Heresy within Christianity

aspen said:

I hear you, but....

I think the problem many Christians do not want to face is that a literal Adam and Eve is genetically impossible. So we are having to face the facts, not only does the story of Adam and Eve resemble a creation story, it does not match up with a scientific description of reality. Also, the theology of Original Sin was unknown before Augustine. I happen to believe in Original sin, but our awareness as a species of our sin could have developed along with our conscience....almost 500 year after Christ

Click to expand...

So you are saying the evidence that a PhD geneticist presents that proves that there was a literal Adam and Eve is wrong? The problem is that there is no science that proves by observation or scientific experiment that there were more than just one male and one female that were the parents of the whole of humanity. But the science of genetics proves that there were. Evolutionists use only a very small part of the genetic code to prove their point, but miss out over 80% of the genetic code that disproves their theory.

Also, if there were no Adam and Eve who disobeyed God and brought sin into the world, then there is no need for salvation, and Jesus didn't really come to die on the cross for our sins. He just came to make us better human beings.

So, people who don't accept the Bible description of Adam and Eve as real people and the parents of all humanity, cannot be truly Christians according to the Bible, and the Jesus they may believe in is a person from their own imagination, and not the Jesus of the Bible.

So, if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, how do you know that you are really saved?

aspen said:

thoughts?

Click to expand...

<<thoughts>>...??!!!

aspen said:

I hear you, but....

I think the problem many Christians do not want to face is that a literal Adam and Eve is genetically impossible. So we are having to face the facts, not only does the story of Adam and Eve resemble a creation story, it does not match up with a scientific description of reality. Also, the theology of Original Sin was unknown before Augustine. I happen to believe in Original sin, but our awareness as a species of our sin could have developed along with our conscience....almost 500 year after Christ

Click to expand...

Sorry aspen, this is verging on heretical, for sure.

Is not Adam & Eve attested to in Paul's writings (1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, .... ), or the geneologies of Luke 3:38
And, I'm sorry, but how in the world did our conscience develop, especially so late as in 6th century, if we were created in the image of God? Not to mention God's prohibition to Adam & Eve (where there is Law, there is sin - Romans 4:15)?
Or, the Sin Offerings of the Levitical Law, or Paul's exposition on sin in Romans 7:5-25, ...just to mention an absolute fraction of the Bible's testimony of the concept and egregious nature of sin.
You sound absolutely ridiculous!

Either, I didn't understand your point (I doubt it, I only say this because it was beyond absurd), or that was just an extremely ignorant, nonsensical, and again, heretical, statement?
And the heresy is not subjective, for if the cognizance of sin only occurred to man in the 6th century, then Christ's death was devoid of any efficacy to all the unrepentant people, from man's inception, up to 500 AD.
How utterly absurd!

The existence of a real and actual Adam and Eve is essential for the true gospel of Christ. It they were not real people and the parents of all humanity, then the disobedience that brought sin and death into the world would not have happened. If that was the case, then there would have been no purpose for Jesus to have come to die as our substitute for sin on the cross. If there was no sin and death, what was the point?

Therefore, church pastors and teachers who are teaching that there was no Adam or Eve, are undermining the gospel to the point where they are teaching a false gospel. If Jesus came and was not our substitute for sin, then, as some teach, He came to make us better human beings and restore the perfect creation. This is humanism replacing the true gospel.

aspen said:

I hear you, but....

I think the problem many Christians do not want to face is that a literal Adam and Eve is genetically impossible. So we are having to face the facts, not only does the story of Adam and Eve resemble a creation story, it does not match up with a scientific description of reality. Also, the theology of Original Sin was unknown before Augustine. I happen to believe in Original sin, but our awareness as a species of our sin could have developed along with our conscience....almost 500 year after Christ

Click to expand...

Actually, the one thing creationists and evolutionists agree on is that humanities lineage can be traced back to one woman and man, or one male and female, through what is called 'mitochondrial DNA'. They just don't agree on when and how far it can be traced back since evolutionists believe the earth is billions of years old. They do consider it genetically possible, contrary to what you claim. So whatever "scientific description of reality" you have doesn't even match up even with evolutionary theory, much less creation scientists, you know, those who believe the Bible when it says there was an actual man named Adam.

(1 Corinthians 15:45) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Click to expand...

Link: Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time

The truth is that if there was no literal Adam and Eve, no talking snake in the garden, no tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no eating of the fruit of that tree, and no expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden, then there is no sin in the world, and that the world came into being with imperfection and death right from the start.

John says: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).

What this means is that those who don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve who disobeyed God and brought sin into the world, cannot believe that they are sinful because there is no sin to be sinful about. But according to John, people who claim to be without sin are deceiving themselves and the truth is not in them. One can't deny that sin came into the world through Adam and Eve's disobedience and acknowledge their sinfulness at the same time. One cancels out the other. Therefore the person cannot be saved according to the true gospel of Christ which has a literal Adam and Eve and their disobedience which brought sin into the world as its basis.

