Why Does the Historical Adam Matter So Much?

Dr. Sean McDowell asks Dr. Craig about why the historical Adam is such an important topic if none of the ecumenical councils ever addressed it?

DR. MCDOWELL: There's a ton of debate about the historical Adam. It's one of the hottest questions in the intersection of science and faith. But one question is: Why does the historical Adam matter so much? Because it wasn't addressed as far as I'm aware in any ecumenical council such as the Nicene Creed.

DR. CRAIG: Right. For those who hold to the doctrine of Original Sin, that is to say, that we are culpable for Adam's sin, or that Adam's sin corrupted human nature and we all bear that disease, the historical Adam is absolutely crucial because if he is merely a fictional character that never existed obviously we cannot be culpable for the wrongdoing of a fictional person or be corrupted by his fault. Now I myself don't hold to that classical doctrine of Original Sin. I think that that is neither taught in Genesis 3 nor in Romans 5. I think what Paul teaches is that Adam was the floodgate through which sin entered into the human race, and then sin spread to all men because, as Paul says, all men sin. Now, if that's right, it means Adam has to be a historical person because, again, if he were purely fictional then sin could not have entered the human race through this individual. So I think that that requires a historical Adam. I also think that the consequences of denying the historical Adam are very serious. They send reverberations through your theology that will affect first of all your doctrine of inspiration and then your doctrine of Christ. If it's true that Paul, for example, teaches that there was a historical Adam through whom sin came into the world, and yet that is false, then you have to say that the Bible teaches falsehoods, and that is going to require you to revise your doctrine of inspiration in such a way that inspiration is consistent with the teaching of error. Moreover, since Jesus plausibly believed that Adam was a historical person, you're going to have to explain how Jesus can be divine and yet hold false beliefs. One of the essential properties of divinity is omniscience, and an omniscient person cannot hold false beliefs (he only believes truths). So if Jesus believed falsehoods then how can he be omniscient? How can he be divine? You're going to have to revise your Christology in such a way that Jesus could hold, or seemingly hold, false beliefs and yet be divine. And so I do think that there are very, very serious reverberations that will result from the denial of the historical Adam.