their sleeves and answer these difficult questions! I guess being a Christian and having respect for both God’s Word and God’s works requires a level of maturity, humility, and clear thinking that scares some who expect certainty. I guess rather than expect easy answers to every important question, we’ll just have to settle for slugging through the challenges of keeping an ancient faith in a modern world.

As much as you want everything to be black and white—that is not the world we live in. You can’t keep God in your little logical box where everything is either ‘A’ or ‘not A’—God is bigger than that.
Daniel Mann - #6534

March 11^th 2010

Gordon,

I wrote that that BioLogos is using an inadequate hermeneutic – regarding Scripture as merely a human product divorced of the Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Understandably, you don’t like what I have to say, but you still have a responsibility to rationally engage them if you are going to respond at all. Instead, you label my challenges “rubbish” – not a very rational or persuasive response.

If Paul and the other NT writers, including Jesus, were wrong about Adam’s historicity, what reason do we have to suspect that they are right in other matters? Are there any Bible verses that justify our dismissing certain NT teachings and not others? You will not find them. Instead, if the Bible isn’t fully God-breathed, this leaves our wills and intellects in charge of what teachings we accept and which we discard. Hence, instead of the Bible judging us, we are left to judge the Bible.

Sadly, you respond, “You can’t keep God in your little logical box where everything is either ‘A’ or ‘not A’.” If you disdain logic, how else do you propose that we approach Scripture?
John VanZwieten - #6546

March 11^th 2010

Gregory,

It goes even worse than you suggested. “Idolizing” sacred scripture would be one thing, but what ends up “idolized” is the particular interpretation of scripture handed down in one’s own tradition/denomination/church. Throw in an unwillingness/inability to even see the influence of one’s own group in that interpretation, and you’ve got quite a mess.

It seems to me that BioLogos would do well to approach the science-faith challenge from a good variety of traditions in order to help us understand what we learn from science within any faith tradition that can possibly accomodate it.

Care and prayer—a great start!
Gordon J. Glover - #6547

March 11^th 2010

Daniel,

”...this leaves our wills and intellects in charge of what teachings we accept and which we discard. Hence, instead of the Bible judging us, we are left to judge the Bible.”

This must be the ultimate nightmare for a literalist / fundamentalist—to actually have to use the “will” and “intellects” God gave them. This is just a fact of life, Daniel. When a group of Christians gets together and descides what books are “in” the bible and what books are “out”—they are judging. When they have two different versions of an ancient manuscript and have to descide which one “right” and which one is “wrong”—they are judging. When you decide that the 67 biblical reference to geocentrisicm shoudl not be taken literally in the light of modern astronomy—you are judging the bible. When you allow your wife to attend church without a head-covering or to speak out loud because you feel Paul’s words on the matter reflect different cultural concerns—you are judging. Why do you pretend this doesn’t happen. This is life, Daniel.
Daniel Mann - #6552

March 11^th 2010

Gordon,

Before, you were criticizing me for being too logical. Now you criticize me for failing to “use the “will” and “intellects” God gave.”

The question I raised is this: “Are we above the Word of God to judge it or must we submit to it?” In response to this, you raised a series of questions and uncertainties, making me wonder whether theistic evolutionists have an adequate basis for faith in Christ.

Everything has become very uncertain for you – the Canon, the manuscripts, the historicity of events that are explicitly historical, interpretation. The one thing that seems to be very certain is the modern scientific consensus. No wonder the perplexity about spiritual things!

In contrast, Jesus was adamant that we couldn’t stand above Scripture and choose:

• “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)
Joe Francis - #6553

March 11^th 2010

Greg #6515

My comments about my birth are also informed by the philosophy of science as well as scripture. I think it is pretty well accepted in science, unless your a positivist perhaps, that ontological reality lies outside of provable, testable science. I do accept that there is evidence for my birth, however my knowledge of that which is dependent on my fallible mind and experience is less reliable than the words of God which claim that Adam was a real person.

The superiority of Gods words to man’s words and thinking, seems to be part of Christianity 101, don’t you agree?
GregORY Arago - #6570

March 11^th 2010

just pinch yourself, joe francis. that might help!
Joe Francis - #6571

March 11^th 2010

Greg,

I did. And the words “God created Adam” did not change.

Joe
Gordon J. Glover - #6581

March 11^th 2010

Daniel,

You said: “Everything has become very uncertain for you – the Canon, the manuscripts, the historicity of events that are explicitly historical, interpretation. The one thing that seems to be very certain is the modern scientific consensus. No wonder the perplexity about spiritual things!”

Suppose, Daniel, that you are in a room with 20 Christians—each from different denominations But despite their theological differences, they all agreed with the Apostles and Nicean Creeds (which don’t mention anything about scripture, but that’s a another post), and they accept the Bible as God’s Word. I could be in that room with you.

Now, if you posed a thological question to this group, whether it be about the days of creation, the role of Law and Grace in the life of believers, or how we Baptize, or what the 2nd coming will entail, or about the gifts of the spirit—you would get a vareity of contradicting answers. If the group were forced to reach a consensus before exiting the room, no doubt some would rather starve and poop themselves than conceed that their theological position might be wrong.
Gordon J. Glover - #6582

March 11^th 2010

(cont…)

Now, if you posed a scientific question to this same group, whether it be the average distance between the earth and sun, the freezing point of water, or the acceleration of gravity—you would get the same answers for each question. In fact, you would get the same answers even if you put people of different faiths in there with people of no faith tradition, you would still get the same answers.

Why? It’s really quite simple, Daniel. When it comes to questions about physical world (ie: the domain of natural science), we can have a much higher confidence in what is true - what is real. However, when it comes to those other issues you listed above, you can’t even get two people in the same congregation to agree! Just think about it.
Gordon J. Glover - #6583

March 11^th 2010

(cont…)

I can assure you that there is no certainty when it comes to questions of either a scientific or theological nature. This tentative should create in us senses of humility. It should make us willing to continually check ourselves and be open to correction and willing to discuss our ideas. Certainty is for those too lazy to think things through—or too proud to change their minds.

What we can have, however, is greater and lesser degrees of confidence. For instance I have a greater degree of confidence that 1st and 2nd Peter are Canonical, but 3rd Peter is not. I have a much greater degree of confidence that Christ’s tomb was empty than I do that there was a world-wide flood some 4500 years ago. That’s how it works, Daniel. You actually have to take things one issue at a time.
Joe Francis - #6589

March 11^th 2010

Gordon #6582
You said:

“Now, if you posed a scientific question to this same group, whether it be the average distance between the earth and sun, the freezing point of water, or the acceleration of gravity—you would get the same answers for each question.”

Gordon I am surprised by this answer because it doesn’t appear to represent a good understanding of how science works. There are very few laws in science, and most science works on tentative hypothesis and ideas. For instance, consider the multitude of origin of life theories, the RNA first world, lipid first world, protein first world, and the recent major announcement which suggested that the pre-biotic soup theory was obsolete. There are many scientists on each side of these issues, with most likely heated and healthy debate.

Based on this I have to believe that your premise above is false.
Gordon J. Glover - #6590

March 11^th 2010

Joe,

I don’t disagree with anything you said. In fact, I made sure to emphasize that science is tentative and the there is no such thing as certainty. The reason why I used the example above is because these are questions that can be answered by observation. They basically involve taking measurements (hight degree of confidence).
Joe Francis - #6600

March 12^th 2010

Gordon,

yes I see that you mentioned the tentativeness of science, but to set up a scenario which shows that people of faith disagree about issues more than they differ about certain scientific questions seems like your stacking the deck in favor of science….you could ask questions about science which everyone would disagree about also, if they had a science background or were working in the field of science. Sure questions can be answered with a high degree of confidence, but not total assurance in my opinion. This can only be obtained using an unchanging standard outside of science (?).
Kendalf - #6603

March 12^th 2010

@Nick #6491
“Where did you get last part from textually - this seems like an ad-hoc insertion into the text?”

I admit that this is my guess of the reason for the mockery from these Greeks, and not implied within the text. Feel free to disregard if you wish. My main point is regarding the modern scientific opinion on resurrection.

@#6492
“Thankfully this lack of evidence isn’t the case for common descent and the age of the universe. The evidence that these events let is overwhelmingly conclusive.”

But the issue under question is not common descent or the age of the universe. Even granting common descent, does this provide sufficient justification for ~requiring~ a non-historical understanding of Adam?
Kendalf - #6604

March 12^th 2010

Let me go back to your earlier statements:
“The resurrection is a one time event 2000 years ago. Science cannot say anything about it because it leaves no empirical evidence…. Science just can’t speak about 1 time phenomenon, it only can talk about reoccurring patterns.

It seems that the points you make for why science cannot say anything about the resurrection can also be applied to the person of Adam. The creation of Adam was also a one-time event. What kind of empirical evidence would we expect to find today if Adam was in fact a real historical person? In your own example of a person falling into a volcano, the only way we might reconstruct what occurred is if there is a written record. But isn’t that what we have with respect to Adam?

