Associated Baptist Press – Debate over Adam and Eve continues

Associated Baptist Press – Debate over Adam and Eve continues.

Brian McLaren:
“I firmly agree (in an ironic sort of way) with the good Dr. Mohler,” McLaren commented. “I think the conventional Constantinian ‘understanding of the gospel meta-narrative and the Bible’s storyline’ is wrong, misguided, and dangerous. We do in fact need ‘an entirely new understanding’ — new, that is, compared to the status quo, but actually more ancient and primary than the conventional approach. In the process we’d better learn what a meta-narrative actually is and realize that it’s not actually a great label to apply to the gospel. ‘The Bible’s storyline’ is much better. That’s what I’ve been writing and speaking about for the last decade, and hope to keep advocating for and contributing to for the next.”

Author: DanutM

Anglican theologian. Former Director for Faith and Development Middle East and Eastern Europe Region of World Vision International

2 thoughts on “Associated Baptist Press – Debate over Adam and Eve continues”

  1. A New Kind of Christianity a lui McLaren mi s-a parut un efort literar de-a da Bibleie o forma acceptabil-comericala lumii de azi. Fara nicio baza; o simpla optiune personala. Complet neconvingatoare. Un fel de rescriere personala.
    Cel mai tare mi-a placut cum abordeaza credinta in iminenta revenirea Mintuitorului. Ne-a propus sa mergem la stiinta care spune ca eventual peste 30 mii (sau 35 – am uitat) ani, Pamintul se va raci, Cam atunci putem astepta sfirsitul lumii/Judecata/ a doua venire dupa el.. Cit priveste semnele pomenite de Mintuitorul, nici macar nu sunt semnificative probabil, nefiind pomenite…
    Intr-adevar o varianta credibila a Bibliei cea propusa de McL! Intr-adevar un nou tin de crestinism: dai cu banu’ si alegi interpretarea corecta a Scripturii. In ce-l priveste pe Adam sa vedem ce mai ghiceste McL in oglinda-i fermacata!
    PS- nu ma mir ca l-a aparat pe Rob Bell.


  2. To me the belief in a non-historical Adam undermines the doctrine of salvation, because it suggests that the Fall was not a historical event; and if this is the case, then human sinfulness is a matter of ‘timeless truth’, and not the effect of a historical event – by which humanity became so, by declining from a prior state of goodness due to the free choice of Adam, our ancestor (John Collins). But if sinfulness is a ‘timeless truth’, then it seems that somehow God created us like that, that sinfulness is somehow inherent to us, and that in a sense He rather than us is to be blamed for our situation.
    On the contrary, in Chesterton’s words, we are not ‘entrapped in a bad world’ (as the Buddhists and the pessimists would say), but rather ‘we misused our good world’. God is not to be blamed for our situation: the blame belongs only to us.
    If sinfulness is a timeless truth, then two option are possible: either we have no guilt for our state, or, if we are entirely responsible for our sins – and our (fallen) nature has nothing to do with this (contrary to the doctrine of original sin) – , then very probably we could also exit by our own efforts from this predicament. In both cases, we seem to have no need for a divine Redeemer (as the Christian doctrine would suggest).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s