Tim Bayly discusses a very troublesome drift on certain key questions relating to Adam here. If I might, I would like to add just a couple of comments.
First, just as we evaluate individual lives by the video, and not by the snapshot, so also we should measure churches, denominations, seminaries, and so on, in the same way. In short, there are two fundamental questions to ask — the first is where are they? and the second is what direction are they headed? On a two-lane road between Heaven and Hell, two cars can be at the same place in the road, but still headed in completely opposite directions. To expand the illustration, one car can be closer to Heaven, but headed the wrong direction, and the same for another car closer to Hell, but outbound.
We need to live up to what we have already attained (Phil. 3:16) Which end of the feet are the toes on? Where is this going? This is why it is so discouraging when someone like Collins starts to allow a type of crowd sourcing for Adam, a tribal chief, instead of Adam, a man made from the dust of the ground. This can be discouraging, while at the same time we can be encouraged by the musings of atheist Thomas Nagel in Mind & Cosmos. This is no inconsistency — the basic question is whether someone is being blown before the spirit of the age, or for some reason is refusing to be.
Second, let us always beware of proving too much. If Collins is making room for an egalitarian Fall, with Adam and Eve both doing the deed, this accommodates some of the feminist sensibilities of our age. But there is a dangerous risk here. If the history of Adam and Eve is normative, as the Bible plainly indicates, what does this do? It would be the actual history that is normative, right? Not the unreliable accounts that were patched together later? And this means, if Adam was a tribal chieftain, then Eve was probably the name for his harem in the cave where the babies were made. The pre-Adamite peoples were notable for their lack of sensitivity on these matters.
If it were the sin of Adam AND EVe, the mary couldn’t bear the sinless Christ.
Disclaimer: I’m a graduate of Covenant Seminary; I sat under Dr. Collins in various classes; I see him on occasion at presbytery meetings. After reading the BaylyBlog entry, all I can say is: I’m very thankful to be trusting a man relying almost entirely on the *English* Bible, over the guy working from the Hebrew text! /sarc off. I can see what Dr. Collins is saying. Both Adam and Eve sinned. In the “federal” sense of things, Adam may have the responsibility, but last I checked, that fruit had two bites, not one. But what I see underneath is Tim… Read more »
So basically,having spent the last couple hundred years excoriating Christians for blaming Eve (and by extension, all women) for the downfall of man, feminists and their evangelical shills want to start …blaming Eve (and by extension all women)for the downfall of man.
This will end well… >_>;
Who would of thought guys like Collins would start making James B. Jordan look safe and boring.
Kennethos, I may have regarded your statement with less skepticism if so much of your defense wasn’t based on your assertion that Tim’s emotional demeanor annoys you because he is not a cool, cool, considerate man like Dr. Collins.
LOL @ Arwen. She so snarky!
Mr Wilson: I read the article. I’m curious on your thoughts of precisely “when” the Fall occurred. Dr. Van Til asserted the fall occurred prior to Eve eating the fruit, but occurred when she placed herself as judge between Satan and God and even bothered to question God’s authority.
When Eve was deceived by Satan (Gen 3:1,13; 2 Co 11:3; Rv 12:9), she most definitely entered/fell/came into transgression (1 Tim 2:13). When we transgress against God’s commands, then we sin (Lk 12:47-48; Ge 31:36; 50:17; Job 8:4; 1 Sam 15:24; Da 9:11; Ro 5:20); and when we have sinned, we fall from or lack the glory of God (Ro 3:23). However, it is God, the head of Christ, who held Adam His expressly and primarily and first accountable after their sin (Ge 3:8-11) after Adam, while the head of his woman (1 Co 11:3), had in the same Satanic… Read more »
When Eve was deceived by Satan (Gen 3:1,13; 2 Co 11:3; Rv 12:9), she most definitely entered/fell/came into transgression (1 Tim 2:14).
@Jon Swerens: “Kennethos, I may have regarded your statement with less skepticism if so much of your defense wasn’t based on your assertion that Tim’s emotional demeanor annoys you because he is not a cool, cool, considerate man like Dr. Collins.” You’re right….that’s not really fair to Tim, and I apologize. I suppose I reacted that way because a) I’ve read a lot of his posts, and this seems more and more the way he operates, and it gets irritating after a while, and b) he’s pulled this on Collins and others, and (IMHO) doesn’t show signs of being able… Read more »
Tim Bayly is known for being uncharitable in his reading of others. I’m disappointed to see Rev Wilson spread Bayly’s accusations around without doing proper work himself to see if Tim has uncharacteristically interpreted his target properly. “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. … Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim 5:17, 19)
kennethos If I’m going to be lectured by someone, I’ll accept it better from somebody who demonstrate actual fruits of the spirit (including grace and mercy), rather than somebody *merely* exhibiting holiness (seemingly without mercy and grace, IMHO). // You have an important point in how we should present our opinions, that is, we may find that a more gracious position (in general) will be more convincing to those we wish to influence. Nevertheless, we should be careful to allow this fact to influence whether and how we listen to others. We need to be on greater guard against people… Read more »
test endquote
While the linked article here starts to get into a real debate on the issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve, and that’s certainly important, it seems to me that if all the evidence we have of an egalitarian bent in Collins is the fact that he refers to Adam and Eve as both sinning in his work, then we ought to give him the same benefit of the doubt that we do to the Westminster Confession. In Chapter VI the language is exclusively plural when speaking of the perpetrators of the fall. Barring an attempt to make an… Read more »
Peter Green,
The irony in your post brother. (Tim Bayly is also an elder whom you just spread accusations about…)
For my part, when folks show some signs of humility concerning the various sins Tim often calls attention to, then perhaps we can take them more seriously when they complain about his tone.
henrybish, you will note that I did not complain about Bayly’s tone. While his tone often leaves much to be desired, I am more concerned with whether he has represented and interpreted Collins correctly.
A couple responses: >>the guy working from the Hebrew text! Jack doesn’t base his pleas for the legitimacy of a group of Adams or the rehabilitation of Genesis 1-3 as “myth” on the Hebrew text. But speaking of Hebrew, I learned it from two Meredith Klines. >>Both Adam and Eve sinned. Who ever said Eve didn’t sin? >>Adam may have the responsibility, but… Not “may” at all, but most assuredly, without doubt, and certainly Adam had (and has) the sole responsibility. >>what I see underneath is Tim Bayly freaking out about a CTS prof who doesn’t hold to literal six-days… Read more »
^^^ Amen.
Tim, I’m not exactly sure, but your above comment seems to me like you are probably saying that Eve is not at all responsible for her sin if truly you are saying that God held Adam solely responsible for the Fall. Indeed, God does hold her responsible for falling from His glory through sin (Ro 3:23) in Genesis 3:13 when He says calls Eve for a response, i.e., to account, (for Adam’s fall/sin through her sinful temptation of Adam to listen to her voice to also eat when God says “What have you done?” Furthermore, God then places a judgment/curse… Read more »
@Brian Brown: The idea that the responsibility for the Fall (independent of the responsibility of each party for their own sin) is solely on the man can be seen in the sequence of events in Genesis: The woman eats and nothing happens, she gives some to the man and he eats, ~then and only then~ are their eyes opened; they realize they are naked and they are both ashamed. Because they both ate, we cannot know what would have happened if the woman had eaten, but not the man. But one can see that the woman was responsible for her… Read more »
Arwen, For that aspect of the Fall (their eyes being open to see their shame, that is their fall from the glory of God per Ro 3:23), I agree with you. However, Eve’s disobedience/sin and Satanic temptation for Adam is itself an aspect/element of this fall of man, which she is responsible for. Only if you preclude Eve’s sin of eating and tempting as not being fallen (part of the Fall), then can you say God is not holding Eve responsible for the Fall, but for her own sin (since Eve’s sin which she is judged for is in your… Read more »
Dear Brian, If you look at the Hebrew, after the Fall God, walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, inquires of Adam, “Where are you?” and Adam responds by explaining that he and Eve found themselves naked and hid. Note too that God directs His follow-up question again to Adam, asking him, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (Genesis 3:11). It was Adam—not Eve—who was required to explain the tragic alienation from God they both had suffered, and this despite Eve having… Read more »
For more on this, see “Why God named the race ‘adam'” on Baylyblog: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2009/09/why-god-named-race-adam. And if the hyperlink doesn’t show up this second time (as paragraphing also is not showing up), just search for the title on the Google search button at the top right of the home page of Baylyblog.com.