Gregory (#6517) provided some interesting links supporting the historicity of Adam. As some of them point out it isn’t just Paul that appeals to Adam as a real historical figure.
Kendalf - #6605

March 12^th 2010

What I question is whether these external evidences that Enns cites is really so conclusive that we are required to reconsider taking these multitude of passages at face value. I am not advocating for a woodenly literal interpretation of every verse in the Bible. But the number passages of Scripture that we have that reference Adam seem to provide a strong prima facie case for accepting that Adam was a historical figure. And this does not require marginalizing or interpreting the scientific data “idiosyncratically to salvage some type of literal/historical reading” as Enns writes in Part I of his post on “Paul’s Adam.” There is a range of reasonable possibilities between the “just read it literally” mentality that Enns says is not an option and the view that Adam ~cannot~ be a historical figure. Earlier (#6424) Gregory cited Tim Keller, who supports an EC position yet also holds to the historicity of Adam. Why the insistence that Adam cannot be historical?

I believe my earlier question is still on the table, “Where do we draw the line between beliefs that we accept in spite of the fact that they go against our current scientific understanding, and the beliefs we reject because we are more scientifically informed?”
Daniel Mann - #6624

March 12^th 2010

Gordon,

I’m all for humility regarding what we can know. However, I’m more “humble” about the present scientific consensus regarding evolution (2 Cor. 10:4-5). This view should not cause you consternation. You might recall that it was science that had given us the flat-earth hypothesis or geocentrism. (Remember, it is you who have stated on many occasions that the Bible errors had been predicated on the errant science of that age.)

You state, “science is tentative and the there is no such thing as certainty.” If this is the case, you can’t make this statement of CERTAINTY! In fact, according to the Bible, there are things that can be known with certainty:

• Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many CONVINCING PROOFS that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

• Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves KNOW.
Daniel Mann - #6625

March 12^th 2010

More on Certainty:

In fact, the ID evidence for God is so incontrovertible that Romans 1 asserts that these evidences render humankind “without [an] excuse” (1:20) for rejecting God. It not only His external creation that contradicts us, but it’s also written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-15).

Interestingly, it was the evidence of the inescapability of the moral law that had coaxed Francis Collins out of his atheism. It is therefore ironic that BioLogos has so vigorously opposed the reasoning of ID, in opposition to Scripture.
Gordon J. Glover - #6626

March 12^th 2010

Joe Francis - #6600,

The point is that when it comes to questions of a scientific nature, we can have a much higher degree of certainty about being “right” than we can about spiritual matters. Think about it in terms of history. Question such as the age of the earth, or whether the earth or sun revolves, or whether the earth is flat, or how far the stars are away from the earth, or whether the moon is a light, etc… can easily be answered today. However, prior to the illumination of science, people got these answers wrong based on their understanding of Scripture.
Gordon J. Glover - #6627

March 12^th 2010

“This view should not cause you consternation. You might recall that it was science that had given us the flat-earth hypothesis or geocentrism.”—That is correct, Daniel. However, you leave out one very important point. That is, when science did eventually progress to the point where the falseness of these hypotheses became evident, it was the Church that argued in favor them BASED ON SCRIPTURE.

Daniel, surely you are joking about claiming certainty of historic events based on a 2000 year old eyewitness account. No doubt that those sentiments reflected the hight degree of confidence that the biblical authors had in the events that were unfolding around them. Had the risen Christ allowed you or I to touch his wounds as he did Thomas, I would be very certain! But when you or I read these accounts thousands of years later, we must believe by faith.
Gordon J. Glover - #6629

March 12^th 2010

Daniel,

Since your are in a position of teaching, I have to believe that you posess the ability to nauance the subtleties of delicate issues. But you failed to do that in your comments above (#6625).

First of all, nobody here affiliated with BioLogos denies that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. And every one on the BioLogos team would agree wholeheartily with Paul that all of nature testifies to God as the designer and creator.

The question of ID vs. evolution has nothing to do with this. It rather has everything to do with the mechanism that God used to created and sustain all things. The evidence suggests that creation is/was dominated by ordinary processes that God ordained from the foundations of time. The ID crowd leaps straight from “design” (Rom 1) to special creation by fiat. So your entire comment (#6625) is misguided at best, inflammatory as worst. You’ll have to do better than that.
Anthony Smith - #6630

March 12^th 2010

Hi all,

I’ve just watched this video and skimmed the comments. I want to make sure I’ve understood correctly, as I’m finding it a bit hard to swallow.

(1) Some of the things Paul wrote about Adam were wrong - but he was following the general, mistaken, view of his culture, and this is no surprise.

(2) Paul’s understanding of Jesus - even though it was linked in Paul’s mind to his mistaken views about Adam - is still entirely correct.

