Was Adam an Evolutionary Figure?

In my previous post, I argued for the historical reality of a literal Adam. I don’t see how one can affirm inerrancy and at the same time allow a non-historical figure in the many genealogies found in Scripture. I also, per Paul’s argument in Romans 5, don’t see how God could justly condemn all mankind for a sin nature inherited from a figurative, symbolic, or mythological person. In support of my position, I quoted from Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology where he also affirms a literal, historical Adam.



Unfortunately, in that same book, just a few pagers earlier, Waltke states that the best way to harmonize Scripture with science is to believe in theistic evolution. So, while Waltke believes in a literal Adam, he nevertheless also believes that Adam evolved from “the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions – such as the meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs…” Evidently, within the race of humanoid creatures that evolved, God chose one of those creatures and “by direct creation made [him] a spiritual being.” (Waltke, 202-203, throughout the section, Waltke uses the transliteration of the Hebrew, adam, which can mean the man Adam or mankind in general – I perceive an intentional ambiguity on Waltke’s part).

While Waltke’s evolutionary proposal answers the objections to a non-historical Adam, it nevertheless introduces new theological objections. My hunch is that he is simply choosing the better of two evils, given his commitment to reconcile the truth claims of science with the truth claims of Scripture. From where I stand, however, the theological problems with an evolved Adam are just as significant and objectionable as those for a non-historical Adam.

An evolved Adam is not consistent with the Biblical assumption that all mankind descended from Adam. The Bible refers to Adam as the first man (1 Cor 15:45) and so does Waltke but if Adam is simply just selected from the pool of human-like creatures living at the time, then at least two very important problems present themselves very quickly (see the next two points). Evolution works within populations, not individuals, meaning that a selected person within that population will NOT see his descendants mate only among his descendants. There will be intermingling outside his descendants because the whole population is so similar. Evolutionary change takes place slowly within groups of beings. Presumably, Adam would not be the only human to emerge from the population of human-like creatures. Consequently, the people alive in the world after Adam would be descendants from Adam, descendants from those outside Adam, and descendants from a mixture of the two. Where Cain got his wife is actually a very important question.

An evolved Adam does not explain why all humans are sinners and are condemned to death. If mankind is a mixture of descendants and non-descendants of Adam, then from the logic of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, only those strict descendants from Adam would be subject to the condemnation of sin and death. Romans 5:12, however, says that death has passed upon all men, because all men are sinners, and thus (Rom 5:18) all men are condemned. Thus all men must have descended only from Adam.

An evolved Adam does not explain how death entered the world before his sin. Romans 5:12 clearly states that death entered the world due to Adam’s sin. This has to include physical death, not just Spiritual death, because (1) the death Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty of our sin was a physical death; (2) while our souls have been made alive in Christ, we still wait for the redemption of our sinful bodies (Rom 12:23) which Paul refers to a as a “body of this death” (7:24); and (3) the fact of the matter is that all men do die physically. The “and he died” refrain that occurs over and over again in Genesis 5 is a repeated reminder that physical death was indeed part of the judgment on Adam and all his descendants. Physical death is an enemy, not part of God’s creation that he said was very good.

Romans 5:12 says more than that physical death passed to all men because of Adam’s sin. It says that, through that one sin, death itself entered the world. Thus before Adam’s sin, physical death did not exist among men or animals. I am excluding plant and cell life because the Bible highlights men and animals as those who have the breath of life in them. For example, God says in Gen 6:17 that He will “destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.”(ESV) He then says in Gen 6:19 to bring into the ark two “of every living thing of all flesh.” Those living things are distinguished from the food that they are also to bring aboard the ark (Gen 6:21). Finally, after every living thing on earth with the breath of life had died from the flood (Gen 7:22), Noah sent out a dove that eventually comes back with an olive leaf, indicating that plants were now growing on the earth again. Plants and vegetation were not destroy, even though all living things were. Plant life, then, is not the same as animal or human life and in the very, very rare circumstances when the Bible says that plants die, it is clear that plants don’t die in the same sense that animals or humans die (e.g., Job 14:7-12). The death that entered the world refers to the death of animals and people, and of course, an animal died right away as a result of man’s sin (Gen 3:21).

An evolutionary process of biological evolution is not consistent with (1) the truth that death entered the world only after the one sin of Adam in the garden; or (2) the Biblical truth that all men descended from Adam and thus sin, death, and condemnation passed upon all men due to Adam's one sin. So, as I said at the beginning of this post, while Waltke avoids serious theological error in maintaining the historical reality of Adam, he nevertheless runs into just as serious error by advocating an evolving Adam.

Was Adam an Historical Figure?

Does it matter if Adam was a literal, historical person, or would it be OK theologically to say that Adam was only a mythological or symbolic figure? What doctrines, if any, would be harmed if Adam was not the actual first human and father of the entire human race? I suggest that both the doctrine of inerrancy and the truth of the gospel are at stake.



Inerrancy

Adam plays an important role within many genealogies. In Genesis 5, Adam is listed as the first human and then genealogically linked with several important historical persons, Enoch, and Noah. Through Noah in Genesis 10 and 11, Adam is then linked to Shem, Ham, and Japheth and the entire table of nation, ending most significantly with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. 1 Chronicles begins with Adam as the origination point for the history of the Jewish remnant, connected with all the patriarchs, David, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the returning exiles. Luke also includes Adam as the first historical figure in the line of Christ. All these figures are important historical persons, whose literal human existence is not in question. It would be unthinkable to suggest that these chroniclers thought that some individual in their carefully constructed genealogies where not real historical persons. If Adam was not real, then these passages are either intentionally deceptive or written by someone duped into mythological error. As an aside, in case one were to claim that gaps in genealogies are also evidence of error, it should be noted that the language used does not demand that the begetting father is the immediately preceding father, just that he is a preceding father from whom the named son descended.

In addition to the genealogies, OT writers, NT apostles, and Christ refer to Adam as a real historical figure. Hosea 6:7 says that God’s people violated God’s covenant with them, just like Adam did. Paul says (1 Timothy 2:13-14) that Adam was formed first, then Eve. Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul used this historical event as the basis for explaining the different roles that men and women have in the NT church. It makes no sense to base roles of real people on the actions of those in a mythological story. Paul obviously believed Adam and Eve and the events in the Garden were real, historical events. Jesus does the same thing in explaining his position on divorce and marriage. He bases what marriage should be today (leaving and cleaving) on the historical creation account of Adam and Eve (Matt 19:4-8; Mark 10:6-8). Jesus specifically says this was how things worked in the beginning. The beginning of marriage and the one-flesh relationship began with Adam and Eve, not their theoretical non-human ancestors. Again, this argument does not work if the basis is only a fictional story or if it was not really the historical, actual beginning.

The Gospel

Most importantly, as Bruce Waltke says on page 250 of his Theology of the Old Testament, “the historicity of both figures [Adam and Jesus Christ] is foundational to Paul’s’ doctrine of human redemption through Christ Jesus.” In other words, the truths of the gospel depend on a literal, historic Adam. This may be seen in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul entire argument is based on the corresponding and complementary positions that all men have in either Adam or Christ. Paul is clear that sin and death entered the world because of one real man’s historical sin. Paul is just as clear that righteousness and life are available because of one real man’s historical righteousness. Romans 5:18-19 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness lead to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” It is not good enough, as some suggest, to observe that all men sin. Paul says much more than that. He is saying that all mankind is condemned from birth, before they do any actual sinning, because they were imputed with the sin of Adam and thus declared condemned sinners. Thus explains the passing of death upon all men, even those who as infants or mentally challenged do not make rebellious sin choices like Adam did (Rom 5:14, “even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam”). Over and over again, in addition to what he says in verse 18-19, Paul refers to the actual sin of the man Adam:

*** Sin came into the world through one man and death spread to all men because of that first sin (Rom 5:12).

*** Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:12, is one historical and the other not?).

*** Many died through one man’s trespass (Rom 5:15).

*** Death reigned because of one man’s trespass but abundant grace, righteousness, and life through one man Jesus Christ (Rom 5:17, are we to assume that one of these men is real but the other not?).

