The Enns Justifies the Means? A Review of the New Book by Dr. Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam by Ken Ham, AiG–U.S.

The fear of man brings a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe. (Proverbs 29:25)

Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group (which used to publish many biblical creation books), has recently released what I unhesitatingly call a heretical book, The Evolution of Adam by Dr. Peter Enns.

I noted an irony as I read the book and then saw how the publisher describes its own mission.

Brazos Press fosters the renewal of classical, orthodox Christianity by publishing thoughtful, theologically grounded books on subjects of importance to the church and the world. We serve authors and readers from all major streams of the historic Christian tradition, recognizing that the renewal of Christian orthodoxy transcends many traditional boundary lines and polarities . . . publishing excellent and accessible works by leading thinkers on topics such as spirituality, the arts, the economy, popular culture, ethics, theology, biblical studies, and the social sciences. Our readers include clergy, educated laypersons, and students seeking clear, stimulating commentary on how the riches of the Christian tradition can be brought to bear on the struggles and hopes of the present day.

I especially took note of the publisher’s claim that it seeks to uphold the “historic Christian tradition” as well as “Christian orthodoxy.” I will put that claim to the test as I review its latest book.

As I was reading The Evolution of Adam, I paused many times to underline shocking passages and take ample notes. This book review could have easily become a book in itself.

Before I summarize and critique this book, some background is needed. On the BioLogos website, Dr. Enns is described this way.

Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

Now, that’s highly interesting. If Dr. Enns is looking at “three questions . . . that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture,” how does that square with a publisher that declares it prints books about the “historic Christian tradition” and “orthodox Christianity?”

Well, let’s continue.

Here is a section extracted from one of my blogs posts, in which I quoted Dr. Enns (from the BioLogos website).

---

[Enns:] In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.

But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”

It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much.

First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).

There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.

The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.

This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains. (http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/)

[My comments:] “Enns accepts what the secular world teaches concerning evolution and millions of years, and it is so obvious this determines how he approaches the Bible. He does not have the same view of inspiration as I do. In fact, he doesn’t have the biblical view of inspiration: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

To understand Peter Enns’s approach to Genesis and Romans (which will shock you), you need to watch his lecture given at Westmont College. To make it easier for you, here are some of the sections to watch in the video:

1. 2:00–3:00
2. 3:00–5:15
3. 10:00–11:30
4. 17:00–17:15
5. 35:50–36:40
6. 45:00–49:10
7. 18:30–19:05
8. 19:05–19:40

---

Now, back to the new book by Dr. Enns.

The book is really divided into two sections. One section covers the book of Genesis and one covers the topic of Paul and his statements about Adam in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

On page xvi of his introduction, Dr. Enns states, “After a virtual silence in the Old Testament, Adam makes a sudden and unprecedented appearance in two of Paul’s Letters (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15).”

However, Peter Enns attempts to find alternate meanings for the word “Adam” whenever it appears in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1–5. Although Enns acknowledges the mention of Adam in 1 Chronicles, he still does not believe Adam was a literal person. But, if Adam is not a literal person, then how can Adam appear in this genealogy? I assume Peter Enns would consider most of the others (including Abraham) in this list to be literal people. I have left out many names but included a number just to remind you of how detailed these lists of real people are.

Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Diphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshishah, Kittim, and Rodanim.

The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. . . . The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech. Arphaxad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber. To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan. Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Ebal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. . . . And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel. The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, and Kenaz; and by Timna, Amalek. The sons of Reuel were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.

The sons of Seir were Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam; Lotan’s sister was . . . Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place. The name of his city was Avith. When Hadad died, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. And when Samlah died, Saul of Rehoboth–by–the–River reigned in his place. When Saul died, Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place. And when Baal-hanan died, Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai. His wife’s name was Mehetabel the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. Hadad died also. And the chiefs of Edom were Chief Timnah, Chief Aliah, Chief Jetheth, Chief Aholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon, Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar, Chief Magdiel, and Chief Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom. (1 Chronicles 1:1–54)

And then we see Adam showing up in these verses of Scripture.

If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom. (Job 31:33)

But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. (Hosea 6:7)

The above two passages are obviously referencing the literal Fall (sin) of Adam in Genesis 3.¹

Adam also appears in a detailed genealogy in the New Testament.

