Defenders 3: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 26): Paul’s Use of Adam in Romans 5

Summary

---

Defenders Podcast with Dr. William Lane Craig

Episode: Creation of Life and Biological Diversity, Part 26: Paul’s Use of Adam in Romans 5

Date: August 24, 2019

---

Episode Overview

This episode focuses on how the Apostle Paul employs the figure of Adam in Romans 5:12-21 and its significance for Christian doctrine—specifically, the implications for the historicity of Adam and the doctrine of original sin. Dr. Craig surveys key interpretations of Romans 5, explores contrasting theological positions (imputation of sin versus inherited corruption), and fields questions from class participants, highlighting the theological and historical ramifications of Paul’s statements about Adam.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Paul’s Typology: Adam and Christ in Romans 5

• Main Idea: Paul establishes a typological relationship between Adam and Christ, positioning Adam as a “type” or foreshadowing of Christ (“the one who was to come”).
  • Quote: “In this key passage, Paul extends his typology of Christ as the eschatological or end time Adam from First Corinthians 15.” (03:55)
• Focus for Dr. Craig: Rather than exploring the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work, the discussion centers on Paul’s assertions regarding Adam, especially the mechanisms by which Adam’s sin affects humanity.

2. Imputation versus Inherited Corruption

A. Imputation of Adam’s Sin

• Explanation: Adam acts as a representative; his guilt is legally imputed to humanity (forensic/judicial).
  • Quote: “On the one hand, Paul may mean that in virtue of Adam’s representative status, or our corporate solidarity with Adam... Adam’s sin in the garden is imputed to each of us, his progeny.” (06:25)
• Historical Necessity: If imputation is Paul’s meaning, a historical Adam is required, because a fictional character’s actions can’t have real-world judicial consequences.
  • Quote (citing Douglas Moo): “The effects of Adam’s act in history, namely universal sinfulness and death, would seem to demand an Adam who sinned in history.” (07:38)

B. Inherited Corrupted Nature

• Explanation: Adam’s sin corrupted human nature, which is then inherited by all his descendants. This corrupt nature explains the universality of sin.
• Quote: “The traditional doctrine of original sin postulates, minimally, a corrupted character inherited from Adam, not just imputed guilt. Now, the postulation of a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam would explain why people consistently sin.” (13:13)
• Historical Implication: This interpretation, like imputation, also necessitates a historical Adam, as such inherited traits require a real ancestor.

C. Third Alternative: Environmental and Animal Nature

• Explanation: Humanity’s universal sinfulness could also be explained by innate self-interest (animal nature) and immersion in a corrupt social environment.
  • Quote: “Our inherent self-seeking animal nature in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised suffices to explain why sin is universal among humanity...” (22:25)
• Historical Tie-In: Even on this reading, Adam’s actions must be historical to have unleashed sin’s power in the real world.

3. Paul’s Actual Doctrine in Romans 5

• Critical Observation: Dr. Craig points out (following Moo) that Romans 5:12-21 may not explicitly support inherited corruption, as commonly read.
  • Quote: “The doctrine [of inherited corruption] is perhaps surprisingly nowhere to be found in Romans 5:12-21. We tend to read it there, but... it’s nowhere to be found in that passage.” (21:15)
• Summary: Regardless of which model you take (imputation, inherited corruption, or environmental effect), all render Adam’s historicity essential to Paul’s theology.

4. Jewish Context and Audience Understanding

• Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Contemporary Jewish literature always treats Adam as historical, even though he’s put to various theological uses.
  • Quote: “When you read this Jewish pseudepigraphal and apocryphal literature... none of them denies that he was a historical person.” (25:23)
• Implication: Paul’s original audience would not have questioned Adam’s historicity.

