Ten Reasons to Believe In an Historical Adam

Last week’s blog looked at the “new” theory of theistic evolution. The theory states that God did not create Adam in a special moment of time. Rather Adam came into existence through the process of evolution. This theory desires to merge science and theology into a reasonable explanation of man’s origin, even though there is no evidence that the evolution of one species into another has ever happened.

 Now, both theologians and scientists make mistakes, change their minds, and occasionally make misleading statements. Sometimes we argue not from evidence but from an “a priori” position. Can science and religion ever meld to give us a definitive answer about Adam and Eve?  I don’t know.

 But, here is the heart of the issue: why should we care whether or not Adam and Eve came into existence the way the Bible says they did? We should care because it is foundational to the Bible’s veracity and the concept of sin and redemption. I know Richard Dawkins said “we are distant cousins of bananas and turnips”. But here are ten thoughtful reasons why we, as Christians, should believe the biblical account of our first parents.

 1.      We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.” Doctrine is what we should believe, reproof challenges our errors in thinking, and of course correction gets us back on track. The Bible presents Adam and Eve not as a fable or legend, but as real people.

2.      If all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, if it’s His Word to us, we should take Him at His Word. Does God mean what He says or not? The creation record in Genesis is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.

3.      The biblical story of creation is meant to dethrone other ancient stories of creation. Moses wrote the creation narrative not in imitation of pagan myths but to explain to God’s people how things really began.

 4.      The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being hyperbolic poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104 and you’ll see the difference. And even if Genesis 1and 2 are poetic why would this alone make it less accurate historically?

 5.      There is a straight line of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t arbitrarily set Genesis chapters 1 through 11 aside as fantasy and then say that Abraham is historical. Moses connects Abraham to Adam and all the history in between deliberately.

 6.      The important genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.

 7.      In the New Testament, Paul presents us with an historical Adam and compares him with Christ (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45-49).

 8.      Without a common descent from Adam and Eve we lose any foundation for believing that all races of people have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same problem of sin, and that despite our tribal mentalities we are all a part of the same human family. And we lose the truth that there is one God who is drawing the whole world to Himself through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:22-31).

 9.      Without an historical Adam the biblical doctrine of the imputation of sin from Adam and righteousness from Christ cannot stand (Romans 5:12-19).

 10. Without an historical Adam the biblical teaching of Jesus as the “last Adam” and that as in Adam all die so in Christ all shall be made alive, has no solid basis (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, 45).

There is a lot resting on the truthfulness of Scripture concerning Adam and Eve. May I suggest that we hold on to what Scripture says?  It was once assumed by experts that many of the cities and people named in the Bible never existed. Archeology has proved the Bible right and the earlier “experts” wrong. Just this past week archeological evidence was discovered that provides the first historical reference outside of Scripture that the town of Bethlehem existed.  Perhaps in time science will catch up to the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Theistic Evolution

It is as old as the proverbial question “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” I’m talking about the question of the cosmos and life. How did it all come about, through evolution or divine creation? For a long time there were only two answers: random, natural evolution and “In the beginning God created…”

But now within the creation debate there is a theological and scientific middle ground known as Theistic Evolution. Natural or atheistic evolution says there is no God. Life can and did come about naturally from perhaps nothing into preexisting, non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws like gravity.

Theistic evolutionists believe there is a God, but He was not directly engaged in the origin of life. He might have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws and He may have created these things knowing that they would evolve into the forms of life we have today, including human beings, but at some point God sat back in his chair and let nature do her thing.

William Dembski, an American philosopher, mathematician and a Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, explains. “For…creationists, humans bearing the divine image were created from scratch. In other words, God did something radically new when he created us—we didn’t emerge from pre-existing organisms. On this view, fully functioning hominids having fully human bodies but lacking the divine image never existed. For most theistic evolutionists, by contrast, primate ancestors evolved over several million years into hominids with fully human bodies (God and Evolution, p.91).”

Theistic evolutionists suggest that Genesis 2:7 is really presenting us with the record of God simply singling out one of many humans to put His image upon. Therefore Adam was not the first human being. “According to [this] preferred model, anatomically modern humans emerged some 200,000 years ago, with language in place by 50, 000 years ago. Then around 6, 000-8, 000 years ago, God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers, and then he revealed himself for the first time, so constituting them as Homo divinus, the first humans to know God (Should Christians Embrace Evolution, p. 47).”

So what’s wrong with this theistic evolutionary theory? Why can’t we say that Adam was a real person but not the first person on the planet? First, it contradicts Scripture. The Bible clearly says that “In the beginning God created” and that everything was created “according to its kind (Genesis 1:1, 11, 12, etc.). In other words when God created life on earth each plant and animal reproduced the same species. There could be red tulips and yellow tulips but the tulip could not transform itself into an oak tree. Adam did not evolve from some ape like creature, he came into existence, according to Scripture, by a direct creative act of God. If you are calling yourself a theist who believes in God, then why not take Him at His Word?