I’m struggling with (1) because it seems to have consequences for the authority of the Bible, and with (2) because it seems to preclude a fundamental disconnect between history and theology.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Appreciate the quality of the discussions here - very refreshing!

Anthony
Daniel Mann - #6634

March 12^th 2010

Anthony,

Good questions. Continue to follow the scent! If we can’t believe what Paul said about Adam, how can we believe what he said about Jesus?
Gregory Arago - #6635

March 12^th 2010

I’m a bit concerned that some people are combining the pre-theoretical with the theoretical wrt the ‘evidence’ of ‘design, evolution or creation.’

Daniel says ‘ID evidence is incontrovertible.’ But can he (or anyone else) come up with a ‘theory’ that passes muster of ‘scientific accuracy,’ since ID claims it simply *is* science & not *just* philosophy of science? I doubt Daniel can do this. The ‘evidence’ Daniel speaks of is not *unique* to ID; it is just evidence per se.

One label for Joe is ‘denier of reality’ - even in his own reality he doubts! One who would have a field day with this is none other than Ayn Rand; a powerful force in 20th century understandings of personhood, objectivity and self-identity. She would laugh at Joe & Christian literalism, though I won’t.

Wrt Gordon’s insistence on ‘ordinary processes,’ I’d just like to leave open the possibility of extra-ordinary. Surely GjG agrees!

Let us return to the ‘real’ topic of this thread, however, which is Dr. Enns’ & the Apostle Paul’s views of ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’.
Gordon J. Glover - #6638

March 12^th 2010

“Wrt Gordon’s insistence on ‘ordinary processes,’ I’d just like to leave open the possibility of extra-ordinary. Surely GjG agrees!”

Absolutely Gregory! In fact, OoL as well as the BB singularity are both good candidates for such a thing. Both events appear to us as breakes in the continiuity of ordinary processes. But I don’t look to these as “proofs” of God or creation per se.
Daniel Mann - #6639

March 12^th 2010

Gordon,

You responded, “Daniel, surely you are joking about claiming certainty of historic events based on a 2000 year old eyewitness account.”

You will have to argue with the Apostle John, who wrote to those who weren’t eyewitnesses, about that:

• Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you [Thomas] have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have BELIEVED.” Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:29-31)

John declares that as Thomas believed, we too can believe based upon eyewitness accounts, something also confirmed to us by the Spirit. In fact, the evidence of the resurrection is so compelling that unbelieving historians have commented:

1. “Even the atheist Ludemann conceded: ‘It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.’” (Lee Strobel)
Daniel Mann - #6640

March 12^th 2010

continued….

2. “The Disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ…is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.” Paula Fredriksen

Gordon, you wrote, “But when you or I read these accounts thousands of years later, we must believe by faith.” You also stated that the present scientific consensus is more certain.

It is no surprise that if you start with these presuppositions, what is more uncertain (faith) will be commandeered by what is more certain (the present consensus). Consequently, you and I end up at opposite points. My question to you, therefore, is “Who is paying the greater price?”
Gregory Arago - #6641

March 12^th 2010

The vast majority of comments in this thread & the other by Dr. Enns on ‘Adam’ have rejected his proposal of a ‘non-historical’ Adam.

My conclusion is that *if* the BioLogos Foundation wants to stake its reputation on the non-historicity of Adam as one of its core messages to promote ‘evolutionary science’ to the evangelical masses in America, it will fail.

But I don’t think BioLogos needs to do this because there are multiple perspectives available that allow for the ‘real’ historical existence of ‘Adam’ consistent with the Bible. Dick Fischer has provided one of them on this Blog already. I’ve posted links to others.

I say Pete is either ‘too liberal’ interpreting Scripture or that he is too infatuated with ‘evolutionary philosophy’ to accept the real existence of a ‘first human’ known as Adam.

As a result of reading people’s opinions on this Blog, it is evident that ‘Adam’ is *much* more important to protect than ‘young earth’. BioLogos should challenge sola scriptura hyper-literalism and YEC, yet leave open middle ground for Adam’s historical reality.
Joe Francis - #6653

March 12^th 2010

Greg, #6641

As much as I might disagree with you about ontological reality, I must say I agree with many statements in your 6641 post.

However, you have been a stickler for definitions. What do you mean by hyper-literalism?
I attend mainstream evangelical churches, and if I am a hyper-literalist, that means there is a lot of us out there, even here in the “left coast.”

Here are stats that were just republished at Science Daily(dot) com:

The paper cites a 2009 Gallup poll that coincided with the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth reporting that only four out of 10 people in the U.S. believe in evolution. The poll also reported that 16 percent of biology teachers believe God created humans in their present form at some time during the last 10,000 years.