Eve was indeed held responsible. He also punished every woman born since then by increasing the pains of childbirth, all because Eve ate that darned apple. Instead of babies just slipping out nicely when they were born, God made it as painful as possible. I’m not sure about the mechanism for this. Perhaps he made babies bigger or made the birth canal smaller? Probably the latter … the side benefit was that it made sex more pleasurable for men, and as we all know, women were made primarily to serve as a means of help and pleasure for men. Unfair… Read more »
…I am not sure what to make of James Bradshaw’s comment. Perhaps he is a troll? Or possibly lacks delicacy of manners?
@ Brian: the man’s contribution to the Fall began when he failed to stop the woman from committing her sin. He was, after all, ~right there with her~ and heard the serpent’s speech, and saw what she was about to do, and he still didn’t stop her. He failed in his duty to lead and protect her.
That’s why, even though she sinned, the Fall was all his fault.
…and yes, everything that Mr. Bayly has just posted.
Tim, thanks for the link to the article. I certainly do note how God came to Adam first requiring an explanation about Adam’s whereabouts and his (knowledge/awareness of) sin of disregard for God’s commandment from the three questions God asked Adam (Ge 3:9,11). That shows that God holds Adam responsible at least primarily if not solely. But then God also holds Eve responsible via some interrogation (Ge 3:13) as He has Eve give an account to Him for her sin of disregarding God’s commandment in tempting Adam to disregard God’s commandment as she already had done by eating the fruit.… Read more »
From a more biological (rather than ethical) angle: There is a theory (which I think is probably true) that the “sin nature” is passed along by the father and not the mother. This is why Jesus could have a fallen mother but still be sinless because he had no fallen father. Therefore, in every conception, while two sinful parents are always involved, technically it is the father who is responsible for the sinful bent of the child because it is his contribution which carries the contaminant. It is the man who is responsible simply by the fact that he is… Read more »
Arwen, That’s a very interesting point regarding when/how exactly did mankind’s sin start. But even if Adam being “with Eve” is meant to support the notion that Adam was always a step ahead of Eve as the first to believe that Satan’s hypothesis might just be as good as God’s hypothesis about what whether Adam and Eve would surely die (or whether by another doubt they really ought to follow God’s command); then, that would show that Adam was sinning before and during Eve was sinning. Yet, even if Adam would be responsible for his and Eve’s sin of autonomous… Read more »
Arwen, I think your last comment has been very helpful for me realizing that my rejection of ‘Adam solely responsible’ depends on my own speculation that there was no sin of Adam that had the result of noetic effects on how Eve’s autonomous reasoning with Satan while he was there with her (which was built in to my last response with Tim). This is definitely an error on my part. [Paragraph Break] Also, with the ‘Adam solely responsible’ view, Romans 5:12 and similar “uniqueness of the through/by Adam” verses in that chapter wouldn’t require the exception of Eve’s sin being… Read more »
Dear Brian,
Your comments have been helpful. I think one thing we always have to keep in mind is that talk of Adam’s failure to defend Eve based on the “with her” statement of Genesis 3:6 is more easily explained by solidarity in her sin when he “listened” to her rather than actual physical presence next to her when she was deceived.
Thanks for the sharpening, brother and sister.
Sorry, Arwen; the “brother and sister” at the end included you. Warmly in Christ,