These verses teach the federal headship of both Adam and Christ. We are condemned to death because Adam sinned. He represented all mankind in the garden and when he fell, he took the entire human race with him. We cannot help but sin because we are all sinners due to Adam. We are sinners by nature and by choice. Likewise, we are granted life because of Christ’s righteousness. God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account when who we were in Adam (condemned sinners) were crucified with Christ on the cross (Rom 6:1-6; cf., Rom 7:1-6; Gal 2:20). Paul puts it this way in 1 Cor 15:21-22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7 as historical fact and then gives the gospel implication of Christ’s role as the second Adam: “the first man became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

How does one inherit a sin nature from a mythological figure? How are we justly condemned and how do we justly die if those things are not based on historical reality. Our salvation depends on the historical reality of Jesus’ perfect life and his literal obedience unto death on the cross. If Adam is figurative, why not Christ? If these men are not real, is God’s plan of redemption even necessary? Are we really condemned? Perhaps death is not the result of a real historical sin? Perhaps we are not really totally depraved and therefore worthy of eternal death in hell. Perhaps we do have some good in us and our good can out-weigh the bad at the judgment, if there is a literal judgment at all. No, none of that will do. God is just and would not condemn men to death and hell on the basis of a myth. If Christ is real then Adam is real. If Adam is not real, then there is no reason to insist that Christ is real. If Adam is not historical, then Paul’s whole argument crumbles and with it the whole mechanics of the gospel.

If you are going to get the answer wrong anyway...

You might as well have fun while you are at it!

The post, How to Fail a Test with Dignity, at Ivman's Blague is too funny. I highly recommend that you refrain from consuming any beverages while perusing this post. Here is an example of what you will find:

The student in this class is supposed to state a premise, create an equation that represents his premise, and then sovle the equation.



HT: Bethany Lovegrove

Gospel-Driven Separation

This past week (Oct 15-16) I attended the Mid-America Conference on Preaching, held annually by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. This year’s theme was on the subject of gospel-driven separation. I want in this blog post to summarize what I heard as the main points of the conference. I would welcome clarifications or corrections regarding my summary from anyone else who was there or who may have listened to the messages over the Internet.

1. Not all errors are separation issues

    A. Separation issues are those issues that impact in some way the message or truth of the gospel (thus gospel-driven).

    B. The gospel in this sense should not be narrowly defined as just Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection but also issues that impact the gospel such as the apostolic witness, the person of Christ, future judgment, and certain behaviors.

    C. Issues that do not undercut the gospel are not separation issues but:

        • May still be exposed as error, even significant error
        • May still be contended for, perhaps even vigorously
        • May still impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction

2. If the error warrants gospel-driven separation, then:

    A. Consistent separatists will not fellowship with those who practice this error (i.e., they will always separate) – 1st degree separation

    B. Consistent separatists will also withhold fellowship from those who do not separate over gospel-driven issues – 2nd degree separation

    C. Inconsistent separatists (are these the Bauder/Machen Indifferentists?) do not always (i.e., maybe never, maybe most of the time – there is a spectrum here) practice 2nd degree separation (as defined above) BUT do always practice 1st degree separation

3. It is a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice 2nd degree separation (i.e., to be an inconsistent separatist), thus warranting (3rd degree?) separation but it is not a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice this level of separation. Therefore, lack of (3rd degree?) separation may be:

    A. Cautioned against as an error in judgment/wisdom
    B. May impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction
    C. The response depends in some measure on the nature of the inconsistency

4. Examples of non-gospel-driven separation errors (although there may be manifestation of each of these errors that do cross the line to undercut the gospel):

    A. Music
    B. Non-Cessationism
    C. Mode of Baptism/Paedobaptism
    D. Non-Young Earth Creationism
    E. KJVOism
    F. Arminianism

I’m not sure I captured point 3 correctly. At the very least, there are probably some terminology issues. If I heard Dave Doran correctly, he said that he would separate from (or not fellowship with) those who do not practice 2nd degree separation but would not separate from those who don’t practice that same level of (3rd degree?) separation. I take that to mean that lack of 2nd degree separation falls into the “gospel-driven separation” category, thus necessitating separation as from a disobedient brother.