Are you saying that 16% of biology teachers are wacko hyper-literalists?
Daniel Mann - #6654

March 12^th 2010

Gregory,

The reason that I wrote that ID is incontrovertible is not because we humans can’t find a way around it, but because the Bible strenuously claims this:

• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

Paul claims that this deprives us of any excuse for not knowing God. Bertrand Russell had been asked what he would answer to God if he encountered Him after he died. Russell famously responded, “God, there just wasn’t enough evidence, just not enough evidence.”

However, that will simply not cut-it with God! Instead, humanity has always demonstrated a profound ability to deny the obvious. I think it love’s duty to confront the denial.
Gregory Arago - #6655

March 12^th 2010

@ #6654

And the reason I wrote the term ‘pre-theoretical’ is to uncover exactly the incoherent position you are espousing, Daniel.

I borrow this perspective from a well-known 20th c. Christian philosopher, whom you will no doubt also self-righteously condemn with your Scripture-centric idolatry.

You didn’t answer my question, Daniel: Can you come up with a ‘theory’ [of ID] that passes the muster of ‘scientific accuracy,’ since ID claims it simply *is* science & not *just* philosophy of science?

Intelligent Design is a ‘theoretical’ position. The Holy Bible is *not* a ‘theoretical’ piece of literature. There are many aspects of the Biblical story that are ‘pre-theoretical’ and which do not require the sophistication of biblical scholars.
Gregory Arago - #6657

March 12^th 2010

Joe,

I’m sure you know better what a “wacko hyper-literalist” is than I do. I don’t live in the USA, after all.

Hyper-literalists hold on too strongly/tightly to the view that the Holy Bible is ‘truth’ without *any* possibility of it containing human errors.

This is a translated text, gathered and legitimated by a Christian Council, which was not originally written in English. There are some who would defend the ‘literalism’ of the King James edition as being ‘perfect.’ I am not one of those (e.g. U.S.Southern Baptists).

If you have ever translated a text in your life, Joe, then you’d realise (as I was doing yesterday), that a ‘perfect translation’ is impossible. Gordon’s comments on this have been most acute and realistic and I thank him for it.

The polls about ‘believe in evolution’ are problematic. I’m a sociologist, Joe, i.e. one of the people who write those surveys.

You are disgraced by a vast majority of fellow Christians worldwide who accept an ‘old Earth.’ You are not a geologist or a cosmologist. Why not seek knowledge outside of your YEC clique to discover the power of evidence that suggests an ‘old earth’? You could gain respectability on this path and still ‘do biology’.
Joe Francis - #6659

March 12^th 2010

Greg, #6655

I am not a big fan of the ID strategy which is lets argue science first and talk about God later, I think this strategy has hurt their cause in some ways.

But that said, you can find ID principles in science. For example, in my field, many molecular biologists, use the principle of “reverse engineering” to figure out the complexity of cellular machines. The idea is that a functional machine requires a core subset of parts, and so we can begin the process of figuring out the essential nature of those parts by eliminating them one by one. This is done in genetics with “knock out” mice. We knock out a gene in the mouse and look for disfunction. The assumption is that many genes are essential. Why? because they are often part of complex entities inside cells or complex pathways inside cells. This is a design principle which you can find as a major part of molecular biology today.
Joe Francis - #6665

March 12^th 2010

Greg # 6657,

If you believe their are no reliable translations, why argue for the historicity of Adam as you have been doing?

Why do you care?
Kendalf - #6667

March 12^th 2010

@Gordon (#6627)
“...when science did eventually progress to the point where the falseness of these hypotheses became evident, it was the Church that argued in favor them BASED ON SCRIPTURE.”

What are the examples that you are thinking about when you say that the Church continued to argue in favor of a specific hypothesis even after the hypothesis was proven false? The context of your comment was in reference to the flat-earth view and geocentrism, and in regard to these two views at least the research of historians of science does not support your statement. For example, once the scientific evidence for heliocentrism became conclusive, the Church did not continue to maintain that the geocentric model was still valid, but it readily accepted that the passages of Scripture that seemed to imply a stationary Earth had to be interpreted figuratively or phenomenologically.
Gregory Arago - #6670

March 12^th 2010

#6665 If you really believe you are disgraced by *most* Christians in the world for your (blatantly out-dated) ‘young-earth’ views, why not realize simply that you are fantasizing in a self-centred way, not dealing with outside-world reality and adjust your personal perspectives?

You have dodged so many of my questions, Joe. Why not address this one?

I’m well-familiar with the ID-creationism links or lack thereof and the reverse-engineering issue.

When you pinched yourself, did you not conclude that you are ‘real,’ Joe? Ayn would shrug at you in disbelief and philosophical condescension!

