Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | May 28, 2011

5. Fox in the Hen House! – Enns Rejects Adam

Fox cub with prey

Continuing the Fox in the Hen House! series of blog posts exposing heresy about Genesis …

Is a Bible scholar who proclaims,
“Adam is a myth!”
trustworthy?

Such false teachers lead people astray concerning Genesis and concerning New Testament teaching based on Genesis, even to the point of subverting the Gospel.

The heretics include respected scholars claiming to be evangelicals. They question the truth of Scripture and undermine the doctrines of the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

This series of reports focuses primarily on scholars associated with the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos is committed to the marriage of scientism and Christianity through persuading Christians to accept evolutionism and billions of years for the age of the earth by arguing that Genesis 1-11 is mythical or metaphorical.

This fifth post of the series continues exposing the position of BioLogos on Adam, the progenitor of the human race. Quotes from the previous post revealed BioLogos founder Dr. Francis Collins’ beliefs about Adam.

This post features quotes from the BioLogos Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies, Dr. Peter Enns. He is writing a Bible curriculum for children that is being marketed to homeschoolers. A subsequent blog post in this series will cover Enns’ curriculum in more detail. Enns is a former tenured professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary who was removed for his heretical beliefs (more to come on this in subsequent blogs).

These men do not believe in Adam as a historical figure. They do not believe Adam was a real man that walked this earth.

Dr. Peter Enns

Peter Enns on Adam
Enns helped draft this very revealing official BioLogos statement on Adam and the Fall which represents the position of both Enns and BioLogos:
“How does the Fall fit into evolutionary history? Were Adam and Eve historical figures?”

These questions themselves indicate the presuppositions and mindset of BioLogos. Here are excerpts from this official statement on the BioLogos website:

“How does the Fall fit into an evolutionary history, where the Earth is billions of years old, and humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago most likely in Africa? Is the story of Adam and Eve actual history, or is something else going on here? … This literal reading implies that God specially created Adam and Eve from dust, and that all humans are descended from these original parents. … The literalist reading, despite its attractive simplicity, does not fit the evidence.”

“The (scientific) evidence argues strongly against a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation account of humans. … The Fall was not a historical event but an illustration of the common human condition that virtually everyone agrees is deeply flawed and sinful. In this view, Adam and Eve were not intended to be presented as historical figures. Their deeds simply represent the actions of all humans and remind us of this troubling part of our natures.”

“The historicity of Adam seems to be assumed by the apostle Paul. In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15), Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity … Since Jesus is an historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be an historical figure in the very same sense. You cannot have one part of the analogy be symbolic and the other historical. Plus, if Paul believed in an historical Adam as the first human, Christians should too. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data.”

Here Enns admits that Paul believed Adam was historically the first human. The argument he gives is logically compelling. Additionally, if Jesus was historical, then his ancestor Adam given in Luke’s genealogy must also have been historical. If Adam was mythical, then all his descendants were mythical and none were real, including Jesus.

However, Enns throws all this over in favor of his interpretation of scientific data. Enns exalts a particular interpretation of data above the clear message of the Bible. He says he can’t believe the Bible because scientists think something different.

Continuing with excerpts from Enns’ essay:

“Another view sees human-like creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the Image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil — an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences that have carried through the history of Homo divinus.

This view can fit whether the humans in question constitute a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine God interacts with all members of the group and essentially initiates the relationship that exists today. If the initiative is with a single human couple, then that relationship can spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population comes to dominate.

These views require a non-literal reading of the Adam story, which follows from the details of the story itself (as we saw above), and from the genetic evidence, and from the significant amount of corroborating textual data that we have from the ancient Mesopotamian world. These views can also preserve the representational role of either a human pair or a larger initial population.

Clearly, BioLogos and Peter Enns do not accept the plain literal truth of the Genesis record. They do not believe in a specific individual named Adam who lived on this earth about 6,000 years ago. They do not believe in Adam’s specific act of disobedience in eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They do not believe in a single human pair (Adam and Eve) from whom all humans descended.

Instead of interpreting the scientific data in light of the truth revealed by Yahweh in Genesis, they pervert the Genesis record to fit an interpretation of the data that is currently popular among scientists, namely evolutionism and billions of years.

My analysis of Enns’ teaching will continue in the next blog post.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Read the prequels in this Fox in the Hen House! series of blog posts exposing
heresy about Genesis:
1. Fox in the Hen House! – BioLogos Promotes Heresy
2. Fox in the Hen House! – BioLogos Rejects Inerrancy
3. Fox in the Hen House! – Colleges Compromise on Genesis
4. Fox in the Hen House! – BioLogos Founder Rejects Adam

Read the sequel:
6. Fox in the Hen House! – Enns Rejects Adam #2

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3)
Saturday May 28, 2011 A.D.

Read my May 2011 newspaper column:
When the Sun Stood Still.

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

About these ads

Responses

  1. He’s right. Adam wasn’t a real man. You Christians are all about forgiveness right? So forgive him, I mean he only made that decision based on overwhelming evidence.

    Like


What do you think? Leave a comment... and please pray for the BSG ministry!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,292 other followers

%d bloggers like this: