Hello Blake,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:00 PM
> To: Jim Eisele; asa@calvin.edu
> Cc: Dick Fischer
> Subject: Re: Adam and Eve
>
> Even assuming, ad arguendo, it is true we can come up
> with an hypotehsis that comes up with an historical
> Adam at a particular location. It does not make any
> sense to me to either build either an apologetic
> around this or a theology. For a couple simple
> reasons.
>
> First. Precisely placing Adam does not seem to me to
> be critical to the Christian message. Indeed, Christ
> is critical to the Christian message and he is
> well-placed historically.
Agreed. However, my point (as opposed to Mike's) is a theological, rather
than scientific one, and that is that whatever period in time one chooses to
place Adam in, the theological issue is whether it is necessary for this
historical Adam to be the source of the condition of sin that we are all in
as Adam's descendents.
> Second. The doctrine of original sin does not seem to
> me dependent on identifying a specific, particular
> Adam. It seems to me that the doctrine of original
> sin can just as well be supported as a metaphorical
> discussion of human nature, which at some point became
> manifest in hominids when the knowledge of good and
> evil came into their consciousness and their
> subsequent rejection of the good.
Paul's argument in Romans 5 (esp. 18) is that there is an obvious parallel
between how one man's sin can affect us all, and one man's obedience can
also affect us all. This analogy and his argument breaks down if you were to
adopt the metaphorical interpretation of Adam.
> Third. The doctrine of original sin as an exegetical
> gloss stemming from the second century does not
> receive equal treatment in all Christian traditions.
> Christian faith and the saving grace of Jesus the
> Christ do not depend on an historical Adam. To say
> that it does is an exegetical gloss.
I have shown in an earlier post citing Orthodox and Catholic sources that
ALL three main branches of Christianity accept Adam as the source of
original sin.
> Fourth. Christ as the "second Adam" is not dependent
> upon on identifying a particular, historical Adam in
> the same way as Jesus is essential as an historically
> identifiable person who is the Christ.
Again, I point you to Romans 5.
> Fifth. As an apologetic, it is a weak tactic to use
> against those who reject Christianity generally, since
> they are unlikely to be swayed. It is likely to
> appear to those outside the Christian tradition as an
> ad hoc argument. Not that it might not be right, but
> it is simply not persuasive to those outside the
> tradition.
I fully agree. But it has nothing to do with tactics. This is a discussion
about doctrine.
> Sixth. It seems primarily concerned with supporting
> the protestant view of sola scripture which both the
> Catholic tradition and Orthodox tradition reject and
> not all protestant or anabaptist traditions take in a
> literal meaning, especially regarding the Old
> Testament.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism has historically taken MORE, not less of a literal
understanding of Scripture, especially in areas where they disagree with
Protestantism. In issues of faith & works, real presence of Christ, and
authority for example, it is Protestants who reject the literal
understanding of the relevant passages of Scripture. Therefore, this has
nothing to do with supporting sola Scriptura.
> At the end of the day, I do not see what difference to
> Christian faith it makes if we try to identify a
> particular, historical Adam or not. It seems to me
> that it is not useful as an apologetic either. It may
> be edifying to those who want to literally reconcile
> scripture with what we know about historical facts,
> but not much more. So, what difference does it make?
> Please enlighten me.
I believe that the doctrine of original sin is closely tied to our
understanding of salvation. To fully understand the solution, one needs to
understand the problem. Of course, that is not to say that one necessarily
needs a correct understanding of problem and solution in order to be saved.
I hope I will not be misunderstood on this point.
Blessings,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 12:52:05 EDT