No ‘book/Book’ can give you that same sensation as pinching, nor can ‘Adam’, Dr. Joe.
Joe Francis - #6675

March 12^th 2010

Greg, #6670

Greg #6670

Greg, I am trying to follow the rules of the blog and avoid personal attack, so I won’t answer those style questions. There is no need for that here.

Just a note that one of the Presidents of BioLogos has verified that ID is a scientific endeavor on another blog:

“This is just one example of why I have come to conclude that the ID movement ought to be considered a scientific movement -Darrel Falk.

More to the topic of the list I am waiting for your answer as to why you think Adam is historical?
Daniel Mann - #6676

March 12^th 2010

Gregory,

I think that you are confusing two issues. While I’m gladly a “Bible-centrist,” it does not follow that I’m a literalist. In fact I don’t know of any scholar who takes the Bible literally in the way you use the term. We all seek to understand it the way that it was intended – historical, hyperbolic, figurative, parabolic language, whatever!

I am a Bible-centrist because Moses, Joshua, the Prophets, Jesus and the rest of the NT writers were Bible-centrists. Just look at the way that they quoted Scripture to settle any differences of opinion.

I don’t understand “Christians” who pick-and-choose their way through Scripture. If you have that ability, then why even bother with the Bible?
Joe Francis - #6680

March 12^th 2010

Greg,

I agree with Daniel. Why do you care about the Bible or the historicity of Adam at all?
Gregory Arago - #6688

March 12^th 2010

Joe,

Trying hard to be respectful. But it really is tough with a YEC who won’t answer difficult questions.

You wrote: “one of the Presidents of BioLogos has verified that ID is a scientific endeavor on another blog”

I already addresed this (6645). Falk wrote: “the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement.”

You are loose and sloppy with words again, Joe. Falk didn’t write ‘endeavor.’

There is no reason for me to conclude we are having a ‘dialogue’ until you answer the questions in 6670.

Daniel says: “I’m gladly a “Bible-centrist”.”

Yet he is a ‘teacher’ at a Bible College. Doesn’t that somehow make sense?

Those ‘above’ Daniel Mann in the hierarchy of theologocial knowledge and practice disagree with his imbalance, of course. So, why would I want to respond to two idolatrous scripture-centrists when other more balanced Christians are available for conversation?
Gregory Arago - #6698

March 12^th 2010

Daniel,

What’s the difference or similarity, in your view, between ‘bible-centrism’ and God-centrism’?

You sure sound (#6676) like a ‘fundamentalist’ to me.

Will you seek to join mainstream Christianity by rejecting Scripture-centrist Protestant idolatry?

This seems to be about more than just ‘historical Adam’ now.

Gregory
Daniel Mann - #6700

March 12^th 2010

Gregory,

Bible-centrism is God-centrism!!! This is because God has always insisted that His people relate to Him through His Word, as Jesus summed it up:

• Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him….If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:21-24)

You might ask, “Why is God so insistent about His Word?” Perhaps this might help. Jesus insisted that we had to worship God in spirit (in the depth of our being) and in truth (according to His revelation) (John 4:20-24).

It is so critical to any relationship that we love/appreciate the other according to who they really are. For instance, if you’re wife adored you because you reminded her of her first lover, such a relationship is built on smoke and is a fraud. This is why we are not free to mentally construct God in any we way please, but according to His own self-revelation.
Joe Francis - #6713

March 12^th 2010

Gregory, #6688

The rules for the blog say to avoid inflammatory language so if you want to rephrase your questions without the derogatory language perhaps I will answer them. If you look on other blog discussions we have had you will see I have answered all your questions.

The one question I am asking you, I think, could be one of a few or the only question I have asked you.

Is there a reason you won’t tell us why you think Adam is a historical person? The only data you have presented is that it would be a nice “middle” position to take….or a lot of people take this view? Not sure. Are you using reasoning from sociology to make your decision? Is it that the majority opinion leads to the correct answer? That seems to be the conclusion we are left with.
Joe Francis - #6734

March 12^th 2010

Greg,

You said:

“You wrote: “one of the Presidents of BioLogos has verified that ID is a scientific endeavor on another blog”

I already addresed this (6645). Falk wrote: “the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement.”

You are loose and sloppy with words again, Joe. Falk didn’t write ‘endeavor.’”

So changes in words do have meaning and changes in words in sentences bother you, so when biblical scholars are loose and sloppy with the words and meanings of the words of scripture does this bother you?
Gregory Arago - #6758

March 13^th 2010

No offense meant, Joe.

I’ll rest my comments for ‘historical Adam’ in this thread on #6641.

