> 3) [Here's the part where many on this list may not agree]
> The theologically important part is our fallenness (which is so obvious
> that it almost needs no verification). Whether Adam was a "real" person
> who got this started or a figurative representation of our turning away
> from God, the basic theological truth is that we are all "in Adam" as
> human sinners and need to be restored into a right relationship with God
> (exactly how the relationship ended up wrong not being all that
> important). Christ is the "second Adam", but that does not *necessarily*
> mean the "first Adam" had to be a historical individual (though I grant
> that, in isolation, that would be a more straightforward reading).
I agree with your basic point about the historicity of Adam but -
a) That human beings engage in lots of unpleasant behavior is obvious, but that
humanity is "fallen" can only be known from revelation.
b) To know what is genuinely human we have to look at the picture of
Christ in the gospels, not a putative Adam about whom we know virtually
nothing.
> 4) Just because some atheist *thinks* the theory of evolution destroys
> the need for our redeemer doesn't make it so. We should not be getting
> our theology from atheists. Unfortunately, many in the "creationist"
> camp seem to unthinkingly accept atheist assertions as to the
> metaphysical consequences of evolution.
I never cease to be amzed at the fact that anti-evolutionists treat atheistic
evolutionists as theological authorities when they make pronouncements on the dire
significance of evolution for Christianity. They do, in fact, share many of their
naively rationalistic views about science & religion.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/