The benefits of this method of categorization are that (1) it prevents the absurd notion of nth degree separation – there is a natural, gospel-driven end point; and (2) it allows evaluation without the increasingly irrelevant labeling (due to the fracturing of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism) that historically guided our separation decisions.

Theological Reflections on My Trip to the Philippines

As a middle-class American driving through the Palawan countryside, I cannot help but be taken aback by the deep poverty of the average Filipino citizen on this island. I have already posted several pictures of the terrible living conditions that these people endure. Many have no electricity; most have no running water. The “bathrooms” that I have encountered on this trip, even in the tourist-friendly locations, often leave much to be desired (to put it mildly).

It is natural to wonder about the eternal state of these people. Scripturally I know that apart from knowing about Christ and the gospel they have no hope. Thankfully, I have seen many missionary endeavors on the island, and even seen tangible fruit from their labors. God’s light has reached this corner of the world but there is no question but that many of these people have yet to be evangelized.


My human response to this fact is to question the fairness of it all. At least those in America or other westernized nations have had the opportunities granted by wealth and development to enjoy their time on this world before they face eternity. These poor people live in squalor and then face the judgment of God. How is that fair, I found myself asking.

As I reflected on that question, I began to wonder if it was not my own materialism that caused me to think as I do. Compared with eternity, what do material things really matter. Is the rich man who builds bigger barns to hold all his stuff really better off? God calls him a fool. Riches often bring about additional cares for the things of this world that rob us from enjoying what we thought we just had to have. Ecclesiastes speaks of the frustrating endeavor to get just a little bit more, an effort that never satisfies (Ecc 4:8). I obviously do not have the right perspective on things.


A passage that God has laid on my heart during this trip is Acts 14:15-17. This is Paul and Barnabas reacting to the crowds in Lystra who thought them to be gods after healing a man:

Acts 14:15-17 (ESV)
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

The people of Palawan, Tokyo, New York City, or Suwanee are all men of like passions. We have the same human, sinful nature and all need the same savior. We all need to repent, to turn from the vanities of this world, whatever our own way is, to the living God – the God who created the world that we all share. The vanities of Lystra may look different from the vanities of Broadway, Atlanta, or Sabang, but they are vain nonetheless because are not satisfying or eternal.

For years God allowed us to go our own way, yet He still gave us revelation about Himself so that we would know what kind of God we were offending when we sinned. The revelation that all men receive, regardless of time or place, is that God is good. He gives us rain, fruitful seasons, and the subsequent ability to be fed and glad. Yes, sometimes God sends famine or sorrow but the typical human experience is rain on the just and the unjust, providing nourishment to the ground for harvest, and the ability to have food, clothes, and shelter. It may be meager; it may be plain; but it is God’s good provision.


The other thing God gives men is gladness. One of the most striking things about my experience here in Palawan has been seeing the good cheer of the residents. They may be poor but they are a happy people. The children run and play. The men and women laugh. They enjoy life. Now, deep down there will be an emptiness in all men who live apart from God. No one experiences the true joy of being right with God unless they know the Savior. Yet, it does appear that God gives happiness and joy in some measure to all men. It gives a glimpse of what all men really desire and that is deep abiding joy. When I see these poor little children living in deplorable conditions I also see a laughter and joy that tells me that God really is good.


One last quick thought comes from a verse in 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 8:9 (ESV)
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

Honestly, I could not picture myself stooping to live in the conditions in which so many Filipinos find themselves. Yet, Christ must have humbled Himself to a much greater degree when He came to earth and lived as a man so that He could save us from our sins. The depth of His love is unbelievable to me. He became poor – that phrase has a new, more vivid meaning to me now – so that I might gain the unsearchable riches of Christ. I am left speechless at the thought….

