Jesus as the Second Adam and Theistic Evolution

[$cirisme]

Hi all,

Long time reader, first time poster (in Cosmogony).

I was driving my car and on the radio I was listening to a sermon that was talking about how we have sin nature because Adam first sinned and passed that on to us. We were conceived in sin. (see for example Psalm 51:5: "[...]And in sin my mother conceived me.")

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile this? How about how Jesus is described as the second Adam. Could there really be a second Adam without a first? Explain how all this works.

(As you have probably figured out, I'm horribly ignorant about even the most basic of TE beliefs. Be gentle.)

[oxmixmudd]

Hi all,

Long time reader, first time poster (in Cosmogony).

I was driving my car and on the radio I was listening to a sermon that was talking about how we have sin nature because Adam first sinned and passed that on to us. We were conceived in sin. (see for example Psalm 51:5: "[...]And in sin my mother conceived me.")

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile this? How about how Jesus is described as the second Adam. Could there really be a second Adam without a first? Explain how all this works.

(As you have probably figured out, I'm horribly ignorant about even the most basic of TE beliefs. Be gentle.)

The problem here is you'll probably not get a single answer. TE just means one accepts that the Theory of Evolution describes the history of life on the Earth. Within that are lots of different ideas about Adam and Eve/Christ and sin. Many TE's do accept the idea of an actual, original individual Adam. Others see Adam as representing all or a part of mankind. But as to your question, first let me ask:

How in a YEC paradigm does sin get transmitted parent to child? If you can answer that, then you probably know how it works in a TE paradigm as well. But I think the answer is, we don't really know, we just accept it as true because that is what the Bible teaches us. And since we don't know, it is hard to even know if it is necessary to have a singular origin for that to be true.

What you really want to know, perhaps, is how in a TE paradigm did we go as an entire race of humans from sinless/innocent to in bondage to sin such that we need a savior. And there are several possibilities. One is that in the process of evolution, there came a first true man. And this first true man was hand picked by God and given a soul, placed in a Garden, and Eve created from Him (basically supernatural cloning - from his rib) and the situation played out as the Bible describes. This has certain problems - one of which is that without supernatural intervention, a single pair can't produce and entire new species. But we believe in a God of miracles, so who knows.

Another is that the story is more symbolic of a complex process that God understands, but which is basically beyond us, and so it is communicated in sufficient but simplistic terms. The outcome though is as the scripture says, and the sin 'nature' we have is real, and the need for a savior is also quite real, even though an actual and distinct original man may not be.

I personally lean towards some sort of real Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, I do not rule out some other possibility (though I don't think we'll ever know for sure on this Earth)

However, what I think we must avoid is the following: thinking that if God used evolution to make man, somehow what the Bible teaches us about sin and the sin nature must therefore be false. This is a path to a loss of faith, of placing our ability to understand ahead of the truth God is teaching us in scripture.


Jim

[gluadys]

Hi all,

Long time reader, first time poster (in Cosmogony).

I was driving my car and on the radio I was listening to a sermon that was talking about how we have sin nature because Adam first sinned and passed that on to us. We were conceived in sin. (see for example Psalm 51:5: "[...]And in sin my mother conceived me.")

How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile this? How about how Jesus is described as the second Adam. Could there really be a second Adam without a first? Explain how all this works.

(As you have probably figured out, I'm horribly ignorant about even the most basic of TE beliefs. Be gentle.)

As Jim says you will get a variety of answers. I personally lean to Adam being a representation of the whole human race. (The name is not actually used in the Genesis stories and very rarely in the OT at all. 'ha-adam' simply means 'the man" and can be understood as a personification of Human. )

Jesus is indeed the second Adam--a new Humanity--the first fruits of what we all can become in him.

We are all the first Adam (fallen Humanity) and we can all become the second Adam (Humanity restored and glorified in Christ).

However, what I think we must avoid is the following: thinking that if God used evolution to make man, somehow what the Bible teaches us about sin and the sin nature must therefore be false. This is a path to a loss of faith, of placing our ability to understand ahead of the truth God is teaching us in scripture.

I couldn't agree more.