Tying Up Some Loose Enns, part 1


A few weeks ago Dave and I went to an Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Nyack, NY at the Alliance Theological Seminary. The two main speakers were Peter Enns and John (Jack) Collins, the topic addressed was the historicity of Adam. Dr. Enns’ presentation was thoughtful and articulate. His words were measured as he had clearly wrestled with some problematic questions. I certainly respect his desire to come to sound biblical conclusions, but as with all wrestling, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

For Dr. Enns, Adam is simply a myth. He’s a part of Israel’s origin story, which had as its’ backdrop other Ancient Near Eastern literature (i.e. other origin stories with some parallels, The Enuma Elish, for example) After his presentation there was some Q&A. One person mentioned that Paul believed Adam was a historical figure, as clearly stated in Romans 5. Professor Enns advised that Paul was a 1st century Jew who believed the conventions of his day. Following this, someone else brought up the fact that Jesus himself believed in a historical Adam. To which Dr. Enns advised that Jesus too was a 1st century Jew who believed the conventions of the day. In other words, Paul and Jesus were mistaken.

This presents us with some interesting questions. If Paul was mistaken about this matter, what else was Paul mistaken about? Was he right with regard to doctrinal formulations and propositional truths, but confused about material facts? Was he correct about his interpretation of OT texts, or was he wielding them for his own purposes in seeking to proclaim and exhalt the One whom he thought was the Christ?

But further than this, what if Jesus was mistaken about Adam? Could Jesus himself believe something which was untrue, and then apply that error in making a theological point about God’s original intention in marriage (Mt. 19:4-5)? And if so, where does it stop? How do we discern what is true and false?

Let’s ask an additional question. If Jesus as a man was mistaken about historical facts, how do we know he was correct about any statement he made? What kind of duality does this create? Jesus could be wrong in his humanity, but never wrong in his divinity? He knew heavenly things, but not earthly things? Of course, no one with an orthodox view of Christology suggests that Jesus knew everything in his humanity (like how to speak French or do complicated algorithms), but that when he spoke he knew everything truthfully and accurately pertaining to the things he said.

Dr. Enns’ presentation deflated rather quickly after this. The implication of his position could be re-stated this way:

Jesus was a man of his times and subject to the conventions of his day, therefore with regard to Adam, Jesus was wrong.

Paul was a man of his times and subject to the conventions of his day, therefore with regard to Adam, Paul was wrong.

Peter Enns, in spite of being a man of his times and subject to the conventions of his day, is correct with regard to Adam.

This is one of those situations where to state the position is to refute the position, but I’ll let you be the judge.

C.M. Granger

All or Some?

You deserve the glory

And the honor

Lord we lift our hands in worship

As we lift Your Holy Name

If you were asked the question, “all or some?”  What would be your answer? For most people it would be contingent upon the question, or better still, the complete question.  If the complete question was, “Do you want all or some of the money I borrowed from you?”  Most people would say all.  If the question was, “Do you want to carry all or some of the bricks?  Most would say some.  It all depends.  But as Christians, we should have an unified, universal, and unwavering answer to the following question, “Who should get all the glory for man’s salvation?”  Most Christians would say that God should and does, but is this truth reflected in the things we teach and sing?

The great puritan preacher, George Whitefield, penned these words to a follow minister in 1739, when he observed that it was “The doctrines of the Reformation that did the most to debase man and exalt the Lord Jesus.  … All others leave freewill in man and make him, in part at least, a Savior to himself.” This is a great quote, but does the Bible teach this?

“It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you” (Deuteronomy 7:6).

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen as his heritage!”(Psalm 33:12).

“…You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off…” (Isaiah 41:9).

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world… (Ephesians 1:4).

 Yes, the Bible teaches that salvation is all of God.  So, back to the pivotal question: when it comes to salvation, to whom should the glory go? All or some?

Maybe the words of one of my favorite modern-day “praise songs” should be sung like this:

You deserve ALL the glory

And ALL the honor…

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy will’s sake they are, and have been created. {Revelation 4:11 – 1599 Geneva Bible}