What do you think?
Rate this book
Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives
The Christian doctrines of original sin and the historical fall of Adam have been in retreat since the rise of modernity. Here leading scholars present a theological, biblical, and scientific case for the necessity of belief in original sin and the historicity of Adam and Eve in response to contemporary challenges. Representing various Christian traditions, the contributors shed light on recent debates as they present the traditional doctrine of original sin as orthodox, evangelical, and the most theologically mature and cogent synthesis of the biblical witness. This fresh look at a heated topic in evangelical circles will appeal to professors, students, and readers interested in the creation-evolution debate.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 28, 2014
22 people are currently reading
410 people want to read
About the author
Hans Madueme
6 books7 followersHans Madueme (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is assistant professor of theological studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and an adjunct professor at Trinity Graduate School, Trinity International University. He also serves as a book review editor for Themelios.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 27, 2015
We live in a broken world and such as it is, it is imperative that we understand the implications of Adam, the Fall and original sin. This is not a layman's friendly study, however, that being said this is something that all Christians should read and gleam the truths and work out the implications of those truths. This is also a wonderful resource book to come back to as your spiritual maturity deepens.
Thank you Goodreads for the opportunity to win this fine book.
Thank you Goodreads for the opportunity to win this fine book.
Currently reading
April 1, 2018The tone of this book has been set, in the introduction by the inclusion and exclusion of various terms, and various names of well known authors, which are worthy of consideration in examining the place of Adam in the doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin. I want to give this book a fair review, but note that it so far only mentions Old Testament scholars and Christians in science, who hold an Old Earth creationist or theistic evolutionist position. The introduction also invokes that fear of the reproach brought on 'the church' by its treatment of Galileo. It places 'biblicists' against evolutionists and discusses church tradition. It may be my imagination but biblicism is usually a perjorative term, for people who read the scripture without using proper hermeneutic enquiry. Lastly, the introduction engages with the doctrine of infallibility of Scripture whilst quietly ignoring the doctrine of inerrancy which has a more demanding approach to how the text of Scripture is treated.
I am looking forward to seeing whether this book attempts to engage with the, thus far, omitted perspectives within the frame of Evangelical orthodoxy at the conservative end. I am not hopeful and feel that the well has already been poisoned, but I am willing to be proven wrong.
I am looking forward to seeing whether this book attempts to engage with the, thus far, omitted perspectives within the frame of Evangelical orthodoxy at the conservative end. I am not hopeful and feel that the well has already been poisoned, but I am willing to be proven wrong.
August 26, 2018
There are a remarkable number of authors who've written on the topic of this book, putting forth ideas that range from utter nonsense to scholarly insight. I reviewed many of them in my book (Knowledge unto Relationship) where I attempt to cull out a consensus. This book, edited by Madueme and Reeves, was among the very best, recognizing the essential connection between Adam and Jesus, a covenant broken and covenant reconciled; explaining the important doctrine of original sin. The contributions of Luther, Pelagius, Wesley, Schleiermacher, Niebuhr, Melancthon, and many contemporary authors are brought to bear. It is well worth the read!
Read
July 8, 2019Only read chapter 11, "The Most Vulnerable Part of the Whole Christian Account’: Original Sin and
Modern Science".
Hans Madueme's eclectic proposal (case-by-case) to the apparent tension between theology and science seemed insufficient to me. I suspect that the Post Reformation Reformed Orthodox may have possessed a better approach (of which I am still in the process of uncovering their thinking on this matter).
Modern Science".
Hans Madueme's eclectic proposal (case-by-case) to the apparent tension between theology and science seemed insufficient to me. I suspect that the Post Reformation Reformed Orthodox may have possessed a better approach (of which I am still in the process of uncovering their thinking on this matter).
March 4, 2016
This is a collection of essays that supports the claim that a historical Adam and original sin are essential, irremovable, relevant, and credible elements of the Christian faith. The basic thesis of the editors and the essay authors is that “the traditional doctrine of original sin is not only orthodox but also the most theologically cogent synthesis of the biblical witness.”