No desire to get into a discussion here about ‘literalism’ or ‘Bible-centrism’ with literalists or Bible-centrists. Simply, I don’t think that is a responsible religious position to hold.

John the theologian’s words on this (#6546) are better than mine:
““Idolizing” sacred scripture would be one thing, but what ends up “idolized” is the particular interpretation of scripture handed down in one’s own tradition/denomination/church. Throw in an unwillingness/inability to even see the influence of one’s own group in that interpretation, and you’ve got quite a mess.”

I also agree with John’s suggestion: “It seems to me that BioLogos would do well to approach the science-faith challenge from a good variety of traditions in order to help us understand what we learn from science within any faith tradition that can possibly accomodate it.”
C Biehl - #6769

March 13^th 2010

Peter: Did you hold to the view expressed in this video during your time at Westminster Seminary when you claimed adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith, or does this represent a recent change in your view?
Joe Francis - #6789

March 13^th 2010

Common descent is the most important principle to understanding redemption
Greg,
I appreciate the discussion. Let me summarize my understanding of Adam. My views and the proof of my existence as we discussed earlier, are meaningless and not important in the long view of history. According to science I am nothing more than a complex assembly of parts which was once dust and which will soon be reduced to dust. Theologically, speaking I am an insignificant pitifully lost being before a Holy God.

However, I find meaning in this life because of my common descent from Adam. Not only did I inherit Adam’s DNA, but I inherited his rebellious nature which puts me at odds with this Holy God. Without this common descent, which connects me back to the Creator, I am nothing, because I have no relationship or identity with the second Adam who adopted me and made me more than a son of Adam; He made me an adopted child of God. Thus I believe strongly that the basic principles of Christianity will become meaningless and impotent If we abandon the biblically declared truth of Adam’s creation and humanity.
Gregory Arago - #6797

March 14^th 2010

I can accept all that Joe (except for the first part, above my name). What I’m waiting for now is you to admit, like many others here already do, that ‘historical Adam,’ though he must have had ‘fixed dates’ (i.e. birth and death), is a difficult figure to pin down in terms of time. That is, using the Bible to determine the ‘age of Adam’ is only going to get us part of the way and we must also trust in scientific methods which God has given us to make sense of the natural world around us. Science is not evil.

You insist that the world is ‘young’ based on the ‘expertise’ of those who are considered ‘wrong’ by the vast majority of living scientists. If you have any respect for science, which I assume you do, being a scientist yourself, then why don’t you accept the validity of the physical evidence for an ‘old earth’ offered by almost every practising geologist in the world?

Until you let go of your ‘young earth’ hypothesis, Joe, you will *not* get respect from other scientists; you will be seen as an outcast, not a martyr or ‘fool for Christ’, but simply as a rebel who will not accept a place at the table from the hand that actually feeds him.
Joe Francis - #6802

March 14^th 2010

Greg,

First, I don’t reject data. If there is cosmological data which suggests the earth is old, I don’t reject the data. I think its silly and stupid for creationists to reject data. And I don’t have a complete solid answer for why some aspects of the universe look old. There is some contraindications of an old universe like, pristine craters on venus, and the existence of comets and the rarity of super-nova and all that but as you have pointed out this is not my field. In addition there is biblical data which supports a young earth like the geneologies and so on. As a scientist I have to weigh all the data and I have to consider my worldview presuppositions. Because I place a higher weight on scripture than science, that is where I stand. Also, the Fall of man was a historical space-time event, as Francis Schaeffer would put it, and I do not see a provision in scripture for God using death to create life in the beginning. I think that goes against everything I know about his character.
Joe Francis - #6804

March 14^th 2010

Greg #6797,

WIth regard to God using death and disease and destruction to create life. Richard Dawkins makes this point:

“ I think that’s a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.”

I think he has a point don’t you?
Joe Francis - #6808

March 14^th 2010

Greg,

I do reject the interpretation of data, not the data itself. Data is data, it cannot be waved away. But all scientists interpret data. As I stated above, some scientists are now saying that the 20 year old data in favor of a pre-biotic origins of earth is now false….the interpretation of that data they say no longer supports the pre-biotic soup. There is probably going to be profound disagreement over this. So would you label scientists on one side of this argument fools? If so, I don’t think you understand the scientific process. Have you read Kuhn’s work? Shifing paradigms are the norm in science.

IF you believe in an old earth, you believe in a death process which has contributed to the formation of life forms….thus the creator of this system would rely on death to create life…simple Darwinian biology.
Joe Francis - #6809

March 14^th 2010

Greg,

When you say I don’t trust someone that implies that I judge their character….and I do not do that. I respect all believers. I have many friends who are OEC or TE. I respect their views and respect their logic. That does not mean I agree with them or have to agree with them.

