Does Theistic Evolution Destroy Christian Foundations?

[seer]

There are some fairly conservative, even Calvinist, christians that believe in macroevolution. And they seem to deny that there was a literal Adam and Eve that were the parents of all mankind. Yet the N.T. ties our whole race, sin and all, to Adam. That father Adam somehow infected all men by his sin. And that Christ came to reverse that curse. It seems to me that if Adam did not literally exist, then neither did his sin or his universal infection. Which kind of brings into question the need for the second Adam - Christ...

[jason]

You seem confused Seer. Why do you assume that a belief in some version of macroevolution entails a denial of a literal Adam ?

Glenn doesn't deny that. He believes in a literal Adam, I don't know about Rogero, perhaps he will chime in.

Whatever view I am hovering near would never deny the existence of a literal Adam.

Are you sure the scholars in question deny a literal Adam (in some sense). What do you mean (or what do they mean) when they deny a literal Adam and a literal Fall ?

Jason

[rmwilliamsjr]

There are some fairly conservative, even Calvinist, christians that believe in macroevolution. And they seem to deny that there was a literal Adam and Eve that were the parents of all mankind. Yet the N.T. ties our whole race, sin and all, to Adam. That father Adam somehow infected all men by his sin. And that Christ came to reverse that curse. It seems to me that if Adam did not literally exist, then neither did his sin or his universal infection. Which kind of brings into question the need for the second Adam - Christ...

federal headship is judical imputation, just like justification.
it is not genetic.
i see no problem with Adam being the genetic forefather of all the Hebrews and not all human beings. God imputes his sin at the time of soul creation, it doesn't require a physical or genetic link to do so.

[seer]

You seem confused Seer. Why do you assume that a belief in some version of macroevolution entails a denial of a literal Adam ?

Glenn doesn't deny that. He believes in a literal Adam, I don't know about Rogero, perhaps he will chime in.

Whatever view I am hovering near would never deny the existence of a literal Adam.

Are you sure the scholars in question deny a literal Adam (in some sense). What do you mean (or what do they mean) when they deny a literal Adam and a literal Fall ?

Jason

Well then, were there other people around besides Adam? Or was he the only monkey that got that far?

[seer]

federal headship is judical imputation, just like justification.
it is not genetic.
i see no problem with Adam being the genetic forefather of all the Hebrews and not all human beings. God imputes his sin at the time of soul creation, it doesn't require a physical or genetic link to do so.

So God creates other souls and imputs Adam's guilt to them? Why?

[jason]

Well then, were there other people around besides Adam? Or was he the only monkey that got that far?
Why don't you answer my question first ?

I don't have a problem with a unique pair of parents for all man kind.

Also you use of the term "monkey" is a misnomer.

Jason

[seer]

Why don't you answer my question first ?

Yes, I would think so...

I don't have a problem with a unique pair of parents for all mankind.

So Adam and Eve were the only two apes (is that better?) that got that far? RM, says that there were other people around...

[rmwilliamsjr]

So God creates other souls and imputs Adam's guilt to them? Why?

why does God impute Christ's righteousness to the elect?
'cause that's the deal made within the Godhead since before the beginning.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Why don't you answer my question first ?

Yes, I would think so...

I don't have a problem with a unique pair of parents for all mankind.

So Adam and Eve were the only two apes (is that better?) that got that far? RM, says that there were other people around...

the first thing to understand is that there isn't any TE party line.
TE stretches from the very conservative like BB.Warfield or J.G.Machen, great theologians of the early 20thC, or Terry Gray today(who is the only person i am aware of who has undergone a church trial on the issues) to very liberal. Even within this board, among very conservative TE's who see Adam and Eve as historical people you have Dick Fisher with a young Adam(<10K years) and Glenn Morton with an old Adam (~200K years).
principle 1: there is no consistent TE party line.

[Assyrian]

To my understanding, Paul was not saying God imputed Adam's guilt to us, but that our sin includes us in the death that comes through Adam's sin.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. There is a limit to the spread of this death, the 'all men' it spreads to are the 'all sinned'. It is only because we sin that death spreads to us.

It does not matter whether Adam was a literal individual, the federal head of the human race, or simply a metaphor for mankind. It is our own sin that kills us and that is why we need a Saviour. Personally, I think Adam simply means mankind. It is not that we have Adam's sin imputed to us. We are 'Adam'.

Blessings Assyrian

[Thomas2003]

There are some fairly conservative, even Calvinist, christians that believe in macroevolution. And they seem to deny that there was a literal Adam and Eve that were the parents of all mankind. Yet the N.T. ties our whole race, sin and all, to Adam. That father Adam somehow infected all men by his sin. And that Christ came to reverse that curse. It seems to me that if Adam did not literally exist, then neither did his sin or his universal infection. Which kind of brings into question the need for the second Adam - Christ...

They are funny, I just try to enjoy the entertainment value, like any zoo. :haha:

Man immediately, upon any question greater than his mind can comprehend, begins demoting God to elevate himself.

There is a quote I like to use from Charles Darwin that demonstrates the issue quite well.



Neverthless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Letter to W Graham, July 3 1881, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol 1, Francis Darwin, 1959, p 285



Just like Darwin, so called "Theistic Evolutionists" do not conclude from the untrustworthiness of man's mind that their own hypotheses are untrustworthy - but rather the Holy Scriptures. It does not occur, well maybe not, to them to invalidate their scientific presuppositions, it is only used to invalidate God and the Holy Scriptures.

In reality, there is no such thing as "Theistic Evolution", that is just monkey man mimicking a sound he hears Gggggggggg OOOooooooooo Ooooooooo Oooooooo DDddddddddddddd." Look monkey man said "God." Oooooohhhhhh theistic evolution, they conclude.

Man was made in the image of God, Christ is that express image whom man was made after, when this denied in terms of "theistic evolution" it's just a sophisticated way of denying Christ is God manifest in the flesh.

[markporter]

There are some fairly conservative, even Calvinist, christians that believe in macroevolution. And they seem to deny that there was a literal Adam and Eve that were the parents of all mankind. Yet the N.T. ties our whole race, sin and all, to Adam. That father Adam somehow infected all men by his sin. And that Christ came to reverse that curse. It seems to me that if Adam did not literally exist, then neither did his sin or his universal infection. Which kind of brings into question the need for the second Adam - Christ...

I think that all Theistic evolutionist acknowldge an Adam, they just dispute what that word refers to - is it a single person? a group of people? etc. etc.