The book discusses three key areas of the debate: the epistemological status of natural science for theology, historical criticism of the Bible, and church tradition.
Like all collections of essays, some are more interesting than others. I will briefly mention the five that I found most interesting.
The first was “Adam and Eve in the Old Testament,” in which C. John Collins mentions specific points of disagreement with Peter Enns, Daniel Harlow, and James Barr. The footnotes are almost as interesting as the text. In them, Collins explains how his views are different from the views of Enns, Harlow, and Barr.
Carl Truman’s “Original Sin and Modern Theology” surveys six modern theologians on the other side of the argument (Friedrich Schleiermacher, Walter Rauschenbusch, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Wolfhart Pannenberg), all of whom “repudiate any notion that humanity stands guilty before God because of the imputation of an alien guilt, the guilt of a historical man called Adam, to all of his descendants,” leading to the rejection of a movement from innocence to guilt and condemnation in history. Thus “Adam functions as the great example of the way in which we all sin, we all fall” for these theologians.
James M. Hamilton’s aim in his essay “Original Sin in Biblical Theology” is to “trace out how original sin factors into the interpretive perspective of the biblical authors,” contending that Paul is not the only biblical author who interprets Genesis 3 to indicate that Adam’s sin has made all his descendants moral cripples.” Hamilton proceeds to nitpick Peter Enns’ book “The Evolution of Adam, accusing Enns of trying to accommodate the Bible to biological evolution while Hamilton himself tries to accommodate the Bible to the doctrine of original sin.
In their essay “Original Sin and Systematic Theology,” the two editors propose that “rejecting a historical Adam and original sin would leave us without a recognizably Christian gospel.” They look at five key areas of doctrine that are affected by belief in (or denial of) originated sin: the doctrines of humanity, sin, salvation, Christ, and God, and conclude that “a denial of Adam’s original sin, inherited by us all, strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith.”
Hans Maduene’ essay “Original Sin and Modern Science” is an excellent summary of the various views on original sin, who holds them, and the issues around each view. He suggests that “the threshold for abandoning, or significantly revising, the doctrine of the fall is very high.
The book also contains surveys of Adam in the New Testament, Adam and Modern Science, Original Sin in Patristic Theology, the Lutheran Doctrine of Original Sin, Original Sin in Reformed Theology, the Doctrine of Original Sin in Wesleyan Theology, Original Sin in Pastoral Theology, Original Sin and Original Death, The Fall and Genesis 3, and William Edgar’s “Adam, History, and Theodicy,” in which he argues that there must have been an original couple in order to have a sound view of the problem of evil and its resolution.
I particularly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in this topic and/or who already read Enns’s book, “The Evolution of Adam,” Daniel Harlow’s essays, Denis Lamoureux’s book “Evolutionary Creation,” and/or others who have made their case that a historical Adam and fall are not necessary for Christian faith. It’s a good summary of the case for a historical Adam and a historical fall.
The book discusses three key areas of the debate: the epistemological status of natural science for theology, historical criticism of the Bible, and church tradition.
Like all collections of essays, some are more interesting than others. I will briefly mention the five that I found most interesting.
The first was “Adam and Eve in the Old Testament,” in which C. John Collins mentions specific points of disagreement with Peter Enns, Daniel Harlow, and James Barr. The footnotes are almost as interesting as the text. In them, Collins explains how his views are different from the views of Enns, Harlow, and Barr.
Carl Truman’s “Original Sin and Modern Theology” surveys six modern theologians on the other side of the argument (Friedrich Schleiermacher, Walter Rauschenbusch, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Wolfhart Pannenberg), all of whom “repudiate any notion that humanity stands guilty before God because of the imputation of an alien guilt, the guilt of a historical man called Adam, to all of his descendants,” leading to the rejection of a movement from innocence to guilt and condemnation in history. Thus “Adam functions as the great example of the way in which we all sin, we all fall” for these theologians.
