- Drama Production: STAR TRACT 'The Aftermath of Con'
- MUSEUM OPEN WED AUG 28
- COMMITMENTS AT CREATION CAMP
- BOOK CREATION SPEAKER LARRY DYE the CREATION GUY
- Annual Spring Star A Success
- Creation Guy Finds Comet
- Dinosaurs Lived With Mammals
- T-Rex A Plant Eater?
- Biologist Questions Neo-Dawinism
- Three Things The Wisemen Teach us
- 7 Problems with Whale Evolution
- Spiral Galaxy Puzzles Astronomers
- South Korea Removes Evolution
- Ink Hasn't Changed Over Millions Of Years.
Dangerously redefining Adam
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D
By Larry Dye the Creation Guy
Recently I came across an article by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D. from Institute of Creation Research.
Here is a porton of his article entitled "The Theological Cost of Old-Earth thinking". It demonstrates the slippery slope prominent evangelicals are falling into when it comes to understanding Adam and original sin in relation to evolutionary theory.
"Our accountability to this grand narrative of redemptive history involves two crucial issues: the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the historicity of the Fall.
In Romans 5:12 we read, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
Paul bases his understanding of human sinfulness and of Adam’s headship over the human race on a historical Adam and a historical fall.
The contemporary conversation regarding the biblical account of creation and the age of the earth has led some to redefine who Adam was. In his commentary on the book of Romans, John Stott actually suggests that Adam was an existing hominid that God adopted in a special way, implanting His image on a Homo sapien already in existence. Theologically, this requires that the other Homo sapiens alive on the earth were not the image bearers of God.
Denis Alexander in his new book Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? suggests that “God in his grace chose a couple of neolithic farmers to whom he chose to reveal himself in a special way, calling them into fellowship with himself so that they might know him as a personal God.” A couple of Neolithic farmers? Is that in any way a possible, legitimate exegetical reading of Genesis? More disturbing is not the contents of the book, but the endorsement from J. I. Packer on the front cover, who says, “Surely the best informed, clearest, and most judicious treatment of the question and title that you can find anywhere today.”
Peter Enns, a fellow at the BioLogos Forum, wrote a series of articles on “Paul’s Adam,” in which he states, “For Paul, Adam and Eve were the parents of the human race. This is possible but not satisfying for those familiar with either the scientific or archeological data.” He suggests that we must abandon Paul’s Adam; Paul, as far as he refers to Adam, was limited by his dependence on primitive understandings.
Karl Giberson, a professor at Eastern Nazarene University and Vice President of BioLogos, says, “Clearly the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to reconcile with natural history.” He continues:
One could believe, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history God “chose” two people from a group of evolving humans, gave them his image, and put them in Eden, which they promptly corrupted by sinning. But this solution is unsatisfactory, artificial, and certainly not what the writer of Genesis intended. Dr. Giberson is not someone attempting to defend the book of Genesis; his goal is to defend the theory of evolution."
Book creation speaker Larry Dye the Creation Guy, for a creation seminar.
Book tours at the Creation Discovery Centre, a creation museum located in Bow Island, Alberta.