The Historical Adam: If He's not Real then Neither are the Gospel nor Scriptural Authority even Necessary
This is an inescapable reality which New evangelicalism must avoid at all costs. They will tell you its okay to believe in evolution just believe the gospel. Its okay for Genesis to be a myth just believe the gospel. Adam and Eve never existed but just believe the gospel. Noticing a trend yet? Plenary verbal inspiration is not needed just believe the gospel. Liberals on the other hand will simply deny both. No need for a literal Adam, creation, or even the gospel. It would probably shock you if I listed by name the new evangelical authors, seminaries, (and even preachers) who don't believe in a literal historical man named Adam.
Next question, who then decides what these non-issues are? Second, once you compile the long list of ecclesiastical-determined secondary issues, it makes it that much easier to say only the gospel matters. See how the logic flows. This has been played out through history. Let's be clear that to deny certain doctrines is not necessarily a salvation issue however, it present a very inconsistent position. Not only this but it presents a stumbling block to those who are trying to teach the truth concerning a literal Adam and a six-day creation.
There are groups, very large groups to be fair, which want to fellowship (or for that matter extend fellowship) to anyone who will believe the limited gospel content alone. This makes for the perfect formula to say the other issues don't matter or are of secondary importance. Again does church history agree with this scenario? What happens then when actual fundamental doctrines are rejected but they still believe this gospel content? Seem far fetched? Trinity? Incarnation? Vicarious Atonement? Plenary Verbal inspiration? Young-earth Creationism? It's very easy and convenient to make something secondary if the gospel become the only allowable priority. Back to the discussion of a literal and historical person named Adam.
Let's consider a sampling of Biblical texts connecting the salvation found in the gospel of Christ's death, burial, and bodily resurrection (as revealed in the scriptures) in close context with a literal person named Adam. We'll consider Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2. All three of these texts refer to the Historical person named Adam.
Romans 5:14-19, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
(v. 17) "For if by one man's offence"
(v. 18) "Therefore as by the offence of one"
(v. 19) "For as by one man's disobedience"
Paul's very argument in relation to salvation is based upon the reality of two federal heads (not saying everyone would agree with this understanding). The introduction of sin into the world is through a literal historical person named Adam. It is through his headship that all humanity sinned. Note the parallel with Christ as head over another group of individuals. If the parallel is lost than the Christian gospel is affected. We can't just throw this aside because some in liberal and new evangelical circles don't want to believe the scriptures. Worse case when "conservative" evangelicals won't even acknowledge there is a problem here.
First Corinthians 15:45-47, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
Please note that Jesus Christ (the God-man, 2nd person of the Trinity), is identified as the "last Adam." Obviously Paul had to base this title and reference based on an original person. He also identifies the man Adam as "the first man Adam" and later as "the first man." So whatever parallel or association Paul is making between Jesus and Adam, it is lost if there was no historical person called Adam.
1 Timothy 2: 12-13, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Again by the the same author a third time. It should be clear that Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed in an original historical person Adam. This reference I'm sure is every egalitarians favor memory verse. Apart from how it is used and abused by liberals and feminists, the fact remains Paul's argument is based on the original creation order. A literal Adam (male gender) was born (created) before a literal Eve (gender female). He bases his argument on the literal and historical existence of these two individuals. It is not based on a local Ephesian, Corinthian, or Roman context but straight back to a literal creation with a historical man named Adam.
In conclusion, this issue is simple. Evolutionary ideas have caused liberal and new evangelical scholars to deny the historical reliability and authority of scripture. They deny a literal creation and they deny a first literal and historical man named Adam. This not an issue of secondary importance. You believe scripture or you don't or you try to make it more academically, socially or culturally acceptable. Another danger emerges when Bible-believing folks read the books and articles by these men and are influenced and drawn into their pragmatic views.
This won't solve all the problems. But at least I can help provide a banner of warning to those concerned about these matters. Comments again encouraged.
Next question, who then decides what these non-issues are? Second, once you compile the long list of ecclesiastical-determined secondary issues, it makes it that much easier to say only the gospel matters. See how the logic flows. This has been played out through history. Let's be clear that to deny certain doctrines is not necessarily a salvation issue however, it present a very inconsistent position. Not only this but it presents a stumbling block to those who are trying to teach the truth concerning a literal Adam and a six-day creation.
There are groups, very large groups to be fair, which want to fellowship (or for that matter extend fellowship) to anyone who will believe the limited gospel content alone. This makes for the perfect formula to say the other issues don't matter or are of secondary importance. Again does church history agree with this scenario? What happens then when actual fundamental doctrines are rejected but they still believe this gospel content? Seem far fetched? Trinity? Incarnation? Vicarious Atonement? Plenary Verbal inspiration? Young-earth Creationism? It's very easy and convenient to make something secondary if the gospel become the only allowable priority. Back to the discussion of a literal and historical person named Adam.
Let's consider a sampling of Biblical texts connecting the salvation found in the gospel of Christ's death, burial, and bodily resurrection (as revealed in the scriptures) in close context with a literal person named Adam. We'll consider Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Timothy 2. All three of these texts refer to the Historical person named Adam.
Romans 5:14-19, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
(v. 17) "For if by one man's offence"
(v. 18) "Therefore as by the offence of one"
(v. 19) "For as by one man's disobedience"
Paul's very argument in relation to salvation is based upon the reality of two federal heads (not saying everyone would agree with this understanding). The introduction of sin into the world is through a literal historical person named Adam. It is through his headship that all humanity sinned. Note the parallel with Christ as head over another group of individuals. If the parallel is lost than the Christian gospel is affected. We can't just throw this aside because some in liberal and new evangelical circles don't want to believe the scriptures. Worse case when "conservative" evangelicals won't even acknowledge there is a problem here.
First Corinthians 15:45-47, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."
Please note that Jesus Christ (the God-man, 2nd person of the Trinity), is identified as the "last Adam." Obviously Paul had to base this title and reference based on an original person. He also identifies the man Adam as "the first man Adam" and later as "the first man." So whatever parallel or association Paul is making between Jesus and Adam, it is lost if there was no historical person called Adam.
1 Timothy 2: 12-13, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Again by the the same author a third time. It should be clear that Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed in an original historical person Adam. This reference I'm sure is every egalitarians favor memory verse. Apart from how it is used and abused by liberals and feminists, the fact remains Paul's argument is based on the original creation order. A literal Adam (male gender) was born (created) before a literal Eve (gender female). He bases his argument on the literal and historical existence of these two individuals. It is not based on a local Ephesian, Corinthian, or Roman context but straight back to a literal creation with a historical man named Adam.
In conclusion, this issue is simple. Evolutionary ideas have caused liberal and new evangelical scholars to deny the historical reliability and authority of scripture. They deny a literal creation and they deny a first literal and historical man named Adam. This not an issue of secondary importance. You believe scripture or you don't or you try to make it more academically, socially or culturally acceptable. Another danger emerges when Bible-believing folks read the books and articles by these men and are influenced and drawn into their pragmatic views.
This won't solve all the problems. But at least I can help provide a banner of warning to those concerned about these matters. Comments again encouraged.