The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

And then, other than in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (cited by Peter Enns), Paul in 1 Timothy specifically referred to Adam being created first.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:13–14)

Paul also referred to Adam in 1 Corinthians 11 when discussing the creation of Eve, relating men and women’s roles to the historical creation account and how the woman was made from the man, just as Genesis 2 records (from his rib).

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. (1 Corinthians 11:8)

For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. (1 Corinthians 11:12)

Also, Jude references Adam and his specific place in the genealogy

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam. (Jude 1:14)

Peter Enns desperately tries to propose that Paul was not referencing a literal Adam as a real first man. He believes that “the Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way” (p. 140). He insists this is really how Paul used Adam.

On page 95, Peter Enns wrote,

Paul engaged his Scripture against the backdrop of hermeneutical conventions of his day, not ours, and we must understand Paul in that context. In other words, in the same way that we must calibrate the genre of Genesis [my note: by rejecting it as literal history] by looking at the surrounding culture, we must also understand Paul’s interpretation of the Old Testament within his ancient world.

On page 117, Enns concluded with the following:

When we keep in mind some of what we have seen thus far—the ambiguous nature of the Adam story in Genesis, Adam’s functional absence in the Old Testament, the creative energy invested into the Adam story by other ancient interpreters, and Paul’s creative use of the Old Testament in general—we will approach Paul’s use of the Adam story with the expectation of finding there not a plain reading of Genesis but a transformation of Genesis. We will see that, whatever Paul says of Adam, that does not settle what Adam means in Genesis itself, and most certainly not the question of human origins as debated in the modern world. Paul was an ancient man with ancient thoughts, inspired though he was. Respecting the Bible as God’s Word entails embracing the text in context.

Actually, it is obvious from how Peter Enns refers to Paul in a number of chapters in his book that he and conservative Evangelical scholars have totally different views of “inspiration.” Enns obviously does not believe in the plenary inspiration (fully God-breathed) of the Scriptures as Paul makes clear in 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

 

We must also point out that another New Testament person talked about Adam. Jesus Christ, Himself a descendant of Adam (Luke 3:23, 38), discussed the historicity of our first parents. Although He did not mention Adam by name, Jesus did refer to Adam and Eve when He discussed the subject of divorce with the Pharisees:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. (Matthew 19:4–6)

The Lord’s statement that the two become one flesh in marriage would be baseless if there really wasn’t a first man and woman in the early chapters of Genesis. If Enns is correct then the biblical teaching on marriage (one man and one woman for life) has no basis in reality.

Also, Dr. Enns argues that “the presence of two different creation accounts is troublesome for readers who assume that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical in nature and that the Bible’s first priority is to recount history accurately” (p. 52). This is a popular argument among those who seek to show that Genesis cannot be taken literally, and it’s one that we have addressed many times. However, not only is it fairly easy to reconcile the apparent differences between Genesis 1 and 2, but also we need to realize that Jesus quoted from both chapters in His answer to the Pharisees and He wove the statements together seamlessly (Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:24). These chapters are complementary—Genesis 2 is basically a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation. Since Jesus believed these chapters to be historical, how can anyone who claims to believe in Christ reject His teaching by dismissing the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2?

Let me give two examples in which I actually agree with Enns. Now, that may surprise many readers considering what I’ve written about Peter Enns and his aberrant teachings in my blogs. But yes, I do agree with Peter Enns on two points related to Genesis (but only two so far):

First, Dr. Enns stated that he rejects the theistic evolution position (i.e., the view that God used evolution to create). He states it does not fit with Scripture. In fact, he says, “This hybrid view does not adhere to the Bible but rewrites it” (p. xv; introduction). I agree with that statement. Those Christians who compromise the Bible by adding evolution to it have to rewrite the words of the Bible. It’s a point AiG has always made.

Second, Dr. Enns makes it clear that he believes the Bible does not teach that the earth is millions of years old. He states, “Since the eighteenth century, geology had made its presence known, showing by means of the fossil record that the earth is millions upon millions of years old—far older than most people had taken for granted, far older than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows” (p. 4). I certainly agree that taking Genesis literally does not allow for millions of years.

Dr. Enns, however, does believe that evolution is fact! And he also accepts millions of years as fact! So, what is he really teaching about Genesis and God’s Word? Confused? Here are just a few quotes from his book that sum up what he is trying to teach Christian leaders and laypeople in the church. (By the way, the book’s content fleshes out the points he gives in his talks, including the presentation he gave at Westmont College that was referenced above.)

Evolution demands that the special creation of the first Adam as described in the Bible is not literally historical. (xvi; introduction)

It is clear that, from a scientific point of view, the Bible does not always describe physical reality accurately. (xiv; introduction)

If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word “historical,” the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis specifically 1:26–31 and 2:7, 22. (xiv; introduction)

Frankly, I groaned many times when I read passages like these throughout the book. I groaned further when I thought how Dr. Enns is involved in producing a homeschool curriculum and how children will be affected by its biblical compromise.

As I read the book, one thought came to my mind over and over: what about the perspicuity (i.e., the clarity) of Scripture? In his new book, Enns makes it clear that he accepts evolution as fact and that he also rejects a literal Adam and literal Fall—plus he rejects that the apostle Paul taught about a literal Adam in the books of Romans and Corinthians. Enns states the following:

A historical Adam has been the dominant Christian view for two thousand years. We must add, however, that the general consensus was formed before the advent of evolutionary theory . . . Evolution demands that the special creation of the first Adam as described in the Bible is not literally historical. (xvi; introduction)

Well, secular scientists today will argue that a man can’t rise from the dead. Or that you can’t have a virgin birth in humans, or that a man can’t walk on water. So shouldn’t we (using the same approach as Dr. Enns) also give up the literal Resurrection and literal virgin birth of Christ?

So what does Dr. Peter Enns believe the book of Genesis is really all about? Here he is again.

The Genesis creation narrative we have in our Bibles today, although surely rooted in much older material, was shaped as a theological response to Israel’s national crisis of exile. These stories were not written to speak of ‘origins’ as we might think of them today (in a natural-science sense). They were written to say something of God and Israel’s place in the world as God’s chosen people. . . .

Placing Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern setting [among Israel’s neighbors, such as the Canaanites and Babylonians] strongly suggests that it was written as a self-defining document, as a means of declaring the distinctiveness of Israel’s own beliefs from those of the surrounding nations. In other words, Genesis is an argument, a polemic, declaring now Israel’s God is different from all the other gods, and therefore how Israel is different from all the other nations (pp. 5–6, bracketed content added).

Furthermore, Dr. Enns, at the end of the book, states the following:

One cannot read Genesis literally—meaning as a literally accurate description of physical, historical reality—in view of the state of scientific knowledge today and our knowledge of ancient Near Eastern stories of origins. (p. 137)

On page 12 we read the following as he discusses the historicity of Genesis.

Modern scholars have tended to focus on the historical questions raised by those ambiguities and inconsistencies; namely, how did such an ambiguous and inconsistent text come to exist in the first place.

What is he referring to? Enns lists a series of questions that, to him, mean Genesis can’t be taken as literal history. You might be able to guess one or two. (Hint: they are the typical ones that atheists use today when they attempt to attack Genesis and all of God’s Word, which we have answered many times). Here is Enns again.

If Adam and Eve are the first humans, and Cain their only surviving offspring, how can Cain be afraid of retaliation for murdering his brother (4:13–16)? Where did he get his wife (4:17)? (p. 11)

He continues: “No doubt many reading this will recognize a good number of these questions, and one or two may even have been a source of embarrassment in teaching children’s Sunday school. (What teacher has not been asked by a precocious eight-year-old where Cain found his wife?)” (p. 11). Notice that Enns does not mention that Genesis 5:4 provides the obvious answer: “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.”

AiG has answers to all of his questions right on this website. The question about Cain’s wife is answered not just by AiG, but also in Bible commentaries—some of them going back hundreds of years (e.g., John Calvin and John Gill in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries respectively). It is indeed poor scholarship to ignore these works or any of the writings of modern-day, well-known biblical creationists. In fact, none of these appear in his bibliography,² which is instead a list of works written, with few exceptions, by a “who’s who” of critical Bible scholars and evolution/millions-of-years compromisers! In other words, Dr. Enns has refused to acknowledge those Christians who have been giving answers to all his questions for hundreds of years—and which are readily available today. A whole body of academic work in biblical apologetics has been totally ignored by Enns. I suggest that because these Bible scholars—who truly believe the Bible—can give logical answers to counter his arguments, Enns has chosen to ignore them because they undermine his case.