The first step in coming to Christ is to acknowledge that we are sinners, deserving of hell. A person who does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve cannot do this, therefore cannot get through that first step and therefore is still remaining in their sins.

Also, those who say that it is genetically impossible for there to be a literal Adam and Eve are turning away from the Bible, which is God's infallible Word, to the evaluation of man. They are making man's science a judge of God's Word. They are actually saying that man's science is true, and God's Word is not. This is opposite to the Scripture, "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

But for science to prove something, it has to be through observation and experimentation. Because no one was there when Adam and Eve existed, direct scientific observation is impossible. But what has been observed is that through genetics, it has been shown that it is much more likely that humanity started with two original parents than through a larger group.

amadeus said:

For me, a heretic is one who intentionally goes against what he personally knows or believes to be God's Way.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Paul Christensen said:

They are making man's science a judge of God's Word. They are actually saying that man's science is true, and God's Word is not. This is opposite to the Scripture, "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a very dangerous precedent being set by Christians, and it will eventually bite them in the ass when their wholesome "science" comes out with evidence "conclusively disproving" God. At that point, I don't know what those Christians who put "science" on such a high pedestal are going to do.

Paul Christensen said:

But for science to prove something, it has to be through observation and experimentation. Because no one was there when Adam and Eve existed, direct scientific observation is impossible. But what has been observed is that through genetics, it has been shown that it is much more likely that humanity started with two original parents than through a larger group.

Click to expand...

And this is exactly the one thing they all agree on.

aspen said:

no offense, but what PhD Geneticist?

1. Nothing you have written has been backed up with sources
2. I believe the Bible - I am in the process of being saved and my salvation hinges on Christ, not Adam and Eve

Click to expand...

This is a video presentation by Dr. Georgia Purdom, a leading authority in the science of genetics:

Paul Christensen said:

This is a video presentation by Dr. Georgia Purdom, a leading authority in the science of genetics:

Click to expand...

Hi Paul, I may contend that original sin or not, would not necessarily deny the need for redemption. For, irrespective of the origination of sin, the fact remains that it exists. The Mosaic Law was sufficient to both, expose sin, and to condemn man accordingly. And as Paul stated, where sin abounded, grace did also abound. That is, sin was always prevalent, and permeated all eras and societies, and again, despite its origins.

I say this only for the sake of argument, or to make a proper accusation of heresy. In other words, whether Adam & Eve existed, and therefore, original sin, may not by necessity deny man's need for redemption, and thus Christ.

I find much more shocking @aspen remark about the non-inherent consciousness of sin within man, that by any standard or assessment, defies all principles pertaining to man's image of his creator, and subsequently, expiation, propitiation and atonement.
Thus, unequivocally heretical!

DNB said:

Hi Paul, I may contend that original sin or not, would not necessarily deny the need for redemption. For, irrespective of the origination of sin, the fact remains that it exists. The Mosaic Law was sufficient to both, expose sin, and to condemn man accordingly. And as Paul stated, where sin abounded, grace did also abound. That is, sin was always prevalent, and permeated all eras and societies, and again, despite its origins.

I say this only for the sake of argument, or to make a proper accusation of heresy. In other words, whether Adam & Eve existed, and therefore, original sin, may not by necessity deny man's need for redemption, and thus Christ.

I find much more shocking @aspen remark about the non-inherent consciousness of sin within man, that by any standard or assessment, defies all principles pertaining to man's image of his creator, and subsequently, expiation, propitiation and atonement.
Thus, unequivocally heretical!

Click to expand...

Man was originally created in the image of God. But when He and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, thereby rebelling against God, they brought sin into the world, and through that sin, total corruption happened, and the world became a totally different place. It was no longer the perfect creation that God saw was very good. This included man. Man became a corrupted being, subject to decay and death. Therefore we cannot say that man now is in the same image of God because sin has muddied that image and man became ugly. The corruption got so great after a while, that God has to send a world-wide flood to wipe them all out, saving just Noah and his family.

So to say that current man is in the image of God is not strictly true. It is also meaningless to say that man need redemption if he is a slave of sin because of the corruption that came upon him because of Adam's rebellion against God. Paul says that through the first Adam death came into the world, but the second Adam (Jesus) brought life to those who believe in Him.

The first blood sacrifice happened after the Fall when God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve with its skin. Animal sacrifices for sin took place right through to the death of Jesus on the cross. His sacrifice was the one and for all sacrifice for sin, through which we are redeemed from the penalty and power of sin.

Paul Christensen said:

Man was originally created in the image of God. But when He and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, thereby rebelling against God, they brought sin into the world, and through that sin, total corruption happened, and the world became a totally different place. It was no longer the perfect creation that God saw was very good. This included man. Man became a corrupted being, subject to decay and death. Therefore we cannot say that man now is in the same image of God because sin has muddied that image and man became ugly. The corruption got so great after a while, that God has to send a world-wide flood to wipe them all out, saving just Noah and his family.

