Evangelicals and the Collapse of Literalism:

NPR asks what happens to an Evangelical faith that admits that there may not have been an actual Adam and Eve, and therefore no original sin. What need, then, for a savior?

Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.
Respectfully, this is one concern you needn't trouble about too much. Chesterton had it right: original sin is the one thing about humanity that isn't in doubt.
Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
You don't need Adam to prove that man needs saving. You just need any man, or every man you ever knew.

No comments: