Peter Enns has a forthcoming book entitled The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins.
Content aside, another basic problem with his book is that he already tipped his hand by doing a series at BioLogos. We know his position, as well as his supporting arguments, before we crack open the book.
It’s like couples who cohabit before they marry. Their wedding night is anticlimactic. Their honeymoon is just another vacation. They know exactly what to expect. It becomes a rerun rather than a discovery.
For folks like me who don't read Biologos this will all be new. And besides, Biologos doesn't look nice on a shelf.
ReplyDeleteI see that the Enns justifies the means for you, Nick.
ReplyDeletePete and his family used to be members at our church. Last year I said to someone at church (Westminster faculty), "I wonder how long it will be before Pete rejects the historicity of Adam altogether?" He didn't think it would take long, and we both agreed that it was inevitable, given Pete's convictions as outlined in his book and given the fight he put up to retain his position at Westminster.
ReplyDeleteOh, I meant to add that my point was that if no first Adam, no need for a second Adam. I can see what's coming down the road, and it's nothing less than a complete repudiation of the gospel, the Scriptures, and Christ Himself. I think it's inevitable.
ReplyDeleteJamin Hubner is reviewing a talk from Enns on his podcast these days. It's pretty decent stuff except when he (Hubner) reiterates his whiff on OEC.
ReplyDelete