Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

As (believing) in Adam, all sinned?


Readers may recall former Biologos leader Karl Giberson (see, for example, But at this point who cares what Darwin’s Christianhuffs at Huffpo?). Giberson now describes himself as a former evangelical.

From the Gospel Coalition, which is unsymathetic but treisto be charitable, some thoughts on his most recent book, Saving the Original Sinner:

Giberson’s irritation with the concept of basic beliefs and their implications connects with another aspect of Saving the Original Sinner. Complaining of evangelical “heresy hunts,” he also disparages the place of confessional statements in institutional life.

Why? The fact is some—perhaps all—of the individuals Giberson casts as victims challenged and contradicted commitments to which they’d subscribed at their hiring. This doesn’t mean in every case they were entirely to blame—some schools quietly allowed wider latitudes than their stated creeds, which in the end is fair to no one. But Giberson’s complaint is broader: it’s oppressive to college professors, women, and gay marriage to pursue commitment to Scripture as God’s Word. A historical Adam, he contends, is not only the death of academic freedom, it’s an instrument of an oppressive social order. Where belief in the fiction of Adam may once have been acceptable, that time is now past. More.

One wonders how tolerant Giberson himself would be of people who think there are grounds for a historical Adam, given what he associates that assumption with.

Stay tuned.

See also: BioLogos distances itself from views of founder?


Slate offers poster child for Christian atheism

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hi Mung, "To answer the question jimmontg asks [sort of], I don’t believe there was a literal tree which grew a literal fruit that if eaten would cause a person to live forever." "Eternal life does not come from eating the physical fruit of some physical tree." Many believe that eternal life can only come from eating and drinking the fruit of eternal life, which is the body, blood soul and divinity of God/Jesus; that is the case in Catholicism, the Orthodox Church, and a few Protestants may do. And, eternal life comes from hearing the divine Word. That there was no literal tree; you or I cannot speak with any scientific certainty whatsoever. Still, many believe that in Genesis, the keys to the mysteries of the cosmos are contained in truthful form; possibly condensed in some parts, but in the major key, literally true. The fruit may also be considered as the fruit of an illicit experience. The principles that held sway in Paradise still hold sway. "Surely, God did not mean a literal six days; He is preventing you from using your own self-gained knowledge. Highly intelligent evolution theories say God created by Darwinism." However, God exiled the creation, because, if Adam and Eve had tasted the experience of eternal life in godless knowledge; in a state of eternal sin, salvation would have been impossible. Besides, God had given them gratuitously the good of being in the divine will. Adam and Eve were created not to die, but possibly ascend to heaven through a final process of sleeping peacefully: perhaps similar to the Mother of Jesus/God in Catholic dogma. To live on Earth, totally in Sin, Earth would be hell eternal. It is not far off now for many. Why? We believe with certainty we now know better than the God of Sinai, who chiselled in stone the Genesis Sabbath Commandment. And, who later pointed back to Sinai and Genesis when Jesus/God was seen speaking with Moses the lawgiver at the Transfiguration. Where they both working out how to get out of a divine lie? I think not. In the end, we have simply made a choice what to believe at an instant in time; the consequence remains ours alone. mw
To answer the question jimmontg asks [sort of], I don't believe there was a literal tree which grew a literal fruit that if eaten would cause a person to live forever. Eternal life does not come from eating the physical fruit of some physical tree. Mung
I do not understand why so-called theistic evolutionists do not believe in a literal Adam. Most OECs I'm aware of do, but why is it that evolutionists who believe in the Bible don't. Not all, but too many look down their noses at fundamentalists. They believe in the life and resurrection of Christ, but don't believe in most of the early Bible. It is one thing to believe in an OEC or YEC interpretation of Genesis, but it is another thing to say there was no Fall. I have looked at the situation from both sides, but I cannot see this side of the deal. It makes me sad that somebody like Howard Van Til would attack the "fundamentalists" and at the same time is just used by the likes of Moran or E.O. Wilson. I know Behe is an evolutionist, but at least he doesn't write books against Bible believing Christians of many different stripes. There are many Christians who are dying for their faith and it isn't over when Creation happened. It is over hope and trust in a Resurrected Lord Of Lords and King of Kings. My only Hope. jimmontg

Leave a Reply