5. Nature of Infants and Moral Accountability

• Infants and Original Sin: Both the inherited corruption and environmental-exposure-only views regard infants as blameless until they reach an age of moral accountability.
  • Quote: “So either of those alternatives would see infants as guiltless or blameless...” (28:57)
• Selfishness as Survival Mechanism: Our predisposition to selfishness can be attributed to our biological nature, not necessarily to inherited sinfulness.
  • Quote: “We have inherently this kind of predisposition to selfishness because it’s conducive to survival and the struggle to survive.” (29:33)

6. Altruism versus Selfishness

• Response to Psychological Egoism: Dr. Craig rejects the notion that all human actions are ultimately selfish, noting the transformative power of the Christian life and the reality of genuinely altruistic acts.
  • Quote: “To say [our motives] are entirely selfish I think would be far too sweeping a generalization.” (32:03)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the necessity of Adam’s historicity:
  “The imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity requires... a historical Adam. And if Paul’s doctrine involves such imputation, then it follows that he is teaching the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin.” (06:53)

• On the limitation of imputation to explain human sinfulness:
  “Imputation is purely a legal or forensic notion which has no effect whatever upon a person’s moral character.” (10:56)

• On the historicity of Adam even in literary examples:
  “My listeners would be quite confused if I claimed that the white witch introduced into our world a condition that Christ has saved us from. ... I would be positing events in our history caused by, respectively, a fictional character and a real character.” (08:14)

• On the Jewish pseudepigraphal literature’s treatment of Adam:
  “None of those treatments of Adam... denies that he was a historical person.” (25:23)

• On infants, guilt, and accountability:
  “Either of those alternatives would see infants as guiltless or blameless, but as they age... then these actions would become sin.” (29:20)

---

Important Segments and Timestamps

• [00:17-03:55] — Introduction to Romans 5:12-21 and overview of Paul’s argument
• [06:25-11:44] — Legal imputation, representative status, and forensic doctrine
• [12:24-15:24] — Participant questions and inherited corruption explanation
• [21:15-24:40] — Critique and assessment of inherited corruption in Paul’s writing; introduction of third alternative
• [25:15-26:34] — Jewish pseudepigraphal literature’s unqualified acceptance of Adam’s historicity
• [28:38-31:07] — Discussion on infants, moral accountability, and selfishness
• [31:07-32:26] — Dr. Craig’s comments on altruism and human motives
• [32:26-35:30] — Conclusion and summation of the argument for Adam’s historicity in Paul

---

Takeaways & Conclusion

Dr. William Lane Craig demonstrates that regardless of whether Paul believed Adam’s sin is imputed, inherited, or its effects are social and environmental, in each scenario Paul is portrayed as regarding Adam as an actual historical person whose actions causally affect all subsequent humanity. Dr. Craig emphasizes, “Whether we understand Paul to teach that Adam’s sin was imputed to every one of his descendants, or that Adam’s sin corrupted human nature... Adam is regarded by Paul as a historical person whose actions affect the course of history.” (34:30)

The episode ends with a reminder that while the mechanics of how Adam’s sin affects humanity may remain debated, the New Testament affirms Adam’s historicity as foundational to its theological worldview.

---

Transcript

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig Today the Creation of Life and Biological Diversity, Part 26. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org Last time I

