ADAM & EVE (R. Albert Mohler Jr.): Clarifying what is at stake

[mandym]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Recent evangelical discussion concerning Adam and Eve has served at least one good purpose -- it has helped to clarify what is theologically at stake in the debate. The recent report by National Public Radio alerted the larger secular culture to the debate, but the debate is hardly new.

What is new, however, is the candid admission on the part of some that the denial of a historical Adam requires a new understanding of the Bible's basic story -- and thus of the Gospel as well.

One of my recent articles, "False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up," made this point clearly. As I argued there, the denial of a historical Adam means not only the rejection of a clear biblical teaching but also the denial of the biblical doctrine of the Fall, leading to a very different way of telling the story of the Bible and the meaning of the Gospel.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36110

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36110

Good post. Glad Al Mohler has been a consistent and faithful minister of the truth of God.
A false view of Adam, in Gen. leads to a false understanding of Rom 5 and the gospel itself.

 

[preacher4truth]

Good post. Glad Al Mohler has been a consistent and faithful minister of the truth of God.
A false view of Adam, in Gen. leads to a false understanding of Rom 5 and the gospel itself.

:thumbsup:

...and to false conclusions about the state of lost mankind, that is, the true Biblical state of lost man.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Good post. Glad Al Mohler has been a consistent and faithful minister of the truth of God.
A false view of Adam, in Gen. leads to a false understanding of Rom 5 and the gospel itself.

Yes, he has. And it does.

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup:

...and to false conclusions about the state of lost mankind, that is, the true Biblical state of lost man.

:thumbs::thumbs:

Sure it has to.If God had the apostles write it as it is.....He has a holy and wise purpose for it.We must be careful to maintain what He has revealed as you know:thumbs:

 

[freeatlast]

Good article. If people would just believe the bible instead of trying to make it fit their false doctrine things would be so much easier.

 

[JesusFan]

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36110

This is why Evolution is "no good' from the Christian perspective, IF it holds to common ancessory fpr apes/man, as that denies a real Adam/Eve!

 

[Deacon]

I haven’t read any artlcles by Al Mohler for quite a while but seem to remember that he has openly opposed the group, BioLogos, a group that advocates something akin to Theistic evolution they call “Evolutionary creationism”.

BioLogos is an inclusive group,...” ... a broad collection of Christ followers who only will one thing—to follow him wherever He leads.”
On Adopting a BioLogos Faith Statement by Darrel Falk - September 20, 2010 [LINK]

Before one discounts their theory, one must understand that they do not use a literal hermeneutical method when interpreting scripture (most of us on the BaptistBoard do).
The thrust of Mohler’s argument concerns the hermeneutical method employed by those that propose a non-historical Adam, saying it weakens the message of salvation by grace.
If one can understand their method and the terms associated with it, you’d find that they believe the same basic fundamentals of the faith that you and I do.

The argument of Mohler’s, that their beliefs regarding a historical Adam weaken the message is not very strong.

Rob

 

[JesusFan]

I haven’t read any artlcles by Al Mohler for quite a while but seem to remember that he has openly opposed the group, BioLogos, a group that advocates something akin to Theistic evolution they call “Evolutionary creationism”.

BioLogos is an inclusive group,...” ... a broad collection of Christ followers who only will one thing—to follow him wherever He leads.”
On Adopting a BioLogos Faith Statement by Darrel Falk - September 20, 2010 [LINK]

Before one discounts their theory, one must understand that they do not use a literal hermeneutical method when interpreting scripture (most of us on the BaptistBoard do).
The thrust of Mohler’s argument concerns the hermeneutical method employed by those that propose a non-historical Adam, saying it weakens the message of salvation by grace.
If one can understand their method and the terms associated with it, you’d find that they believe the same basic fundamentals of the faith that you and I do.

The argument of Mohler’s, that their beliefs regarding a historical Adam weaken the message is not very strong.

Rob

IF they deny a specific Adam/Eve as being 'real". merely either Myth or representative of "man"

IF they deny mankind as a unique creation from God directly, NO prior creature, sprung up immediatly by act of God...

IF they say God did NOT make man except by evolutionary process...

How is ANY of that "Biblical"?