朗文：“Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that we are sinful because of Adam’s sin.”
Darren M. Slade 回应：This is the first I’ve heard of it. Perhaps you ought to modify your statement to read, “My evolutionary interpretation of the Bible does not allow it to say that we are sinful because of Adam’s sin.” There are a lot of scholars, theologians, and commentaries that would disagree with your statement (see the list of people above). I can’t find a single dictionary, encyclopedia, commentary, or systematic theology in my library that does not endorse the idea what we are sinners because of Adam’s sin (and I have a big library!). The primary point of contention is not if but HOW Adam’s sin is imputed to us.
朗文：“Romans 5:12 does not teach that our sinful nature comes from Adam, but rather we are sinners because we sinned (not because Adam sinned).”
Darren M. Slade 回应： I must remind you, orthodox Christianity says the opposite. We are not sinners because we sinned. That would imply we were born without a sin nature and that we were perfectly clean until we chose to sin (this is the heresy of Pelagianism). Rather, orthodox Christianity says that we sin because we are sinners; we possess a sin nature from birth. Only Adam can claim to have become a sinner through the act of sin. It is significant to note that the majority of systematic theologies use Romans 5:12-21 as evidence for inherited sin.
奇怪的是，其实四年前，Bruce Waltke 已经在一个采访视频中发表过关于进化论的言论。华尔基的原话：“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult … some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”改革宗神学院要求华尔基撤下这个已经被公开的视频。华尔基很快就从改革宗神学院辞职。2尽管他自己澄清说不是改革宗神学院要求他辞职，3很多人猜测这是他辞职的主要原因。一篇文章直接取标题为《一个视频终结了一份工作》。4
以上提到的几位学者，观点并不是完全一样的。但是在亚当的历史性和进化论这两个问题的处理上，我们可以看到一些共同点。最大的共同点就是他们似乎都把进化论接受为真理。所以，他们必须把圣经的创世叙事和进化论做协调。Peter Enns 后来出了一本书：“The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins (2012)”。我还没机会读这本书。不过我想上面那几篇博文基本上可以反映他这本书的内容了。
前哥顿‧康威尔神学院院长华德‧凯瑟（Walter Kaiser）在一篇书评文章中指出 Enns 的问题是，他用第二圣殿期的解经法来解释圣经，然后用现代科学作为其方法论的补充（The problem remaining for Enns though, is that he reads Scripture in a novel way by using second temple practices from the first Christian century, and then supplements this approach with current statements of modern science）。9
事实上，Enns 在他 2005 年出版的 “Inspiration and Incarnation”一书中就已经坦诚他的前设：“I want to move beyond that by allowing the evidence to affect how we think about what Scripture as a whole is (p. 15).”“I assume that the extrabiblical archeological and textual evidences should play an important role in our understanding of Scripture . . . All attempts to articulate the nature of Scripture are open to examination, including my own (pp. 48-49).”
哥顿‧康威尔神学院第一任院长奥肯加（Harold John Ockenga）博士在福音派大复兴时期发挥了重要的作用。别人称他为“福音派先生”（Mr. Evangelical）。他当时明确提出福音派在神学立场上和基要派是一脉相承的。与基要派不同的是：福音派不再采取基要派从社会上撤离的策略。10所以，在福音派大复兴时期，“福音派”一词是能够表达比较明确的神学立场的。
但是现在“福音派”一词已经不能说明一个人的神学立场了。福音派内部的人会指责另一方为“自由派”。比如朗文在前面提到的 Logos 博文下与读者互动中辩称：“I feel that is a bit unfair to write me off (or other supporters of evolutionary creationism like Bruce Waltke) as liberal. I take a lot of unpopular views with the “liberal” wing of Christianity: date of Daniel, Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, etc.) I don’t try to write off the conquests of Joshua as subChristian. I even go against the archeological consensus which says that there was no Exodus or conquest… So when I think the Bible teaches something since I believe it is the inerrant word of God then I take that over other views. I just try to follow the biblical text.”