argued that in First Corinthians 15, Paul may be moving beyond the parameters of the merely literary Adam to touch the historical Adam. He seems to say that in Adam we all die in the sense that we share a common mortal human nature with the man in the story. But insofar as he thinks of that man as chronologically prior to Christ, he's placing him within real history. And I think that we'll see that implication is confirmed as we turn now to the second crucial New Testament passage on Adam. Romans chapter 5, verses 12 to 21 Romans 5:12 21 let's read this passage aloud together. Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned. Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given. But sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one's man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man, Jesus Christ abounded for many, and the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. But the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. Law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more so that as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. In this key passage, Paul extends his typology of Christ and as the eschatological or end time Adam from First Corinthians 15. Now our interest in interpreting this theologically rich passage perversely perhaps is not in the benefits won for mankind by Jesus Christ through his obedience and death, but rather in what Paul asserts concerning Adam. So in the series of contrasts drawn between Adam and Christ, our focus is in each case on the initial clause of the relevant sentence. There has of course, been tremendous theological controversy about how to understand such expressions, as many died through one man's trespass, verse 15 or the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, verse 16. Because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, verse 17. One man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, verse 18. And by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, verse 19. Now, Paul does not explain just how Adam's sin is transmitted to his progeny. On the one hand, Paul may mean that in virtue of Adam's representative status, or our corporate solidarity with Adam, or some such notion, Adam's sin in the garden is imputed to each of us, his progeny. That is to say, we are guilty before God in virtue of Adam's wrongdoing, and so under the condemnation of death. Whether the notion of imputation of sin is palatable to modern sensibilities is irrelevant to the interpretive question concerning this passage. Now it's evident that if this interpretation of Paul's teaching is correct, then the historicity of Adam and his fall immediately follow. For the sin of a non existent person cannot be imputed to me such that I am held objectively guilty before God and liable to damnation. The sin of a purely literary Adam can have no effect on the world outside the fiction. So the prominent commentator on the Book of Romans, Douglas Moo, has rightly argued as follows. The effects of Adam's act in history, namely universal sinfulness and death, would seem to demand an Adam who sinned in history. I might, for instance, compare or contrast Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia with Christ to make a general theological point. As Aslan died for Edmund on the stone table, Christ died for us on the cross. But my listeners would be quite confused if I claimed that the white witch introduced into our world a condition that Christ has saved us from. And this confusion would be quite natural. I would be positing events in our history caused by, respectively, a fictional character and a real character. Adam, as Paul makes clear, functions on the same historical plane as Moses, the law, and Christ, of whom he is the type, end quote. The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity requires, then, I think, a historical Adam. And if Paul's doctrine involves such imputation, then it follows that he is teaching the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin. But is that in fact Paul's doctrine? Perhaps, but there's plenty of room for doubt that it is. The question is how to relate verse 12C and D. And I quote, as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. End quote. How do we relate verse 12C and D to verse 18A? And I quote, one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men. End quote. Mo rightly insists that some explanation is needed for why, as he puts it, people so consistently turn from good to evil of all kinds. Nobody thinks that everybody sins simply by sheer coincidence. Moo says, and I quote, paul affirms in this passage that human solidarity and the sin of Adam is the explanation. And whether we explain this solidarity in terms of sinning in and with Adam or because of a corrupt nature inherited from him does not matter at this point. End quote. Now, I disagree with Mou on this. It seems to me that it's crucial that we understand that the first alternative, the imputation, imputation of Adam's sin to us in fact does nothing to explain why people consistently turn from good to evil and consistently sin. For imputation is purely a legal or forensic notion which has no effect whatever upon a person's moral character. Mo himself later explains, and I quote, paul is insisting that people were really made sinners through Adam's act of disobedience, just as they are really made righteous through Christ's obedience. But he goes on to say this, making righteous means not to become morally righteous people, but to become judicially righteous, to be judged, acquitted, cleared of all charges. Similarly, he says, and I quote, people can be made sinners in the sense that God considers them to be such by regarding Adam's act as at the same time their act. It seems fair then to speak of imputation here. End quote. So he says, and I quote, we are dealing with a real, though forensic situation. People actually become sinners in solidarity with Adam by God's decision. People actually become righteous in solidarity with Christ, again by God's decision. Such forensic or judicial transactions cannot explain why people consistently turn from good to evil. For just as the pardon of a condemned criminal does nothing to make him suddenly into a morally virtuous person, but simply renders him no longer legally guilty, so also the imputation of legal guilt from Adam to us does not transform the moral character of an otherwise blameless person. So I don't think that the doctrine of imputation suffices to answer Moo's question as to why people consistently sin. Any comments or question on that critique? Yes, Bruce, excuse me.

[Bruce]

The way I understand this is because of Adam sinned sin. We are born without a relationship with God. We're born separated, so we have a predisposition to sin. And then when we become a responsible moral agent, when and if we become a responsible moral agent, we commit acts of sin, and then the sin is imputed to us when we receive Christ, that imputation is removed.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I think, Bruce, that the alternative you're expressing is fairly close to the second one that we'll talk about just in a moment, the idea that we have inherited from Adam a corrupted human nature. So we'll look at that in a moment, and you can see whether or not that expresses what you're saying. But you're offering a different perspective than imputation. You're not saying that it is in virtue of Adam's sin being imputed to us, including infants, that that's why everybody then consistently sins. You're offering a different suggestion because of this problem. The traditional doctrine of original sin postulates, minimally, a corrupted character inherited from Adam, not just imputed guilt. Now, the postulation of a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam would explain why people consistently sin. They have a corrupt and fallen human nature that they have inherited from Adam. And such an interpretation of Romans 5 requires a historical Adam just as certainly as does the doctrine of imputation. Because if we have a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam, then Adam has had real world effects and therefore cannot be simply a fictional or literary character. So if this interpretation is correct, if this is Paul's doctrine, then his teaching implies the existence of a historical Adam. I hope you're grasping the alternatives. The one is that Adam's sin is legally imputed to me so that I am reckoned to be guilty and liable to punishment because of what Adam did. The other alternative says, no, no, it's not necessarily imputation. Rather, when Adam sinned, he bestowed upon all of his descendants a corrupt nature so that they have a propensity to sin. And that explains why sinning is universal throughout the human race. And the traditional doctrine of original sin weds both of these alternatives together. That there is both the imputation of sin and guilt coupled with the inheritance of a corrupted nature.

[Bobby]

So one verse comes to mind. I wonder if you would view it as being related. It's Hebrews 7:9 when we're talking about Abraham tithing to Melchizedek and The writer of Hebrews says, and in a sense, Levi himself, who receives the tenth, has paid a tenth through Abraham, for he was still within his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. So it's almost as if the good deed of giving the tithe to Melchizedek was imputed to Levi, Abraham's ancestor. And in a similar way, is Adam's sin imputed to us because we are still within our ancestors?

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

You remember, I think Moose said, that we can think of this either in terms of Adam's being our representative. He acts on our behalf before God, and therefore his acts are our acts. Or the alternative was what you just mentioned a peculiarly Hebrew idea of a kind of corporate solidarity with Adam, as it says he was still in the loins of his ancestor when. When Melchizedek met him. Is there some kind of corporate solidarity of all Adam's descendants with Adam himself, in virtue of which they can be reckoned to be sinners? So that would be two ways of trying to understand how we are in Adam in such a way that his sin could be imputed to us. Yes.

[Cindy]

Cindy, just a comment. I know in other scriptural passages there are reference to our sin nature, and it seems to me that is the very core of our being not imputed as such, but that is our nature. It's a sinful nature. And it seems that would support the second alternative, I think.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Correct. I think that those would be passages that you would use to try to support the second alternative. I would just resist saying things like that. It is. I forget how you put it. Something like the very sin nature of our being or core of our nature, because when we're redeemed in Christ and the sin nature is eliminated, it's not as though we are going to cease to be human or cease to exist. Sin is an intruder. It's a perversion and a distortion of our true natures, which are reflections of the image of God and therefore good.

[Cindy]

But that would be our fallen nature.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes, that Christ. Yeah, that is this alternative, that there is a kind of fallenness in our nature inherited from Adam. Yes, yes. Keshe.

[Keshe]

Bill, it seems like from what you just said, that fits real well with this verse 1 Corinthians 15:49, where it says, and just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. So it's like that seems like that would be more like the second alternative, that this isn't our true selves, but we've had this image of sin that we're born with from Adam, but we're going to have the image of sinlessness.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Now, you weren't here last week, were you?

[Keshe]

I was not.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Okay, that's what I thought. That passage we discussed last week, and I think that verse which we discussed, taken out of context or read in light of Romans 5 would bear very much the interpretation you gave it. But what I argued last week is that when you read the passage and the verse in context, what Paul is talking about there is not condemnation versus justification, as he is in Romans 5. Rather, it's talking about physical mortality versus resurrection life, that we will exchange this corruptible, mortal, dishonorable body for a glorious, immortal, spiritual body. And so the contrast in First Corinthians 15 is not the same contrast that is laid out in Romans 5 that we're just looking at.

[Keshe]

So it's really more the body that that's talking about.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Pardon me?

[Keshe]

It's more the body that that's talking about.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes, exactly. First Corinthians 15 is about your physical body. It's not about your true self or spiritual identity that you have in Romans 5, I think. So look at the transcript from last week and see if you're persuaded or not of this view. Someone else who hasn't asked a question yet before we go back to Bruce.

