Re: Kerkut

Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >Dick Fischer wrote:
> >
> > > I Corinthians 15:22 says: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
> > > all be made alive." I believe this verse mandates that if we believe in a
> > > historical Christ that we should also believe in a historical Adam. I
> > > consider it inconsistent in light of this verse to believe that Christ
> > > lived and breathed, but that Adam was merely a symbolic representation of
> > > mankind. Would you agree?
> > >
> > > As to the manner of death, is this physical death or spiritual death?
> >
> > I know where it says "As in Adam _all_ die." It doesn't say
> > anywhere "As in
> >Adan _some_ die." Adam is the theological representative & beginning of
> >all humanity
> >which is enmeshed in death - which is to say, the whole human race
> >today. Adam is not
> >"merely a symbolic representation of" humanity, he IS humanity qua sinful
> >& dying
> >creature - including the first humans who chose to sin.
>
> Let's look at the second part of that verse. Are ALL human beings made
> alive in Christ. No! Only those who hear and believe. So the word "all"
> is qualified in this verse. It infers all of a category of men.

        Burgy has already pointed out the possible universalist response to this. I
have some leanings in that direction but, as you pointed out in answering him, there are
problems with it.
        But one doesn't have to go that route. The general resurrection of all people
is connected with the resurrection of Christ: Otherwise we would have to say that those
who are saved are raised "in Christ" but that the resurrection of the damned (assuming
there is one) is a separate miraculous action of God carried out solely for the purpose
of punishing them. That seems questionable.

> Adam, as
> the first person made responsible to God and with life to offer,
> failed. All those who could have been saved under the Adamic covenant,
> however they were to be saved under God's plan, died.
>
> We can speculate on who those men were. Neanderthals, for example, lived
> too soon. So they died anyway - Adam wasn't responsible, Christ didn't do
> any of them any good. So "all" would not include any manner of hominid who
> walked the earth prior to Adam's introduction whenever he lived. My best
> estimate of Adam's time on earth was about 7,000 years ago in
> Mesopotamia. If you have a better time frame, George, let's hear it.

        The term "hominid" here is a bit disingenuous - 7000 years ago there seem to
have been Homos every bit as much sapiens as we are today all over the world. Were
people who were living in South America at the time of the European conquest, whose
ancestors had never intermarried with descendants of your putative Adam, "responsible"?
Were they even human in a theological sense?

 
> I can see nothing in this verse that implies that Adam was the flesh and
> blood, biological father of all mammalian bipeds. Is that what you
> believe, George? I don't think so, because I don't remember you weighing
> in on Adam as a person, merely a "theological representative." Okay, so
> "As in Adam (the "theological representative" who never actually lived) all
> die ..." A theological truth from a historical fabrication. Now you know
> why YEC thrives. This doesn't make sense to them or me.

        I doubt that very many YECs will be convinced by your approach either.
>
> You can't have it both ways, George. Adam either lived, or he did not, he
> either was, or he was not. "All" men do not die due to an uncommitted act
> by a non-existent person as your theological rendering mandates.

        & "all" men do not die due to a committed act by an existent person as your
theological rendering mandates.

> >You chose to make him a single historical individual at the cost of
> >destroying his theological role as the one in whom "all" die.
>
> Or you have destroyed the person to give him status as the ultimate father
> of all mankind.

        You will note here that you have ignored my point. You think it a success to
figure out some way to make Adam a real historical person - at the cost of making him
incapable of fulfilling his theological function.

  This is simply theological double speak. Living near
> Washington, DC, I'm used to political double speak coming from Capital
> Hill. This is the same thing.

> You appear to advocate that all men, who really did live, died from the
> misstep of one who didn't. So which of these luminaries do you think would
> have bled red blood had they cut a finger? Adam? Noah? Abraham? All of
> them? None of them? Where do the nonexistent patriarchs phase out and the
> flesh and blood patriarchs phase in?

        It is "double speak" only if you get to write my lines for me! No thanks.
First, Paul says here that all die "in" Adam, not "because of Adam." & I did not say
that Adam is simply a fictitious individual - though you'd like me to. To repeat, 'Adam
is not "merely a symbolic representation of" humanity, he IS humanity qua sinful
& dying creature - including the first humans who chose to sin.'

        I will freely grant that Paul appears to have thought of Adam as a single
historical figure, and that it is a significant theological task to understand the
passages in which he speaks about Adam in connection with evolution. But producing an
"Adam" who simply doesn't do what Paul says won't work.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Feb 9 17:19:40 2004