[asa] Adam as Recent Representative and Salvation in Adam

As I've been wrestling with the "Adam" question, I find attractive the view
that "Adam" is both a type/symbol and a (relatively) recent (neolithic)
historical individual chosen by God to represent humanity. It seems
possible to understand the "adam" of Gen 1 vs. the "Adam" of Gen 2 this
way. And I find a little comfort in the fact that a theologian I admire,
John Stott, proposed that a neolithic Adam's sin could have been imputed to
his "collaterals" (see Stott's commentary on Romans, following Derek
Kidner). Paul's references to Adam in Romans could then be seen as
referring both to the archetypal and individual Adam.

One problem I have with this approach is whether the Adam-Christ parallel
would then mean that Adam could have also "saved" his collaterals by not
sinning. On reflection, I suppose this question arises just about however
we think of "Adam." It sounds strange, but I wonder if it makes some sense,
in the same sort of way that the Mosaic law theoretically could have
resulted in "salvation" but in actuality, in Paul's thought, served as a
"tutor" for humanity's inability to save itself. In other words, in theory
humanity could have been saved in Adam, but in God's foreknowledge and
sovereignty, salvation required the incaranation of Christ. The example of
Adam, like the example of the Law, shows that the only fullfillment of God's
plans for creation is in the incarnation.

So all this for this question: is the notion that Adam could have
theoretically "saved" his collaterals connected with any historic heresy?
Often when I speculate about something like this, I find I come up with an
idea that resonates with gnosticism or with some other heresy that was
weeded out in the early centuries of the church.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 8 17:34:44 2007