Tremper Longman III - Is There A Historical Adam - Part 12

(from before) I like Longman, but I find this particular aspect of his thought to be rather careless. He grants that he's still in process on this, yet one would assume that no matter one's particular view of the creation account the question of sin, for a confessing Jesus follower, would be a high priority.

How would you say his thinking is careless?

I use the word careless because of the position in which Longman finds himself. For one who is a paid theologian, working through the theological implications of one's historical and literary ideas on the scriptures is a must. I would be willing to grant a measure of slack if this is a new idea through which he is working. I know that his concerns are to read the Hebrew scriptures in their original contexts and to, in this case at least, meld that with our current understanding of the world...

In all cases, I stand by my original assertion that, no matter what one's beliefs about the history of humanity and the literary nature of the Bible, the theological implications are the most important. If we lose the historical Adam, when does sin enter the story? If one could come up with a scenario in which an evolutionary processes was the means by which God created the world and yet sin was something which intruded in upon the original creation design then I'd be willing to discuss.

(from before) something else? If the evolutionary process is true, at what point did sin enter the equation?

I find the last question the most telling. One could forget the mechanics of the creation account, but one needs answer the theological question. The author didn't write/collect his account simply to say our God is the true god. He wrote it to do that plus account for the way the world is screwed up. To say nothing of the fact that the NT's handling of the account....

Once you grant that the biblical creation account is not a strict retelling of the events, which it isn't, then one opens the door for this kind of thought.

My initial thought is this question of an historical Adam and an evolutionary idea aren't diametrically opposed. One could posit that there was an evolutionary process that brought humanity to the place that it is today, however one would need to answer questions such as these: at what point does humanity become humanity and not...

Just one more slide down the slippery slope of Postmodern(Francis Schaeffer wrote much about this) thought trying to pose as Christian. If you give up a literal Adam you will soon give up a literal Christ. Actually-if you have no literal Adam-you need no literal Christ.

So is Paul completely off the mark in Romans 4-5? If so, what does that mean for the work of Christ?