James M. Hamilton’s aim in his essay “Original Sin in Biblical Theology” is to “trace out how original sin factors into the interpretive perspective of the biblical authors,” contending that Paul is not the only biblical author who interprets Genesis 3 to indicate that Adam’s sin has made all his descendants moral cripples.” Hamilton proceeds to nitpick Peter Enns’ book “The Evolution of Adam, accusing Enns of trying to accommodate the Bible to biological evolution while Hamilton himself tries to accommodate the Bible to the doctrine of original sin.
In their essay “Original Sin and Systematic Theology,” the two editors propose that “rejecting a historical Adam and original sin would leave us without a recognizably Christian gospel.” They look at five key areas of doctrine that are affected by belief in (or denial of) originated sin: the doctrines of humanity, sin, salvation, Christ, and God, and conclude that “a denial of Adam’s original sin, inherited by us all, strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith.”
Hans Maduene’ essay “Original Sin and Modern Science” is an excellent summary of the various views on original sin, who holds them, and the issues around each view. He suggests that “the threshold for abandoning, or significantly revising, the doctrine of the fall is very high.
The book also contains surveys of Adam in the New Testament, Adam and Modern Science, Original Sin in Patristic Theology, the Lutheran Doctrine of Original Sin, Original Sin in Reformed Theology, the Doctrine of Original Sin in Wesleyan Theology, Original Sin in Pastoral Theology, Original Sin and Original Death, The Fall and Genesis 3, and William Edgar’s “Adam, History, and Theodicy,” in which he argues that there must have been an original couple in order to have a sound view of the problem of evil and its resolution.
I particularly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in this topic and/or who already read Enns’s book, “The Evolution of Adam,” Daniel Harlow’s essays, Denis Lamoureux’s book “Evolutionary Creation,” and/or others who have made their case that a historical Adam and fall are not necessary for Christian faith. It’s a good summary of the case for a historical Adam and a historical fall.
December 29, 2014
Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin is a title that is striking in detail and thoroughness. While the chapters are individually authored by a range of respectable names, it is nonetheless one of the most cohesive books I've read. While the vision of the title seems overly ambitious, the philosophical, scientific and theological arguments put forward are impressive in scope and breadth.
Seemingly a difficult task, addressing Adam, his fall and his sin in one volume is asking quite a bit of any team of authors. I think this work has demonstrated the talents of the general editors at keeping the group focused on their task. Many chapters seem to be unified under a good deal of editorial preparation while demonstrating a fair amount of latitude in the ability of the authors to add their own flair and personality.
Although the age of Adam identified in the text is likely older than many Evangelicals would be willing to reach, I found the argument persuasive yet a little outside my reach as a reader of theological works.
Chapters dealing with those who deny original sin and the Fall are presented clearly and generally, but with enough content to likely satisfy advanced students of philosophy. The history of the development of the doctrines of sin are smooth and clear as well.
In all, I enthusiastically enjoyed the book. I believe the writing style is probably most accessible by a moderate to advanced philosophy or theology readership. The title will likely find an agreeable audience with traditional Augustinian or Reformed backgrounds.
Seemingly a difficult task, addressing Adam, his fall and his sin in one volume is asking quite a bit of any team of authors. I think this work has demonstrated the talents of the general editors at keeping the group focused on their task. Many chapters seem to be unified under a good deal of editorial preparation while demonstrating a fair amount of latitude in the ability of the authors to add their own flair and personality.
Although the age of Adam identified in the text is likely older than many Evangelicals would be willing to reach, I found the argument persuasive yet a little outside my reach as a reader of theological works.
Chapters dealing with those who deny original sin and the Fall are presented clearly and generally, but with enough content to likely satisfy advanced students of philosophy. The history of the development of the doctrines of sin are smooth and clear as well.
In all, I enthusiastically enjoyed the book. I believe the writing style is probably most accessible by a moderate to advanced philosophy or theology readership. The title will likely find an agreeable audience with traditional Augustinian or Reformed backgrounds.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews