A review of Peter Enns' "The Evolution of Adam"...

Questions about contextualization...

Evangelical resistance to the Gospels...

Jonathan Edwards, the Holy Spirit, and Evolution: Part One and Part Two

A biblically positive view of women...

Did Paul Get Adam Wrong?

I appreciate both the biblical acumen and practical ministries represented by those within The Gospel Coalition. They are men I respect and often look to for biblical/theological insight. Recently, though, I have begun to see the importance for my own spiritual journey in not simply re-affirming the declarations of TGC (or other people/organizations I normally agree with), but, rather, completing the appropriate due diligence on the issue-at-hand.

A few weeks ago, I began a series on thinking through the historicity of Adam. On a much more popular level, this was followed up by Kevin DeYoung, as well as responses from James McGrath and Pete Enns (amongst many others).

After reading (and re-reading) their posts, I wanted to offer a few ruminations.

To begin, we ought to be cautious when declaring that those “others” are either not E/evangelicals or that they are trying to destroy what the Bible is teaching. Admittedly, I am not far-off from having done this (e.g. see my review of Rob Bell’s book); however, I have eased a bit since then by attempting to build bridges, rather than walls. In other words, although I might stridently disagree with someone over a specific issue, my conviction is that Christ will not be honored and people will not be satisfied with snarky, arrogant attitudes. I am, however inadequately, trying to do my part in building bridges.

Moving on…

I do not think that denying the historicity of Adam is necessarily a capitulation to evolution (theistic or otherwise). God, in his divine majesty and incomprehensibility, could have determined to historically create our founding father and mother as well as prescribe for the Genesis account to be written a specific way. In other words, I am not yet comfortable affirming evolution (theistic or otherwise) primarily out of ignorance to the scientific data (or lack thereof).

With that being said, I think that both McGrath and Enns, in their respective responses to DeYoung, are correct in stating that narrative does not necessarily equate with history (although it can be historical at times), and that poetry does not always have to be non-historical in nature. We cannot simply affirm the historicity of any ancient document because it is in narrative form. We must allow other factors to contribute to, and perhaps determine, our affirmations about historicity.

This is also why DeYoung’s quotation of Keller irks me. He quotes Keller as stating that, “When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority…” But this is most certainly an interpretative difficulty, wholly dependent on whether one believes that the author clearly wants the reader to understand the specific text in question as literal. For me, it seems most appropriate to suspend judgment on the literary genre of Genesis (in particular), being that I have not had sufficient time to study it on my own, nor do we have anything less than a “hung jury” on this matter of genre interpretation.

To be sure, though, Enns is not allowed to get away free and clear. It appears that Enns’ affirmation consists of viewing the Bible through a scientific lens, rather than viewing science through a biblical lens, or, perhaps, attempting to permit both science and the Bible to run as parallels. Now, as stated in my previous post, I am by no means a scientist, nor, at this point, even in the same realm of Old Testament scholarship as Enns. With that said, I am not yet comfortable affirming a scientific view of the Bible contra to a biblical view of science.

Enns, along with another dear friend who has been helping me think through this issue, seems to think that Paul misunderstood the historicity of Adam based on his scientific ignorance and possible misinterpretation of the Creation story. This, from their perspective, is what leads Paul to provide the following argument in Romans:

Paul expects to face the following argument from the Judaizers in Rome:

If the Jews received the Law/circumcision from God, then they are righteous/justified before God.

They did receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are righteous/justified before God.

Which also provides the following corollary:

If the Gentiles did not receive the Law/circumcision from God, then they are not righteous/justified before God.

They did not receive the Law/circumcision.

Therefore, they are are not righteous/justified before God.

Paul’s response to them is as such:

If Adam is the father of all, then Jews are equal to Gentiles before God.

Adam is the father of all.

Therefore, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God.

Now, if Paul did misinterpret the Creation story, we could still make an argument for the inclusion of Gentiles (i.e. the scope of salvation) based on the authority of Christ and Old Testament prophetic literature, but should we assume that Paul got it wrong?

Could Paul have had a better understanding of the genre and intent of Genesis than we do?

Should we take a scientific view of Scripture, or should we take a biblical view of science?

Can they run as parallels?

What do you think?

Adam: Actual or Allegory?

It has been almost 10 years…

I remember the summer after I turned 20 when I was first challenged with a new theological perspective: Calvinism.

Up to that point I had not heard much, if anything, about Calvinism, but I remember being simply blown away by the idea of God’s electing love, efficacious call, etc.

Since that summer I have not been simply blown away like that by another biblical/theological topic…until now.

This new (well, perhaps new for me) concept has given me reasons for pause.

My reasons for pause are twofold:

The first reason is somewhat similar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell based on the controversy surrounding Rob Bell’s most recent book, Love Wins – you can read my review here. My hope is that throughout this process I might be able to precisely outline what I believe and, perhaps more importantly, why I affirm said belief. In other words, whether a critique has been issued from a differing perspective or I am attempting to provide some insight to those within the same perspective, my desire is to be able to provide a clear, intelligent, and biblical argument for my affirmation(s).

The second reason is fairly dissimilar to my recent attempt to precisely outline my theology of hell. Throughout that recent process, I felt comfortable with where I thought I would end up, namely that upon completion of my studies I would remain “where I began” but with a bit more acumen. However, this time, I feel much less comfortable with where I think I will end up. My concern is that I will not end up “where I began.” I am also concerned about the implications of such an affirmation (i.e. How will this affect my theology? What will people think about me? Will I be ostracized from the conservative evangelical “family” because of my viewpoint?).

The above two reasons should clearly demonstrate why this issue is so important for me to think through.

Now, to the issue…

Painting broadly, the issue revolves around a few questions:

Is the Genesis account actually about human origins?

Could it possibly be about something else?

Something bigger?

Something more meaningful?

These are questions that need answers.

I recently posted a similar question as my Facebook status and received several challenges. I think what might be best, at least for me, is to address two of those challenges and demonstrate why, at least for me, they hold little weight within this discussion.

One challenge was posited as such: “[H]ow does one truly know which stories actually happened and which are just narratives? One could use this then to say that the story of Christ is just a narrative.”

I think we can nullify this challenge for three reasons:

1. We need to be sensitive to genre-specific criticism, wherein we are charged with elucidating the text in its appropriate grammatico-historical context
2. “To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic.” (Pete Enns)
3. The secular accounts of Jesus’ existence (Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Josephus, Babylonian Talmud, etc.)

A similar comment was made and ended with a declaration that we need to submit to the authority of the Bible. Let it be known: I affirm the authority of the Bible! And yet, I do not think it is that easy. Affirming the authority of the Bible is empty without a proper understanding of the text (i.e. what did the text mean then, before what does the text mean today). More often than not, Christians seek to affirm various texts as authoritative without having first completed their exegetical due diligence. Therefore, it is not enough to simply declare that we must affirm and submit to the authority of the Bible, as this affirmation and submission to authority can be harmful (if not damning) based on our understanding of the texts we declare are authoritative.

A few questions I will be pondering throughout this process:

What was the purpose behind the Genesis account? Was it a declaration of human origins? Was it a declaration of something else? Was it both?

In light of Enns’ statement above, what if God in his wisdom, majesty, and sovereignty determined to reveal (at least in small part) the origin of the universe (and humanity) through his “special” book to his “special” people?

How does theistic evolution, or Adam as metaphor, figure into a Pauline understanding of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?

As I continue my deliberatoin, my goal is to read several books (I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution, The Evolution of Adam, and Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?) and follow several blogs (Pete Enns, Karl Giberson, and The BioLogos Forum).

I encourage you to engage the issue(s)!

Lastly, please note that in no way am I claiming that I have this issue figured out...

In no way am I claiming any type of scientific or biblical/theological expertise on the matter...

My attempt is to wade through the mire that this issue presents (just as any Christian ought to!). And I do so with great trepidation...

Also, please know that I am open to, and, perhaps, expecting, your comments on this issue (regardless if they are affirmative or critical). Both types of comments should help me and those reading this blog as we collectively think through this issue.

May we have wisdom as we investigate.