You hit on the implicit Adam (natural/scientific evidence of hominids) in your discussion.
I understand your linking of Paul's discussion in Rom 5 with early humans as you were with Glenn.
Am I right in assuming that _in your opinion_ mankind was always in need of redemption -- i.e.
there was no fall? If so, how do you harmonize this with the rest of the Bible-- which tells our
sins are an inherited part of our nature through "Adam's" fall? Either "Adam" was at one time in
communion with God and through some act of disobedience (continuing in vein of partial allegory)
fell, thus needing redemption, or God created (through TE?) Adam in an unregenerate state from
the beginning with a sin nature. If you imply this, I see very serious problems.
Howard
George Murphy wrote:
> Howard R. Meyer, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Interesting following this one!
> >
> > George, how do you handle Rom. 5:12-21 where Paul explicitly states that "sin came through
> > one"? Paul develops this theme quite extensively-- and v.12 is the crucial verse in this
> > passage (as the commentators I've read state). An "explicit" Adam is NECESSARY if Paul is
> > right. One man, Adam, seems to require more literality in Gen 3 than you seem to imply.
> > How do you correlate these?
>
> I don't think v.12 is the crucial one here if only because it doesn't yet
> mention Christ. Barth's little book on this passage, _Christ and Adam_, is right in
> arguing that that it is Christ, and not Adam, who is the true head of humanity and the
> pattern of what is genuinely human. (That's why it's _Christ and Adam_, not the other
> way around!) Thus the figure of Adam is significant as "a type of the one who was to
> come", not as an historical figure in his own right. It's in the nature of a "type"
> that in a sense it possesses less reality than what it points to.
> Having said that it's necessary to say also that of course Paul, in accord with
> the Jewish tradition of his time, thought of Adam as an historical figure, the first
> human being. God apparently accomodates revelation to such limitations, as with the use
> of elements of ancient cosmology in Genesis 1. In an earlier post Glenn challenged me
> with "How inaccurate can God's Truth be?" I guess the proper answer in that vein is,
> "As inaccurate God wants it to be."
> & again, there certainly was some group of humans which can reasonable be called
> "first" & I see no problem with saying theologically that "Adam" refers to the first
> humans, as "Adam" refers to all sinful human beings.
>
> > Also, how does this tie to the "implicit" Adam that we see so much evidence of, though?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 23:00:59 EST