Worshiping in the Philippines

Grace Baptist Church, Puerto Princesa, Palawan

One of the things that struck me as we traveled through Tokyo and Manila on our way to Palawan was that the sun I saw here was the same sun I see when I’m back home in America. Japanese, Filipino, American, or whatever, we all benefit from and enjoy the same sun. This simple fact brought home to me again the truth that one God created that sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and all that is in them. We all, wherever we may live, owe our existence to the God who is the one and only Creator of the world. This God desires his creatures from every tribe, language, people, and nation to worship him. It was my privilege this past Sunday to worship with a church family on the other side of the world from where I call home. Ironically, the name of the church was the same – Grace Baptist Church.

In some ways, the experience was totally different from what I am used to. There was no air conditioning, just fans, even though it was quite hot and humid outside. The benches were wooden and quite uncomfortable, at least to me. The preaching and Sunday School sessions were spoken in both English and Tagalog (by the same man). These external differences were things I expected. The thing I really wanted to know was, how did this Filipino church – one that was pastored by a Filipino national and that has been in existence for 30+ years – how did they worship in their culture? and how different would it be than mine? The answer is that there really was no difference from what you might see in any average Baptist church in the USA, other than those externals.

They started their worship service with a “meet and greet” time to the song, “There’s a welcome here!” One either likes these times as a way to show friendliness to those around you, or you don’t, thinking it turns a formal time of worship into a circus. I don’t like it any more in the Philippines than I do back home. They sang songs from a PowerPoint display, just like many of our churches do in America. Most of the songs were old-time gospels songs. It was great to sing “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” with church folk on the other side of the world. They also sang a praise chorus called, “I Stand in Awe.” It was a typical, shallow praise chorus that could be about one’s boyfriend. There was no rich doctrinal content or even explicit mention of whose “presence” we wanted to be in or whose “eyes” we wanted to look into. They used a worship team to help with leading the singing. They had a small choir. They had an offertory and a special number (my wife, Daphne, was privileged to minister those). Maybe they learned all this from American missionaries that ministered 40-50 years ago. The faces were different, the seating was different, the heat and humidity were different, but everything else, including typical problem areas, was about the same.

I wonder if I should have been surprised. We both worship the same God. Should we not use the same elements of worship, regardless of culture? I tend to think so.

This is the church that Daphne’s grandmother has attended since it started from another church in the area over 30 years ago. It was started as a church plant from the church that Daphne’s mom went to in another part of Puerto Princesa. Daphne’s mom was led to the Lord through the work of American missionaries, so I think the other church was founded by those same missionaries (the DeVries?). It was wonderful to see the fruit of faithful missionary activity – founding a church, installing a national pastor, and then having that church multiply itself. There were more people at Grace Baptist Church in Puerto Princesa, Palawan this past Sunday than what we normally have at Grace Baptist in Dacula, Georgia – and we have padded seats and air conditioning.

Entering the church

Inside the church

Choir singing Amazing Grace


Daphne singing "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"

Across the street from the church


Group picture after church

More Pictures from the Philippines

One of the most interesting days for me so far was our trip to the Underground River on the other side of the island near Sabang. We saw incredible scenery and incredible poverty all along the way. I have all the pictures from this trip on my facebook page, accessible here for those without a facebook account:

The road to Sabang was mostly paved -- they are wanting to make this area more accesible to tourists. But the pavement would disappear for no apparent reason every once in a while.

Typical scene along the road to Sabang

Here is a typical shelter-type dwelling that we saw all over the place. My son, JD, said they looked like forts that he would like to build...but not live it.

Here is another

Here is another


Here is our destination, the famed Underground River. It took a 2-hour ride from our Puerta Princesa, then a 3 kilometer (or so) boat ride, and then a very short hike thorough the jungle to get here. We actually saw real wild monkeys in the jungle area.

Here is a boat, similar to what we took.

Scenery during the boat trip, on the way to the Underground River


Daphne and me on the beach near the Underground River