Dr. Enns then lists more “tough” questions, and on page 13 he states the following:

These and other questions . . . led modern biblical scholars to question seriously—and eventually reject—the traditional view that Genesis and the Pentateuch were written in the second millennium BC by one man, Moses.

Sadly, Dr. Enns accepts some form of the Documentary Hypothesis (also known as the JEDP theory)—a thoroughly debunked idea put forth by anti-supernatural liberal critics that states the five books of Moses were written, or at least compiled, a thousand years after Moses died. In fact, Enns uses the liberal dating for every book of the Old Testament and does not inform his readers that many scholars still hold to the traditional dates and have written extensively in support of those dates (pp. 30–32).

Next, what does Dr. Enns say about the entrance of sin and death in the world? He struggles with this issue in chapter 7. Here we read the following excerpt:

By saying that Paul’s Adam is not the historical first man, we are leaving behind Paul’s understanding of the cause of the universal plight of sin and death. But this is the burden of anyone who wishes to bring evolution and Christianity together—the only question is how that will be done. I have already mentioned attempts to preserve an “Adam” who is not the first human as Paul has it but is the first “spiritual” hominid (or group of hominids) endowed with a soul and so forth, who acts as a “representative head” of humanity. But in my view any such a creature is as foreign to Paul as any other solution that is trying to bring Paul and evolution into conversation. It may well be that the human drama began when some hominids were endowed with spiritual awareness, but that does not satisfy the requirements of Paul’s Adam. So, although my suggestion here leaves behind the truly historical Adam of Paul’s thinking, so do any other attempts---except those of strict biblical literalists, who reject the evolutionary account of human origins.

Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul’s Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul’s theology are three core elements of the gospel:

1. The universal and self-evident problem of death
2. The universal and self-evident problem of sin
3. The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ (p. 123)

Basically, Dr. Enns is stating that you can’t add evolution to the Bible and reinterpret the Bible. Yet, evolution is fact. Therefore, the reader has to understand Genesis and what Paul wrote very differently. Enns gives no sense whatsoever that what Paul wrote in the New Testament is God’s Word and God-breathed, but Enns makes it clear that he takes Paul’s words as that of a fallible man writing his own thoughts. Furthermore, according to Enns, what Paul wrote needs to be understood in a totally different way. You see, Enns argues that the first Adam was not literal, yet what Paul wrote about Jesus and His Resurrection is literal.

It all raises the obvious question: how can Enns decide which parts of the Bible should be understood as literal history and which are not? His basic approach is that Bible readers can make the Bible say whatever they want it to (if scientists and critical scholars deem it necessary). Therefore, because it is Enns’s opinion that Christians must believe in evolution and millions of years, they can fit those beliefs with the Bible—by changing their approach on how and why the Bible was written and how it is to be interpreted.

Nowhere in his book have I found Dr. Enns describe sin as rebellion against God—that all of us have rebelled (i.e., committed high treason against the God of creation). He seems to think of sin as just the bad or evil things that happen on earth. (Of course, one could ask why something is considered “bad” or “evil” in the first place, but that’s a discussion for another time.) He does not believe that because of a literal Fall of the literal Adam, all mankind inherits Adam’s sinful nature, as Paul explained in Romans 5:12–21.

To summarize his book (and I have read almost all of it as we post this review), I would put it this way.

• Evolution is a fact.
• The Bible is written by humans and so it is really man’s word (and contains some sort of spiritual message).
• We must trust secular scientists’ interpretation of the past.
• The Bible is not God-breathed. Genesis is definitely not literal history.
• There was no literal Adam, and there definitely was no literal Fall.
• Ultimately, Christians must totally change their approach to understanding the Bible and base it on man’s changing interpretations of history.
• Paul’s mention of Adam is not to be taken as if he believes Adam was a literal first man. Enns argues that what Paul has written in Romans and Corinthians has to be understood in a totally different manner.

Dr. Enns obviously does not hold a high view of Scripture. Furthermore, near the end of his introduction he states, “It is always a difficult subject to suggest that something outside the Bible can significantly affect how the Bible is to be read” (pp. 19–20). Now, what does he mean by that assertion? Well, preceding this statement, we read his words, “At this moment in history, the state of scientific knowledge [Enns means evolution] is driving Christians to rethink some important issues. The challenge of evolution is here to stay, and its effect on how Christians read Genesis and Paul must be deliberately addressed.”

