An Historical Adam?
“There is no way to affirm an historical Adam while holding to any mainstream model of evolution, and there is no way to affirm the Gospel without an historical Adam.”
- Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) gave a speech at the Ligonier Ministries 2010 National Conference in which he challenged those who tried to reconcile evolution and the teachings of the Bible. One of the most interesting points he made (in my opinion), is that the theological cost of affirming evolution is simply too high for the Christian to pay. He reasoned that if we affirm evolution, we cannot believe in an historical Adam (and Eve); and without an historical Adam, the Gospel flounders.
This presents us with a pretty unattractive dilemma. We can have either Evolution or the Gospel, but not both. I think probably most people would pick evolution, simply because it carries evidential force of a scientific theory. (I don’t want to get into discussions of what it is to be a ‘theory’, or the naturalistic motivation of Darwinian scientists – I just think that a lot of people would side with evolution for its generally accepted scientific merit.)
But is this a false dilemma? Can one have it both ways? I think a crucial question is whether the Gospel requires us to believe in an historical Adam. Romans 5 is as good a starting point as any. Paul says that death and sin entered the world through Adam’s transgression, but life and grace have come through the gift of Jesus Christ. Theologians like Mohler reason that an historical Adam is a prerequisite for Jesus’ death and resurrection to mean anything. All died in Adam so that all may be made alive in Christ. (The scope of this ‘all’ is interesting – but perhaps that deserves another blog post.)
However, even if Paul believed that Adam was historical, does the argument require Adam to exist? It seems Paul is drawing a picture of the way Christ’s sacrifice atones – if death came in through one man, so grace and life come in through Christ. But suppose sin did not “enter the world” by Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit: would it follow that Christ’s death does not atone? I just don’t see it following.
What my view does force me to say is that the Bible isn’t all literally true. This on its own is no great concession, for the Bible uses poetic imagery and metaphors. But I think I do have to go a bit further – even if Paul believed that sin came through a first human named Adam, I have to say that this didn’t really happen. But it doesn’t force me to affirm the existence of sin or the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice.
What do you think? What is the theological cost of denying an historical Adam? Do we lose too much of the Bible (or its foundational character) if an historical Adam did not actually exist? Or could this be a more accurate way to see the nature of the Bible and how God reveals Himself through it?
![[spaces] – The blank page and the ear of God](http://www.marshillonline.com/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/sapces-column-2-500x213-48144_38x38.jpg){kind=small}
Toph great article.
I agree with you that the denial of a historical Adam does not need to take away from Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The denial of a historical Adam only takes away from being able to prove the Gospel with the historical critical and scientific method. What needs to be accepted that God created mankind good and that mankind sinned and feel short of the purpose God intended. Once this is accepted, it becomes acceptable to state that Christ became flesh to restore the relationship.
What is the theological cost of denying an historical Adam?
1. Where did sin come from? If our human origins are nebulous and derived from an emerging ‘population’ of ancestors and not from a single created man, then it would seem that sin, death, and corruption are inherent in the makeup of our human ancestors.
2a. Did the Fall really occur as a historical (in-time and in-space) event? If the Fall never occurred, entire categories of grace, mercy, love, sin, death, hell, and redemption in Christ need to be radically reoriented (thank you modern theology (sic)) or thrown out altogether.
2b. If the Fall did occur, who fell? Adam and Eve? Or a people group?
3. What on earth do we have to look forward to? Gen 1:31 says man was created ‘very good’ – after the Fall, this was no longer true but, in Christ’s Incarnation, humiliation and exaltation, we can look to the resurrection as our eschatological goal of eternal life as restored sons and daughters of God – we will be ‘very good’ again!
4. How do you account for sin’s ongoing presence without the Fall or Adam? Only Christianity views human sinfulness as a fruit of the Fall – as a consequence of Adam’s failure to keep the covenant of works that was established in the garden (see Hos 6:7).
5. A final question: if Paul was in error in ascribing sin to one man (Adam) and salvation to one man(the greater Adam, Jesus Christ), then how can you claim that Paul was clearly confused on the former without seriously damaging your claim regarding the latter?
There’s a lot more in your article to engage with but duty calls.