Re: theology of the cross of some theistic evolutionists

Glenn Morton (
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:05:28 -0600

At 11:12 AM 1/29/97, Pattle Pun wrote:
>The interpretation of the "original sin" and its
>origin in the Fall is the heart of the issue. Paul seems to suggest
>the efficacy of the second Adam Jesus Christ's redemption is predicated on
>the historicity of the Fall of the first Adam (Rm. 5) Calvin also
>champions the unity of General Revelation in Nature and Special Revelation
>in Christ and the Holy Spirit. Theistic evolutionism seems to compromise
>on both, either with no historical fall, or special creation of Adam only
>through the breathing of a "soul" into a already preexisting hominid that
>was miraculously chosen from an evolving group. Salvation history of our
>personal encounter with God and salvation through Christ is predicated on
>our sinful nature, sinful will and sinful act, which is rooted in an
>historical Fall, and the bodily resurrection of Christ which is the
>evidence that God provided for the world to know that his atonement is
>effacacious and He will judge us (Act 17). Both the historical Fall and
>Christ's resurrection also happened in space and time, events in
>scientific history. It seems to me this theological system is
>contradicting the premise of the unity of God's general and
>special revelations.

If the Fall is historical in space and time, then it is fair game for one to
ask questions like:

Where did it happen? What was the effect on behavior? What evidence can be
found of this behavioural change? What kind of hominid was Adam? etc, etc.

These are the questions that lead to concordism. It is one thing to believe
that something is historical it is another to give a successful explanation
incorporating the observational data into that historical framework.

I am going to ask another question that made a lot of people mad at me when
I asked it elsewhere. It is the question "When did the creation of man and
the Fall happen?"

If mankind recieved the spirit at 10,000 years ago, 35,000 years ago, or
even 60,000 years ago, it means that there were human-like animals walking
the earth from 120,000 to the time of the creation. Anatomically modern man
is found 120,000 years ago at Klasies River Mouth Cave. I do not like the
implications of human-like animals because it raises the posibility that
some of them might still be walking the earth today. Given mankinds' ability
to de-humanize those that don't look like us, this is a very bad position to

But if we move the creation/Fall back to that time frame, it raises some
interesting theological questions.

In short I agree with you Dr. Pun that the creation and Fall must be
historical, but if they are historical then it is incumbent upon us to
answers the above questions. Ignoring these questions makes the event

For the date at Klasies, see James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New
York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 214-215


Foundation, Fall and Flood