Please don’t impune motives where there are none.
Joe Francis - #6810

March 14^th 2010

Greg,

Truth is truth. Sometimes those we disagree with speak the truth. I think Dawkins sees a problem with OEC and I think he is correct. Why would God use millions of years of suffering to create? This is not in the Bible and it is not part of God’s character. I think Dawkins sees what millions of people in this country see when they answer in the polls that they believe in a literal creation. Why believe in a handicapped God who uses death disease and suffering as part of His creation process. It just does not make a lot of sense.
Drew Setliff - #6812

March 14^th 2010

Joe, I could not agree more with your statement. Why would God use death, disease and suffering as part of His creation process. God is perfect and everything he created was “good.” I would not at any stretch believe God used the horrible things of this earth as part of His prized creation process. I think sometimes we get too caught up in the Bible for instance in this situation of a young or old earth. God clearly states in the Bible that His ways our not our ways. We will never be able to understand how exactly God created the earth in seven days or millions of years. The fact of the matter is that God created the earth period. My faith will not change if I believe the earth was created in seven days or millions of years. The only fact I care about is that God created the earth!!!!
Joe Francis - #6814

March 14^th 2010

sorry Greg, no offense intended.
Joe Francis - #6815

March 14^th 2010

Greg,

As stated above. I don’t reject Geologists, I reject their interpretation of the data, but like in biology, I don’t reject all the interpretations. I like the work of geologist Andrew Snelling among others. Also, as you know i do not reject common descent, I reject the interpretation of common descent within the context of monophyly and accept it in the context of polyphyly. Also, as stated above, common descent from Adam is an important principle in Christianity.

Since I have responded to your inquiries, I would sincerely like to hear your basis for believing that Adam was a historical person?
Gregory Arago - #6826

March 14^th 2010

Apology accepted.

You are in the 1 percentile, Joe. You are not qualified (to judge) in geology. How do you decide whose ‘interpretation’ you accept or reject?

The issue of common descent is tricky, as I just wrote to Gordon in another thread. He seems to agree with both you and I in an historical Adam, real, flesh and blood person, along with most people who have posted in this thread. The Catholic church accepts ‘historical Adam’.

You can surely continue to ‘do biology’ Joe, without the heavy baggage of pretending that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. There is no need for this in order to do your work. It is simply ‘local community support’ that holds you to this view.

The Hebrew word for ‘human’ is ‘Adam.’ I believe there must have been a ‘first man.’ We call this first man ‘Adam.’ Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha’is and others accept this. Some liberal Christian theologians don’t.

No need for YEC, literalistic, scripture-centrism to say that!
Joe Francis - #6831

March 14^th 2010

Thanks Greg,

Its been good chatting with you. Its the end of spring break and I have to go back to work.

I will check in every now and then.

blessings…
Hosea - #6945

March 16^th 2010

Dear all, readers,

Thank you for this brilliant piece of article which has stimulate a constructive discussion. I certainly benefited from that. I am a Biologos - scientist in training with strong evangelical background. I am still having difficulty even in convincing my parents who are YEC. Personally, I still have some questions (please forgive me if these have been addressed somewhere - but I would be grateful if you could help me point out where I could read the discussion).

1. In Genesis, post Gen 2-3, there are many others ‘actors’ which are crucial in Bible such Enoch and most of these people lived >100 years old. How TE can explain this?
2. Genealogy in the Gospels, clearly mentions from Adam to Jesus - really explicitly mention name by name..

Look forward to hearing from you all..

God bless.

-Hosea
Bruce - #7111

March 18^th 2010

Paul’s evaluation and proposal of original sin is his own. Jesus did not, in the scriptures we have, mention types or categories of sin. I am convinced that Paul invented original sin as a way of expressing the tendency of man towards rebellion. I believe Paul found incongruity between a creation by God and the creation rebelling against the creator. So he invented an explanation whereby sin enters the picture. A follow up to the fallacy of original sin is the inventions of grace for souls who die prior to an understanding of salvation. What does one do with peoples who have never in their history heard of Jesus? Elaborate theories of accountability and ignorance simply cloud the issue.
Chris Bloom - #7989

March 29^th 2010

Greg @6657—

As you state, you don’t live in the US. You also clearly have little experience with Southern Baptists, very few of whom would argue that the Authorized (KJV) Bible is the perfect and literal Word of God. Such sentiments have arisen only in the last hundred years or so, and are largely confined to the fringes of evangelicalism.

I realize that this has little bearing on the actual topic of discussion here, but you surely realize that a failure to present the small details correctly will cast doubt upon your larger argument.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment