Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is about 200 pages, soft cover, published in 2011 by Crossway.

Very informative book that delves into the Near Eastern background around the time of Moses and also around the time of the Apostles, quoting Josephus and others. He also quotes the Apocrypha that clearly states Adam was a real person. His conclusion is in line with what the Church has basically always held: if Adam and Eve were not really historical persons, why would we think Christ and the apostles were such? Paul basis his argument of Christ’s righteousness being applied to us on the fact of Adam’s real fall into sin, and also basis his argument for the resurrection on Adam’s real fall: “By man came death, by Man came also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:21). Because Eve was deceived and not Adam, Paul does not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2), etc.

Moreover, Jesus based His argument for marriage on what many today deny: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’”(Matt. 19:4; see also Mark 10:6). The genealogy of Christ goes back to Adam (Luke 3:38); the genealogy in Chronicles begins with Adam (1 Chron. 1:1); and Israel transgressed her covenant like Adam did (Hosea 6:7 ESV) and so on.

For an easy to read book that covers every conceivable passage regarding Adam in the Bible, this is it. If you need to do any research on Adam and Eve as historic persons, look no further.

The Church has never understood Adam and Eve as metaphors to help us understand the Bible, but as real persons, as the Bible clearly presents. It is usually modern distaste for the Bible that leads liberal scholars to deny the obvious. I decided decades ago that I would not be embarrassed by what God said in His written word. AMEN.

Difference between American Independence and French Revolution

August, 2012, by the Rev. Dr. Curtis Crenshaw

In the 1770s before the defensive war for Independence, John Wesley wrote “A Calm Address to Our American Colonies,” in which he invoked the idea that we should submit to the governing authorities as ordained by God. An anonymous person responded with “A Constitutional Answer to Wesley’s Calm Address,” accusing Wesley of  plagiarism as well as a gross misunderstanding of the Constitutional law that bound the Colonies and England, that such law had been sorely abused by England, thus nullifying the agreement. Then I’ve added a third section on the “Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate,” which explains how we did things correctly to declare ourselves independent of abuse, and how that doctrine says the law is king (God’s law, that is), and denies that the king is the law. In other words, there is no divine right of kings to do as they please, but like everyone else, they are under God’s law. Please click here to get the pdf version of the whole thing.

An Uncommon Union

The subtitle of this book is Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism, written by one of my favorite professors ever, John D. Hannah.  When I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) back in the early 1970s, Hannah was a professor in the church history department.  Hannah covers the history of DTS–and to a great extent of evangelicalism–beginning with the late 1800s.  Though DTS did not begin until 1924, the movement that spawned it began with the Niagara Bible conferences in the late 1800s with James Brooks, C. I. Scofield, and others.   Hannah discusses John Gresham Machen and his correspondence with Chafer and the same regarding Warfield and Chafer.  I knew that Lewis Sperry Chafer, the main founder of DTS and its president from 1924 to 1952, was influenced by the lawyer C. I. Scofield, but I did not know how much.  Chafer himself said that Scofield was his mentor, and he dedicated several of his books to Scofield.  Neither Scofield nor Chafer had formal theological training, knew Greek and Hebrew, or cared for church history.  If one reads the doctrinal statement of DTS and Chafer’s systematic theology (I’ve read all seven volumes), it shows.

Moreover, Hannah demonstrates that Chafer was an odd mixture of Calvinism, Arminianism (he calls it Keswick), and Plymouth Brethren, believing in predestination but rejecting the sovereignty of God in sanctification, given to Keswick theology in that area.  Warfield took Chafer’s book to task (see Warfield’s review on this blog), He That Is Spiritual, and demonstrated that Chafer’s view sanctification was Arminian, based on Keswick theology and thus a works system, whereby one must “yield” to the Holy Spirit to make progress.  In other words, “ought” (obedience) became the basis for “is” (God’s grace).  Warfield challenged how and where did one get the ability to yield.  If one must “yield” to have sanctification, one then has the option not to “yield,” which in turn means sanctification is optional.  Thus, antinomianism is possible.  We have the mixed up theology of reformed in the first tense of salvation (past tense, “saved” from the penalty of sin, based rightly on election, chosen by God), Arminian in the second tense of salvation (present tense, being saved from the power of sin, Keswick, based on one’s ability to “yield” to the Spirit, whatever that means), and Plymouth Brethren in the third tense of salvation (will be saved from the presence of sin, based on the rapture).  It has been my observation that such a view unlinks the golden chain of salvation, making each tense separate from the others, rather than one chain linked together.  Since the rapture only applies to the church, one wonders if Old Testament saints will be glorified.  I’ll talk more about these matters in the latest edition of my book, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, if I can get out another edition soon.

Hannah divides the book up into the five presidencies in chronological order: Chafer, Walvoord, Campbell, Swindoll, and now Bailey.  If you want to know the inside history of the major dispensational school in the world, and of dispensationalism itself, this is the book to get.  Hannah discusses the three phases of dispensationalism, classic (Scofield, Chafer, C. I. Scofield Bible), moderate or revised (Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, New Scofield Bible), and now the progressive (Blaising, Bock, and too many to mention.  Words in bold print are their words).  If you want to know about this movement’s history and theological development, especially its development toward covenant theology in the third phase, this is the book to get.  As usual with Hannah, it is clear and well written.

Theological Interpretation of American History

C. Gregg Singer, Ph.D., A Theological Interpretation of American History, Revised Edition. I knew Dr. Singer as a friend, and he was one of the most underrated scholars in the USA. He was a tremendous Christian and historian, as well as a biblical scholar. This is one of the best books I’ve ever read on the rise and decline of the USA. By all means, get this one! He went home to be with Christ about 15 years ago.