“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death spread to all men because all sinned. . .death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the One who was to come.” (Romans 5:12, 14)
“‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45)
Talk ‘bout a battleground!!! The two texts above are provin’ to be equal to any from past eras as far as dealin’ with scriptural conflicts – yeah, the biblical Thermopylaes, Hastings, Waterloos, Yorktowns, Antietams, Argonne Forests, Normandies, Pork Chop Hills, Khe Sahns need not apply when it comes to ferocity or significance. This has the potential to be Armageddon, let me tell you! Dude!!! “Katie, bar the door!” ‘cause the barbarians are at the gate.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA!!! Wait a minute, man; quit getting’ into such a hissy-fit. Slow down, would’ya?!?!?! It can’t be all that big a deal. Well, okay, I’ll let you decide. As a preface to my remarks, though, let me take you to another issue from several years ago. For as long as I can remember, the sides in the abortion wars have fought over whether or not life begins at conception. It has always been a pitched conflict with the pro-death people sayin’, “No life is present; that which is in the uterus is only a ‘product of conception’ or ‘protoplasm’ or ‘a fetus’, at best;” while the pro-life folks maintained life’s existence from conception. Well, about ten years ago, I was reading along in a newspaper, and lo and behold, I actually saw an advertisement from the pro-abortion crowd stating that they did believe that life began at conception (but that such life had no real meaning yet). Unbelievable!!! And then, in 2004, I read this:
“At the end of the day, the truth is that when you perform an abortion you are killing something.” (Dr. David Malloy)
And,
“. . .[after watching the documentary on abortion] my hand flew to my mouth in shock. . .I swallowed, I didn’t want to say it, but the word ‘murder’ came to my lips.” (Lauren Booth)
Pro-lifers, right? Nope, no way Jose!!! Rather, you’re lookin’ at the words of a pro-abortion doctor and journalist. As difficult as it was to believe, the pro-death side finally – at long last – admitted the obvious. They had decided to ‘fess up to the logical conclusion of abortion – that it was, in reality, murder:
“. . .dismembering a baby and pulling it out in pieces. . .is obviously horrific. But at the same time, it is easy to get caught up in that emotion. . .I can take on board the emotional significance, but I still really do believe that it’s my right and I don’t regret my abortion and I would never say I would never have one again.” (Julia Black)
Dude!!! That’ll take your breath away! By the way, the title of the article from which this came was “Murder: So What?” Kind of fittin’, I’d say.
Well, there has arisen another issue that calls for the same candor and upfrontedness (is that a word???) by its advocates. For those in the church who favor or support the mainstream scientific and archaeological evidence of man’s origins (i.e., Darwinian thinkers or theistic evolutionists), it’s high time to step up to the plate and admit to your own logical conclusion: i.e., the Adam of the Bible won’t work ‘cause he doesn’t fit with the modern take on mankind’s beginnings – you jus’ can’t have both “Paul’s Adam” and the scientific and archaeological evidence currently held by modern scholarship.
What’s cool(???) is that such an admission has actually happened!!! Yep, sure has! Finally, the foes of Truth have testified that the biblical account of Adam and Eve (mankind’s origins) cannot fit with the evidence given by science and archaeology. In an article entitled “Creating Adam” (or, in Tim M’s words, “The Apostle Paul Was a Bumpkin, an’ God Don’t Know What He’s Talkin’ ‘Bout”), Pete Enns ‘fesses up:
“So, where are we with respect to Adam? For Paul, Adam and Eve were the parents of the human race. Do all Christians have to accept Paul’s interpretation of the Adam story?
“Accepting Paul’s assumptions about human origins means the scientific and archaeological evidence must be ignored or mainstream theories must be replaced with better ones. . .[but] reconfiguring the evidence to support Paul’s assumptions of a 6000 year-old earth and two humans as parents of the entire human race is, quite simply, impossible.” (BioLogos Forum [a “Christian” think-tank], April 6, 2010; emphasis mine)
Listen to what he’s sayin’: that is, the biblical text cannot fit with modern scientific and archaeological evidence – they don’t go together in any shape, fashion, or form!!! So, wha’d’ya’ do if the Bible’s Adam doesn’t match up with the modern data? Well, accordin’ to Doc Enns, in order to get a “fit” Scripture has to be adjusted, re-interpreted, or given a more modern and sophisticated understanding (and, as you’ll see in a minute or two, the best fit might be to accept the idea that Adam and Eve were evolved humanoids chosen by God a few thousand years ago to receive His image). Thus, what Paul wrote is fiction, fairy tale, fable, legend, or parable, at best.
(Now, most of you know me real well, so you probably have a feelin’ that I’m not in tune with ol’ Pete here. Let’s see: one, I do believe that Paul teaches that Adam and Eve were the parents of the entire human race; two, I do not ignore either the scientific or archaeological data – doing such is never acceptable; three, I do challenge the present interpretations of the scientific and archaeological evidence [it’s quite amazin’ how quickly and often such interpretations are “reconsidered “ and “updated” - again, I wonder what the next fifty years might do to these present interpretations]; and, four, Paul’s “assumptions” are not “impossible” but rather the inspired [literal, “breathed out”] Word of God that is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Note well the last word of the text, “righteousness” – i.e., integrity, honesty, goodness, uprightness, morality, virtue, honor, fairness, reputability, trustworthiness, et al. Doesn’t that righteousness come from God?!?!?!)
Well, check out Dr. Enns’ conclusion and confession:
“What if we affirm that Paul’s view of human origins does not settle the matter for us today? Of course, this leaves us with a pressing question: how do we think about Adam today? This is where our conversation begins for those wishing to maintain a biblical faith in a modern world. And whatever way forward is chosen, we must be clear on one thing: we have all left ‘Paul’s Adam.’ We are all ‘creating Adam,’ as it were, in an effort to reconcile Scripture and the modern understanding of human origins.
“. . .[some say that] Adam and Eve were not individuals but representatives of humanity. . .Others emphasize that Adam and Eve may not be our biological first parents, but rather our spiritual first parents. This is often reconciled with evolution by supposing that God endowed two hominids with his image at some point in natural history. In other words, God “created” Adam and Eve several thousand years ago out of a larger population. . .
“Any version [upholding ‘Paul’s Adam’]. . .is unrealistic and wrong. But once you move to [“creating Adam”]. . .you have left Paul’s Adam and are now working with an Adam that is partially and even largely shaped by your own understanding and worldview. . .” (emphasis mine)
Enns concludes his article with this most damning indictment of all: that is, if one is to accept the scientific and archaeological evidence presented, a “new Adam” (of ones own thinking and perspective as opposed to the Bible’s stated view of Adam) is required – modern evidence and old-timey Paul jus’ don’t fit together!!!!!! So, throw out Scripture for a “new way o’ thinkin’” (hey, why not, “walk right in, sit right down, daddy let your mind roll on” [yeah, Roof Top Singers, 1963]???)!!!
Good grief, who would’ve ever thought?!?!?!
Ya’ know, I used to believe that the battle with the Darwinian hordes was outside of the walls of the church; but now, I see them walkin’ down its once-holy streets in broad daylight peddlin’ their product. Hey, the watchmen must remain on the parapets; but today, more than ever before, the citizenry of God’s city must beware a fifth column that prowls inside those walls and which “secretly bring in destructive heresies. . .”
“. . .and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.” (2 Peter 2:2b [dude, you have to read 2 Peter 1:16-2:22 yourself - take my word for it, you gotta get into this text!])
Well, nobody’s ever accused me of pullin’ punches on anything.
Copyright @ 2010 CrossWind Ministry
