Interesting informal poll, and I would say it is not that far off from what I would predict in our Baptist church. We all tend to defer to authority and have confirmation bias in our theology, but often it seems, most people just seem to not think about what they say they believe, but just parrot whatever they are told. I would think that at least number 6 would be a lower percentage of people, but the when you go through the list leading to it, it certainly becomes a logical conclusion (though flawed logic).
If my years in Sunday School served me well, I remember this verse:
Romans 3 â22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.âŚâ
No mention of Adam in there anywhere. The Bible says that we have all sinned. Period.
This is the list of 7 questions, per @Swamidassâs post above:
1.Two actual (and sometimes only two) persons named Adam and Eve existed suddenly as a result of Godâs creation;
2.Those two persons have a biological relationship to all human beings that are alive today (biological Adam and Eve);
3.Their DNA is our DNA (genetic Adam and Eve); and that often means
4.Those two sinned, died, and brought death into the world (fallen Adam and Eve); and
5.Those two passed on their sin natures (according to many) to all human beings (sin-nature Adam and Eve), which means
6.Without their sinning and passing on that sin nature to all human beings, not all human beings would be in need of salvation;
7.Therefore, if one denies the historical Adam, one denies the gospel of salvation.
I think the last point #7 is particularly dangerous for us to bundle with âhistorical Adamâ, bordering on slander."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@Christy, nice effort!
So, from a group we would have every expectation of severe attitudes, only 2 out of 7 thought that Adamâs existence was just as important as the existence of Jesus.
I wouldnât be surprised if the proportions held even if you asked 100 or 1000.
Phew, glad my church doesnât even bother discussing such things.
I currently agree with: none I suppose. Iâd get closest to #2 but #2 is contingent on #1 being true.
I would have to agree with you that #7 is the most dangerous out of all of them and glad to see that one is not universal.
`7. Therefore, if one denies the historical Adam, one denies the gospel of salvation.
To editorialize a moment, this phrasing is clearly specified. It asserts that those that deny Adam, deny the Gospel, and are therefore not saved. This view is distinct from saying that âAdam is important for understanding salvationâ. Rather this is equating denying Adam with denying Jesus. Absolutely, some people hold this view, but it is a minority within a minority.
So, this is evidence that is confirmed by my own. Those that think that denying historical Adam is equivalent to denying the Gospel (within a homeschool group, which certainly skews YEC) are a minority. I know this is a poorly controlled survey, but this is my experience too. It is quite hard to find anyone that affirms #7, and most YECs are offended by the suggestion that this is intrinsic to their personal beliefs.
Adding my voice to this crowd, as a TE that affirms historical Adam, I find this definition of historical Adam absurd. Surely it contributes to strange misunderstandings like this:
Certainly I can clarify. Historical = real, not McKnightâs definition or yours definition either. How is this not obvious already? Perhaps because we look to McKnightâs (and those like him) definitions, those who are deconstructing strawmen.
I personally affirm a historical Adam. If historical = real, so does John Walton. Why would we do this if it has been ruled out by the genetic or biblical data? Part of gracious dialogue is to let people like me define our own beliefs, instead of imposing strawmen beliefs that we do not hold on us. In particular, I find it offensive to be associated with belief #7, which I specifically deny as a theological innovation inconsistent with orthodox theology. While I disagree with @DennisVenema I do not think his position is heresy. Using the term âhistoricalâ should not require this repeated caveat every time it is used. It is just not fair to those who hold this views.
It is not gracious dialogue to allow McKnight to define a position that he himself does not hold, but others of us do. This really should not be controversial. Its just applying the basic rules we all hold to here at BioLogos.
Taking this point one step further, there is some confusion here about @Venemaâs science.
The only thing the genetic data seems to counter is the total AND of all the following propositions:
- Adam and Eve were a real, single couple.
- Adam and Eve lived recently (less than 10,000 ago).
- All mankind traces their lineage to them (geneology).
- Their offspring did not intermingle with any other beings.
Remove just one of these propositions, and we find a scenario that is consistent with the genetic data. However #4, in my view, is directly contradicted by Scripture. Even most YECs do not affirm #4 if they take the story of the Nephilim literally. So are these 4 points even a valid description of the âtraditionalâ interpretation? Probably not. In my view, therefore, genetic data does not unsettle the âtraditionalâ account.
Granted, there is nuance here. For example, I believe I have a more traditional view of Adam that does, say AIG, and am quick to point that out. Moreover, most people do not recognize that #4 is appears counter to Scripture. Likewise, my definition of âtraditionalâ is Paulâs interpretation, which is certainly much more limited than McKnightâs (Paul knew nothing of DNA). So a more precise way to put this is that evolution does nothing to unsettle Paulâs understanding of Adam.