So to say that current man is in the image of God is not strictly true. It is also meaningless to say that man need redemption if he is a slave of sin because of the corruption that came upon him because of Adam's rebellion against God. Paul says that through the first Adam death came into the world, but the second Adam (Jesus) brought life to those who believe in Him.

The first blood sacrifice happened after the Fall when God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve with its skin. Animal sacrifices for sin took place right through to the death of Jesus on the cross. His sacrifice was the one and for all sacrifice for sin, through which we are redeemed from the penalty and power of sin.

Click to expand...

Some good points. I don't believe in the theory of original sin, and therefore, the fallen image of man. Adam & Eve sinned before the fall, hence, that propensity was always there.
But, your point about fallen creation, and the other ontological mutations that occurred to man and nature i.e. women's pain in childbirth, desire for her husband, man's toil & sweat to harvest the earth, inception of thorns & thistles on the land, etc.. are evidential proof of the fall. But again, whether Adam & Eve caused this, or someone else, doesn't deny the veritable fact of it.

Thus, I still think whether we came from 2 original humans or not, does not preclude the need for redemption and Christ's Lordship.
Now, as I said, I believe in the Genesis account of creation, as I explained by the New Testament's attestation to it. I'm just trying to establish a maxim for Christian heresy, that a doctrine must necessitate man's condemnation and Christ's Messiaship.

DNB said:

Some good points. I don't believe in the theory of original sin, and therefore, the fallen image of man. Adam & Eve sinned before the fall, hence, that propensity was always there.
But, your point about fallen creation, and the other ontological mutations that occurred to man and nature i.e. women's pain in childbirth, desire for her husband, man's toil & sweat to harvest the earth, inception of thorns & thistles on the land, etc.. are evidential proof of the fall. But again, whether Adam & Eve caused this, or someone else, doesn't deny the veritable fact of it.

Thus, I still think whether we came from 2 original humans or not, does not preclude the need for redemption and Christ's Lordship.
Now, as I said, I believe in the Genesis account of creation, as I explained by the New Testament's attestation to it. I'm just trying to establish a maxim for Christian heresy, that a doctrine must necessitate man's condemnation and Christ's Messiaship.

Click to expand...

Maybe your reluctance to believe for certain that Adam and Eve really existed and that sin entered the world because of their disobedience, has come from non-Biblical teaching in your church. If your church teachers have taught evolution as a way that God created the world, then that teaching can corrupt a person's faith in the truth of the Bible. This type of teaching has caused many Millennial young people to desert the church. Their attitude in rejecting the church and their faith is that if their church teachers don't believe the Bible, why should they? The remarks from one prominent atheist who said that if Christians stop believing the literal truth of the Bible them it will be the death of Christianity within two generations. We see this happening with just 15% of the Millennial generation attending church - a big fall since the 1950s when 85% of young people were church members.

The science isn't about the real Adam and Eve. "Mitochondrial Eve" is the last common female ancestor of all living humans. "Y chromosome Adam" is her male counterpart. It is possible that they lived at the same time, (although the evidence would be compatible with them living thousands of years apart) but the

y weren't the first man and woman on Earth.

If you were a Biblical literalist, you'd assume they were Noah and his wife.

Paul Christensen said:

The remarks from one prominent atheist who said that if Christians stop believing the literal truth of the Bible them it will be the death of Christianity within two generations.

Click to expand...

Seeing as most Christians of the time regarded St. Augustine's denial of literal days in Genesis as valid, I can only point out that it's been more than two generations that have passed since then.

Yehren said:

The science isn't about the real Adam and Eve. "Mitochondrial Eve" is the last common female ancestor of all living humans. "Y chromosome Adam" is her male counterpart. It is possible that they lived at the same time, (although the evidence would be compatible with them living thousands of years apart) but the

y weren't the first man and woman on Earth.

If you were a Biblical literalist, you'd assume they were Noah and his wife.

Click to expand...

Were you there? Do you know for sure?
I know someone who was there, and He has given us a detailed account of Adam and Eve, who they were and what they did. He was also there when Noah and his wife and family stepped out of the ark.

I believe Him because He speaks the truth, rather than men who were not there and have no first-hand knowledge of the events.

Paul Christensen said:

This is a video presentation by Dr. Georgia Purdom, a leading authority in the science of genetics:

Click to expand...

Never heard of her. (Barbarian checks) Doesn't seem to have had any particularly outstanding research, honors, or academic achievements. She does seem to attribute bacterial pathogens to evolution "after the fall", but avoids calling it "evolution."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/742c/4791f862d19e62a4f53f6b11ba26561686f0.pdf

Paul Christensen said:

Were you there? Do you know for sure?

Click to expand...

If you think you can't know anything you weren't there to observe, I'd have to say you were very wrong. Yes, it's very sure that the two last ancestors of all humans living today were not the real Adam and real Eve. As you know, even for a Biblical literalist, it would be Noah and his wife.