Theistic Evolution's Effect On Salvation
I have been following a "friendly" debate on whether or not theistic evolution can coexist peacefully with the creation narrative found in Genesis 1. So far there have been people (all of them professing Christians) debating on both sides. I have deliberately refrained from jumping in because I do not have the time, the energy or the book knowledge to hang with some of these folks. I have privately shared my opinion with a few of them and suggested that a non-literal view of creation negatively affects the entire Bible, especially when it comes down to salvation.
If there was not an original man called Adam and he did not bring sin and death into the world, there is no need for a savior. Removing Adam from the story adversely affects the entire story and negates the need for Christ.
The book of Romans explicitly states that Jesus came to undo the mess that Adam created. If Adam did not exist then Jesus did not have to come and die.
I realize that this is far from a scientific (or even deep theological) answer, but I believe it raises a point that many do not consider. Any one out there care to comment?
If there was not an original man called Adam and he did not bring sin and death into the world, there is no need for a savior. Removing Adam from the story adversely affects the entire story and negates the need for Christ.
The book of Romans explicitly states that Jesus came to undo the mess that Adam created. If Adam did not exist then Jesus did not have to come and die.
I realize that this is far from a scientific (or even deep theological) answer, but I believe it raises a point that many do not consider. Any one out there care to comment?
posted by Lee | 8:33 PM
3 Comments:
Can Genesis 3 be true even if it's not historically accurate? Sin entered the world through one man; is it imperative that his name was Adam?
That's a good question. How does the New Testament's apparent support for a historical person named Adam play into the picture? Was Paul merely using metaphor and not speaking of a specific instance in time?
i think that indeed Paul was using metaphor. his point wasn't that Adam was his name but only that yes, sin entered the world.
if the creation story is written during the time of Moses then what did he have to work with really? stories, passed down over the history of their people.
i have no problems with a non-literal view of Genesis. it doesn't matter if there was no one named Adam to me, i certainly know from experience that sin has entered the world and that i need a saviour.
Post a Comment
<< Home