[Bruce]

All right, Bruce, thank you for the addendum. I would think the first explanation of imputation of actual sin goes against Jeremiah, where they were saying, well, the Son's teeth are on edge because the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and God said, I'll banish this saying from you because everybody bears their own sin. You don't inherit this from.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes, there are similar verses in Ezekiel, isn't it the soul that sins shall die? And don't utter this proverb anymore. So, as I say, these passages have been enormously controversial, theologically pitting, for example, Reformed and Catholic theologians who believe in imputation of sin and are being held guilty for Adam's sin versus, say, Methodist or Wesleyan or other Arminian theologians who would tend to interpret it more in line with the corrupted nature rather than with the imputation of sin. And they've often appealed to the sort of verses you just mentioned. And I'm not going to try to settle that controversy now, when we get to the doctrine of sin, we can talk about that more. What I simply want to do is to show that whether you adopt the view of the imputation of sin or you adopt the view of corrupted nature, both of them imply that Paul taught the historicity of Adam that he was teaching that there was an actual historical individual. Now the question is, does Paul though teach that we have inherited a corrupted human nature from Adam? As Professor Moo observes, the doctrine is perhaps surprisingly nowhere to be found in Romans 5:12, 21. We tend to read it there, but in fact when you look at the passage, it's nowhere to be found in that passage. And so that occasions the question, is there no other third alternative to imputation or corrupted nature for explaining why sin is so universal among the human race? Well, of course there is another alternative. Our inherent self seeking animal nature in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised suffices to explain why sin is universal among humanity that explains why all have sinned. And it's worth noting, I think in passing, that when in Romans chapters one to three, Paul develops his doctrine of the universality of sin and condemnation of all men before God, he makes no appeal at all to the doctrine of original sin in any form. In Romans 5:12 21 then, Paul is on this view describing how the sin of Adam unleashes the power that results in all persons sinning with the result that they are condemned to a spiritual death. Now, a moment's reflection reveals that this interpretation of Paul's Adam Christology also requires that Adam be a historical person for sin and spiritual death are said to enter the world through him and to affect in turn all his descendants, including us. Paul's expressions before the law was given and from Adam to Moses show that he is denominating real epics of human history as affected by Adam's act. An action that is wholly internal to a fiction cannot have effects outside the fiction. Only an action that is external to the fiction can have real world effects. So it follows that Adam and his sin are not just believed by Paul to be historical, but are actually asserted by Paul to be historical. He's saying that Adam opened the floodgate through which sin came into the world and then spread to all men. Any comment or question about that third alternative reading? Yes, Bobby?

[Bobby]

Do we have any sense of what the original hearers, or maybe the audience would have? Did they wrestle with these kinds of questions? Was he?

[Jonathan]

You're just.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Surely they must have. I mean, the book of Romans is so rich. Surely as Paul's Roman readers, who included both Gentiles and Jews, heard this letter read aloud to them in their worship gathering, they must have scratched their heads and said, what does he mean?

[Bobby]

I meant in contemporary Jewish culture, like the distinction you made of belief versus he is asserting that it's a historical act.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Right.

[Bobby]

Did a lot of Jewish believers, you think, or early Christian believers not think that that was.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

No, no. On the contrary, Bobby, when you read the inter testamental Jewish literature between the close of the Old Testament canon and the advent of Jesus during those centuries, there is widespread Jewish literature that's called pseudepigrapha. That is to say, they were written under pseudonyms, things like 4 Ezra and 1st Enoch and wisdom of Solomon. And then there are apocryphal Jewish books as well, like first and Second Maccabees and things of that sort. And when you read this Jewish pseudepigraphal and apocryphal literature, none of those treatments of Adam, and they talk about Adam a lot, none of them denies that he was a historical person. They put him to different theological uses. These intertestamental Jewish books will use the literary Adam as a sort of example or mouthpiece for many different sorts of things. But they all take it for granted that he actually existed and was the original person from whom the human race descended.

[Bobby]

So I guess. Follow up question, if I can jump in. So his assertion that it was historical wasn't some big challenge to a competing.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

No, no, no, not at all. Not at all. It would have been. And right in line with what was thought among Jews at that time. Okay. Well, it should be evident, I think, that my argument for taking Paul to assert that Adam was a real person of history is not defeated by simply distinguishing between the literary adam of Genesis 2 and 3 and the historical Adam. For the argument is not based on on Paul's contrasting Adam with Christ, a literary figure with a person of history, but rather on the real world causal effects of Adam's sin. It's impossible, for example, for Hamlet, though an individual in Shakespeare's play, to have real world effects, because Hamlet does not exist in the real world, but exists only in the play. That is to say, in the play, unlike, for example, Macbeth's vision of a dagger, Hamlet exists. So Paul thus teaches that Adam was a real person of history. And this view accords with the genealogies that structure the primeval history in the book of Genesis. As we've seen, for the genealogies treat Adam and his descendants as real people. In that case, we cannot rule out a priori the possibility of Paul's having some knowledge of the Adam of history on the basis of his knowledge of Genesis. Any discussion or question about that point before we wrap up? Yes, down here, Cindy.

