The Calvinist International is quickly becoming one of my favorite sites.
Peter Escalante casts his hat into the arena of historical Adam discussion here.
See also another fine post from Steven Wedgeworth here.
How do you read the Bible? Is the Bible just a book that teaches us how we are to live, or is it more than that? The Bible is God’s story of salvation. It makes all the difference in the world how we read the Scriptures.
For instance, when we read in the Scriptures that God used Peter and John to heal the lame man (Acts 3), what should be our response? The answer all depends on whether a person views the Bible as a book of morals, or God’s story of salvation. If we view it as a moral book, then the result will be a desire for us to find a lame man and ask God to work through us like He worked through Peter and John; besides, “God is no respecter of persons.” Yet, if we view the Bible as God’s story, then the result will be a deeper appreciation and devotion in us toward the God who heals those who cannot heal themselves. This lame man was healed by the lamb who takes away the sins of the world.
If we are reading the Bible as God’s salvation story, then when we read about a leper or a lame man, it should automatically remind us of our own condition. As sons of Adam, we are spiritual lepers. We cannot heal ourselves. We were born sinners. When we see the lame, we should remember that we have no ability to come to God unless He draws us.
In 2 Samuel 9, we are introduced to a lame man by the name of Mephibosheth. He lived far from the king. He was a descendant of Saul, so he was a natural enemy of the king. He had no intention of ever seeking out the king. He was a rejected refugee. Mephibosheth was as good as dead. He hid from the king and was not part of the king’s family. But the king called Mephibosheth and gave him life. He gave him an inheritance and adopted him. He made him a son with all rights and privileges.
A moral book? Then, we should praise God for David and try to imitate king David.
A book about God’s salvation history? Then we stand in awe of how our King humbled Himself and came to earth to show us mercy. He gave us new life, an inheritance, and the adoption of sons. This story should evoke gratitude for the wisdom and kindness of our God – The Lamb of God came to earth to heal lame.
“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen
I’ll be following up on my previous post, but in the mean time, this post by Steven Wedgeworth from The Calvinist International is a must read. Just consider a few quotes:
“If the first Adam was mythical, then the nature and work of the Second Adam, precisely as Second Adam, would have to be mythical as well. This does not mean that the Judæan man whom Paul identified as the Second Adam was himself a myth, nor that his life did not unfold in real history. Rather it would mean that his redemptive identity, along with the nature of what He said was his work, was merely mythical, not an objective event with objective effects. He would have been seeking to fulfill a myth.
The resurrection sometimes figures in this discussion in an especially complicated way. Its historicity is undeniably a hallmark of orthodoxy, a non-negotiable doctrine whose status as such has been hard-fought in the last century. Some of those who wish to deny the historicity of Adam think they can take a stand on the doctrine of the historical resurrection. We must remember, however, that our belief in the historical resurrection is not merely a product of proof-texting, as if 1 Corinthians 15:12–19 simply commands fideistic assent. No, the historicity of the resurrection is tied in with the historicity of death and the sure reality of the world to come. The resurrection is where Christ completes the re-capitulatory atonement, and so again, if the Adamic backstory is mythical, so too is the recapitulation.”
It would be argued by some that the historicity of Adam is not true simply because a particular theological system requires it to be so in order to stand. Of course, my response is “What about the historicity of the Resurrection? Does your theological system require that to be true?” Apparently, it’s ok with regard to doctrines that are acceptable, not so much with those we wish to explain away.
Update: See also Dr. Enns’ Brief Response
And Steve Hays contribution: Adam in Scripture