No it doesnât. I know and worship with plenty of people who would say exactly that: to deny Adam is to deny the âgospel of salvation.â They would not say that implies that people who deny a historical Adam are not saved, they would say their doctrine of salvation is theologically not coherent. But they would also say salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus and not dependent on a coherent theology. If salvation is dependent on a coherent theology, itâs essentially works-based.
Not if you spend time in Southern Baptist or Neo-Cal circles, itâs not. @AdCaelumEo what do you think? And if you ask me, Iâd say that Southern Baptist and Neo-Cal voices are quite influential in Evangelicalism at the moment. I donât think #7 is as tied to young earth as it is to a certain (Reformed? Neo-Puritan?) view of original sin and federal headship.
What? He wasnât defining your position. He was defining a position, one that certainly many Evangelicals do hold, and then deconstructing it. It just seems to me that there is a lot of projecting going on in your interactions with what was said. I think Adam was a real person. I wasnât nearly as offended as you were by McKnight picking a construct of what âhistorical Adamâ means to some people and addressing it. It wasnât that hard to figure out he wasnât addressing my beliefs.
I have a similar impression from a fairly large number of online interactions with creationists over a couple of decades. A common formulation is something like, âWithout Adam, thereâs no need for salvation, no need for Christ, and no gospel.â In other words, if there was no historical Adam, then there is no gospel. Thatâs what it means to deny the gospel of salvation. But they would rarely say that I was not saved because I rejected a historical Adam â thatâs a separate issue.
This is the sense that McKnight is working with. He is not saying that those who hold to the historical Adam construct he lays out are saying those that do not are not saved. That is a misreading.
Iâve been in Southern Baptist circles since 1976 and can confirm the conservative treatment of Adam @Christy portrays is largely accurate. Personally, I am âon the fenceâ regarding the various Adam possibilities. Although most SBC members I know would be shocked at the suggestion of a âliterary Adamâ, I think only a small percentage would feel the need to pray for my salvation.
Note, I am basing this entirely on gut feeling, so Christyâs seven-person survey is quite literally infinitely better than mine.
I think you are missing my point.
First off, when YECs say that affirming evolution is equivalent to âdenying the gospel of salvation,â I do hear that as saying I am not saved, and I do push back against it on those grounds. There are those, also, that believe this. Whether or not they do mean it this way, it would be more precise to say âdenying theology important for understanding the gospel of salvationâ. That, however, is not what they say, because very frequently there is a real attempt to equivocate these things. Of course, McKnight does not endorse this (he is arguing against it).
And yes @cwhenderson and @Christy and @DennisVenema, you are right, many people hold this view. However, my real dispute is connecting this belief (which is false) at the hip to the âhistorical Adam,â and idea which is at minimum debatable, and certainly not falsified by science. These are different ideas at is not helpful to treat them as if they are a unified concept. They are not.
This is fairly clear from reading reviews out there. There are a lot of crazy and wrong critiques of Adam and the Genome. There are a lot of unfair things they say. I largely agree with Scot and Dennis on their main points too (especially on the science). However, almost uniformly, people are critiquing Scotâs 7 point definition of Adam. On this point, why not consider if they are correct?
I think this should be a welcome sign. If people are going to affirm a historical Adam, donât we want them to do it in the best way possible? In a manner compatible with evolution and rejecting #7? Defining historical Adam in way that separates #7 is more coherent with how those who affirm Adam define themselves, and also facilitates that growth too.
I affirm a historical Adam, but at the same time insist is not central to theology or our faith. By Scot McKnightâs definition, my position does not exist.
Hi Josh - as Christy correctly noted up there ^ somewhere, Scot is merely addressing a (very common) position - he is not saying it is the only position on Adam.
No offense, but that really doesnât clarify much. Were there other humans around at the time? How did Adam and Eve differ from those other humans if they were around? When did they appear? Is there genetic evidence showing that we carry their DNA?[quote=âSwamidass, post:83, topic:35961â]
Part of gracious dialogue is to let people like me define our own beliefs, instead of imposing strawmen beliefs that we do not hold on us.
[/quote]
Thatâs what I am trying to do.
Thanks.
I suppose there are many answers to each of these questions. Iâm agnostic on which is correct, and prefer the scenarios consistent with both a historical Adam and modern genetic evidence. Even then there are several scenarios that fit the bill. Iâm left with a mystery as to which of these several scenarios is correct.
Itâs one thing to say they are using words that confuse you. Itâs another to insist they are saying something they clearly deny, over and over again. When people say belief in historical Adam is a âgospelâ issue it simply doesnât mean that they think oneâs salvation is dependent on it. Can you point me to a single example of a well-known Evangelical saying that they really do mean that not affirming a historical Adam means youâre not saved? Even AIG goes out of their way to repeat over and over again that it is ânot a salvation issue.â
Thanks for the correction. You are certainly not required to take one position or the other, but hopefully you can see how this type of vagueness can lead to some misunderstanding between parties. This is why I used the qualifier in the previous post, to at least show how one scenario isnât supported by the evidence.
As the ensuing exchange should make clear, 7 is actually pretty vague and different people take it to mean different things.
Southern Baptists and young reformed types like to call everything âgospel issues.â
Here are all things labelled âgospel issuesâ:
Even, you may be surprised to know dating in a proper complementarian way
D.A. Carson even wrote a nice long piece on identifying gospel issues.
It is a buzzword for saying an issue is important for theological reasons. It isnât about salvation.
Why do you keep saying âcertainly not falsified by scienceâ, when the only way it can be thus ânot falsifiedâ is if you adopt a position that almost nobody else adopts?
It is demonstrably established that a single pair, reproducing less than 7,000 years ago, cannot produce the allele variation we find in the current human population.
In a prior posting you discuss how the scenario would be different if Adam & Eveâs descendants did not mate with any other humans⌠leaving the Nephilimâs unstated/undefined heritage to fill in the gaps for human variation in alleles.
But that also means the Nephilum do not bear Adam and Eveâs inheritance of Sin.
I can understand your desire to employ a scenario that makes it possible to keep Adam & Eve as historical figures⌠but it wonât do you any good with the Evangelical audience if you choose a scenario that they would reject just as quickly as they reject Evolution.
You seem to be:
- the only one who likes the scenario; and
- the only one who knows when it is being invoked in general discussion.
I looked into this a little bit for my own personal curiosity. You are right that AIG does not teach this, though they acknowledge it as a view some creationists hold. Their reason for rejecting it is because hypothetically a cloned human created from two females would have to have a sin nature. I love AIG arguments.
However, the idea that a sin nature is passed on biologically through the father is found all over in popular level Christian theology explanations, as a quick google search will show. So the idea that McKnight just concocted a straw man and intentionally misrepresented creationist beliefs to make something he disagreed with look bad doesnât hold water.
An apologetics ministry here: [quote] Some Bible commentators, with whom I agree, hold the position that the sin nature is passed down through the father. Support for this position is found in the fact that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first. However, sin did not enter the world through her. It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, âTherefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.â The concept behind this is called Federal Headship. This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants. We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, âAnd, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.â We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi. What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father. Since Jesus had no literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him. However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin. [/quote]
GotQuestions [quote] Because of Adam and Eveâs disobedience, sin has been an âinheritanceâ for all of their descendants. Romans 5:12 tells us that, through Adam, sin entered the world and so death was passed on to all men because all have sinned. This passed-on sin is known as inherited sin. Just as we inherit physical characteristics from our parents, we inherit our sinful nature from Adam. Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). However, we are also in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3). When Adam fell into sin, the result was every one of his descendants also being âinfectedâ with sin. David lamented this fact in one of his Psalms: âSurely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived meâ (Psalm 51:5). This does not mean that his mother bore him illegitimately; rather, his mother had inherited a sin nature from her parents, and they from their parents, and so on. David inherited sin from his parents, just as we all do. Even if we live the best life possible, we are still sinners as a result of inherited sin. [/quote]
Genesis and Genetics [quote]The Bible talks about our âsinful nature,â âthe flesh,â and âcarnal manâ all of which refer to an attribute found in all humans: a propensity to sin. So the question is: Is this propensity to sin in our DNA? The answer is yes, sin nature is hardwired in us and in our DNA. We are not forced to sin, but we have the tendency to sin. This is not a God given tendency, but rather a result of Adam eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden some 6000 years ago.[/quote]
InPlainSight.org
[quote]We have only recently discovered that the epigenome can change in response to diet, stress, nutrition and the environment⌠and that these changes occur throughout an individualâs lifetime. Also, the epigenetic changes that come about by the choices we make, or the situations we find ourselves in, during our lifetime, can be biologically passed to not only our children, but can reverberate far into the future affecting future generations. So, why would it be so hard to believe that Paul was right on target when he implied, in Romans 5, that something happened to all humanity because of Adamâs sin.
[âŚ]
So why would it be too much to believe that significant changes took place in their epigenome, which was then transferred to future generations.The Bible teaches, even though Eve was the first to sin, it was through Adam that sin entered the world.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. [Romans: 5:12]
Certainly, mentioning Adam specifically could be no more than laying blame at his door since he was the head of the human race to whom the original warning was given. On the other hand, questions have also risen as to how much epigenetic change is transmitted through the sperm of the male⌠One paper concludes that âsex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humansâ. [15] While other studies suggest that RNA found in human sperm might also affect human inheritance. [16][/quote]