Some theologians want to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis in such a way as to deny it’s historicity, particularly with regard to a literal Adam. However French theologian Henri Blocher offers some compelling thoughts on this position when he writes,
“…may we follow Brunner and Ricoeur and value the meaning while discarding the event? [i.e. literal fall of Adam] Their statement of the significance of the Genesis sequence, whereby evil is introduced after creation, is coupled with an equally vocal rejection of that same sequence as having really occurred in time and space. The question cannot be avoided: is it responsible theology to retain and enjoy the ‘profit’ of a historical understanding of sin without ‘paying the price’?
Since Immanuel Kant, modern theology has often tried to extol the meaning for faith of the great events of the gospel while denying their factual base in the name of rational criticism…”
(Original Sin, Illuminating the Riddle. pg.58)
He then asks a penetrating question,
“Is it possible to dehistoricize a message built on the testimony that these events happened?”
Finally, he goes on to perceptively assert,
Only historical (and thus responsible) evil may be vanquished and perfectly eliminated…..Only if the problem is historical will the solution happen.” (Ibid. pg. 62)
Anyone denying the historicity of Adam has a serious and, I think, insurmountable problem on their hands with regard to redemption. As Blocher rightly points out, they want the ‘profit’ (salvation from sin through a literal Christ) without ‘paying the price’ (a literal Adam from whom they inherit original sin).
Such a position displays shallow and unbiblical thinking…