Secondly, the theory of evolution is still just that—an unproven theory. Bang! Crash! Boom! Sorry, that was the sound of scientists falling over backward in their labs. But it is true—there has been nothing discovered in the fossil record to give evidence that one life form has ever evolved into another. In his recent book “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”, Richard Dawkins boldly states that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips.” But there is no evidence of this at all. Sorry to dash your hopes of Ancestry.com adding a produce section.

In fact scientific experiment after experiment has failed to produce any evidence of evolution. One example is Richard Lenski's experiments at Michigan State University. In one project Lenski raised E. coli bacteria in jars for 55,000 generations. The bacteria are subject to selection pressure from each other. But Lenski's E. coli have to date remained (drum roll please!) E. coli; no new species has ever been produced. Meanwhile mutations have subjected the bacteria to loss of function.

In next Monday’s blog I will present why I believe it is essential that we take the Bible’s account of the special creation of Adam as theologically sound and historically reliable. Stay tuned!

President Obama and Same Sex Marriage

An absolutely remarkable thing happened last week in the area of evolution. That which was became something it wasn’t and then evolved back to what it once was. If this occurred in the scientific field it would make headlines everywhere. But it happened with the President of the United States.

In 1996 while running for political office in Illinois, Mr. Obama wrote this to a Chicago homosexual newspaper: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” But then President Obama began to “evolve” and in the 2008 presidential election said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian—for me—for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

But then on May 9^th on ABC news the remarkable evolutionary miracle took place where that which had changed became again what it once was. The President said, “at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." Phenomenal! But what spurred the devolution? Money! The Washington Post reports that the President was under extreme pressure from many Democrats and fund raisers to support same sex marriage and sure enough right after the philosophical devolution the President raised $15 million dollars at George Clooney’s fund raiser.

You almost want to sigh and say “it’s too hard to fight against this thing. Let’s just join the party.” But here are several reasons why we as Christians should continue to speak the truth boldly and winsomely about why same sex marriage is wrong.

1.      The Bible explicitly declares that it is morally wrong (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:7-10). It is deviant behavior just as stealing is when compared with honest work.

2.      Since homosexuality is a sin it can be forgiven and people can change (1 Corinthians 6:11). Therefore we need to warn of the sin and then offer God’s grace and mercy.

3.      The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual marriage will not be for the common good. It rubs against the grain of nature and to do this can cause you to get splinters. Society loses more than homosexuals gain by distorting the definition of marriage: the most basic unit of society father, mother, and children is damaged.

4.      Marriage is not just a term we use to define any relationship. It defines the most intimate relationship of a man with a woman, psychologically, physically and spiritually. The union of a man and women in marriage makes them whole (one flesh Genesis 2:24). It is their differences (maleness and femaleness) complimenting one another that make the couple whole. Homosexuality is pure narcissism so there is always something missing emotionally and physically in the relationship.

5.      In our age of tolerance we work hard to not label things as good or bad. But saying this is good and that is bad is an expression of God’s common grace to all. How many stupid things have we not done because everyone knew what was right and wrong and we did not want to bring shame upon ourselves or our family? We do not help society, our children and grandchildren if all of life is grey and not black or white.

6.      And finally, we are being duped if we think that a laissez faire attitude on this issue of same sex marriage will bring peace and the good will of others towards Christianity. The next step after giving up the fight is not peace in the valley, but conquest. The pressure will not stop just with homosexual marriages. The definition of marriage will continue to expand until there is no specific definition of marriage and male/female relationships will be in free fall.

Speaking in evolutionary terms all of this looks like we are heading back to the pool of slime out from which we climbed But let not your heart be troubled. When God spoke saying “Let there be light (Genesis 1:3)” the darkness was expelled. His Word still expels darkness.

Thank God for Mothers Who Pray

Next Sunday is Mother’s Day. And so in honor of every mother who has ever prayed for her child or children, or for every mother who wonders if prayer works, I put forth a section of Scripture and the comments of Bishop J.C. Ryle who was the first Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, England.

Mark 7:25-29 - a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. ²⁶ The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. ²⁷ But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” ²⁸ And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs. ²⁹ Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter

 J. C. Ryle comments,

“The woman who came to our Lord, in the history now before us, must doubtless have been in deep affliction. She saw a beloved child possessed by an unclean spirit. She saw her in a condition in which no teaching could reach the mind, and no medicine could heal the body — a condition only one degree better than death itself. She hears of Jesus, and beseeches him to “cast forth the devil out of her daughter.” She prays for one who could not pray for herself, and never rests till her prayer is granted.

By prayer she obtains the cure which no human means could obtain. Through the prayer of the mother, the daughter is healed. On her own behalf that daughter did not speak a word; but her mother spoke for her to the Lord, and did not speak in vain. Hopeless and desperate as her case appeared, she had a praying mother, and where there is a praying mother there is always hope.”

Happy Mother’s Day. And thank you, mom, for praying for me.