[Cindy]

Just to clarify on that particular view, then Are we saying that children are born basically blameless until they, being exposed to rampant sin, respond to it by sinning? Am I correct in that understanding? True.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Both on the corrupted nature interpretation and. And on the view that there is no corrupted nature, but that we are born into a corrupted world so that as we grow older, sinning comes very naturally. So either of those alternatives would see infants as guiltless or blameless, but as

[Cindy]

they age, let's say they become selfish or those kinds of things, then we're saying that's not coming so much from within as it is from observing and sensing how the world is.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I haven't endorsed any one of these three views. I've just laid them out and said that each one of them, according to that one. Yeah. That each one of them implies a historical atom. Now, on that third view, what you would say, I think, is that we have, in virtue of being, or having, I should put it, animal bodies. We have bodies that are very similar to the primates. Indeed, that's the way a biologist would class us, that we have within us the same innate propensity for selfish behavior because it's conducive to survival. You need to look out for your own self interests if you're not going to be run over and destroyed. So little children will have inherently this kind of predisposition to selfishness because it's conducive to survival and the struggle to survive. And when they become of age, where they become accountable, morally accountable, then they become morally responsible for these desires and behavior. I'm not suggesting they're determined to do evil. These propensities can be resisted. We have free will. But when you reach a certain age of accountability, then these actions would become sin.

[Jonathan]

Yes, Jonathan, the first thing that came to mind when you were explaining that was like psychological egoism. You know, the idea that no matter what, any action that you perform is somehow done out of ego and out of self interest. How do you think you're. If you would accord with that? Because I know people, for example, that think even breathing is.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I wouldn't buy that. I mean, what Jonathan's talking about is this sweeping generalization that there is no truly altruistic behavior that's just done out of the goodness of your heart. It's all. All self seeking and self interest. So even if you give your life for somebody else, somehow this gives you a feeling of feeling good about yourself. And so you're really acting in self interest. And I don't see any reason to think that something like that is true. And I think that especially for someone who is a Christian filled with the spirit of God, he's not imprisoned by those sorts of selfish desires, but God can help him to act in truly generous and loving ways that are not merely self seeking.

[Jonathan]

Okay, thank you.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

That's not to say, of course, that our motives are often mixed and tainted. I think probably we've all felt that where, you know, we give to some cause and gee, we feel good about that, you know, I'm so generous. So certainly as fallen people, our motives are often mixed. But to say they're entirely selfish I think would be far too sweeping a generalization. Well, let's wrap up now. The several references by New Testament authors to mythological or pseudepigraphical figures caution us to avoid overly easy proofs of Old Testament historicity. On the basis of New Testament authority, such figures can be merely literary and illustratively employed. Similarly, some New Testament references to Adam and other figures and events of the primeval history may describe merely the story world of Genesis, requiring at most, truth in a story. But in First Corinthians 15, and especially, I think, in Romans 5, we do have clear assertions of the historicity of Adam. What is asserted of the historical Adam in these key passages doesn't, however, really go beyond what we've already affirmed on the basis of our genre analysis of the primeval history in Genesis 1:11, namely that there was a progenitor of the entire human race at some time in the past through whose disobedience moral evil entered the world. I think the New Testament simply underlines or ratifies what we've already learned from our study of Genesis. Whether we understand Paul to teach that Adam's sin was imputed to every one of his descendants, or that Adam's sin corrupted human nature and thus affected all of his progeny, or that Adam's sin opened the floodgates to sin which then infected all who came after him. Adam is regarded by Paul as a historical person whose actions affect the course of history. Now we might prefer not to settle the question of just how Adam's sin affects all of mankind. Since Paul didn't himself seek to explain this relationship, maybe we should just refrain as well. Still, it remains the case that Adam's sin is, in Paul's thinking, in some sense the fount of the sin and spiritual death that beset our world, and that suffices for the affirmation of a historical Adam. Let's close with the benediction and now may the God of grace who consigned all to sin, that he might have mercy upon all, sanctify you to present you holy and blameless before his throne, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith.org.