Dr. Enns’s thesis of his book can be summed up in his own words.

Our thinking about Adam must change . . . I am not arguing in this book that Adam evolved. Rather, I am arguing that our understanding of Adam has evolved over the years and that it must now be adjusted in light of the preponderance of (1) scientific evidence supporting evolution and (2) literary evidence from the world of the Bible that helps clarify the kind of literature the Bible is. (p. xiii)

Then Dr. Enns makes a statement that just defies logic. “All of this can be done in a way that respects and honors the authority of the Bible.” (p. xiii)

In the book’s conclusion (p. 137), Dr. Enns declares, “Literalism is not an option . . . One cannot read Genesis literally—meaning as a literally accurate description of physical, historical reality—in view of the state of scientific knowledge today and our knowledge of ancient Near Eastern stories of origins.” Then on page 138, he states that for those of us (like AiG) who take Genesis literally: “Literalism is not just an outdated curiosity or an object of jesting. It can be dangerous. A responsible view of the biblical stories must account for the scientific and archaeological facts [i.e., evolution, millions of years, etc.], not dismiss them, ignore them, or—as in some cases—manipulate them.”

Enns’s approach to Scripture is captured in his own words on page 7: “Now the one-two-three-punch of biblical criticism, biblical archaeology, and science demanded a fresh synthesis of new and old.” Note, that all three of these areas come under the heading of “historical science”—that is, man’s fallible attempts to interpret the past based on fallible assumptions.

So here is the book’s bottom line. Dr. Peter Enns puts his trust in man’s fallible ideas and then totally reinterprets the Word of God (and ultimately distorts it). He wants to adopt the philosophies of the world instead of bowing his knee to a Holy, infinite, infallible God. Indeed, his is a low view of Scripture.

I will leave you with a challenge. There are Christian college and seminary professors who are enamored with academics like Dr. Enns with their new ideas attempting to fit man’s religion of evolution and millions of years into the Bible. In some respects, I think this view of scholarship is akin to Gnosticism. Gnostics believe they possess some special knowledge to share with the world. And despite all the great men and women of God in the past who have treated Genesis as straightforward, literal history, it wasn’t until this era that we now have new, special knowledge that will supposedly give us a correct understanding of the Word of God. In essence, this academic is telling us that his approach is the new way to understand God’s Word and what it means. Apart from using this novel approach to the Bible, argues Dr. Enns, you can’t discern what the Scriptures teach.

It appears we have a dire situation in the church today. There is a new “magisterium”—a group of theologians like Dr. Enns who want to tell us how and what to believe in regard to what God’s Word states in Genesis (and now Romans too).

Frankly, I’m much more concerned about the disastrous influence of Bible scholars like Dr. Enns and his undermining of the Bible than I am by the outside attacks of atheists. Dr. Enns’s attack on biblical authority should be a reminder to all Christians that they need to be equipped with answers. If more Christians properly armed themselves to combat compromise in the church and were also more emboldened to share their faith with non-Christians, they could be a tremendous force in this world.

A book like Dr. Enns’s should be a wake-up call to all Christians to courageously and boldly stand for the Christian faith in our culture—to be the salt and light we must be in our increasingly secularized world. As Paul wrote to Timothy, “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Let’s pray that all Bible-believing Christians will begin standing against those who compromise God’s Word; let’s make our voices heard in Christian colleges, seminaries, churches, and all of Christendom.

The following verses should be sober reminders for us all:

I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16)

In my opinion, this author is (as Peter describes in 2 Peter 3) “willfully ignorant.” He is deliberately rejecting the truth of God’s plain teachings. Dr. Enns has accepted the views of fallible humans and sought the favor of academics. Perhaps he should consider the wisdom of Proverbs 29:25. “The fear of man brings a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe.”

So, after reading these quotes from Dr. Enns’s book, would you call his beliefs “orthodox Christianity?” Do you agree that they are of the “historic Christian tradition”?

In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Enns that a Christian shouldn’t change God’s Word to accommodate man’s fallible ideas of evolution and millions of years. But I totally disagree with his idea that a Christian must come up with a different approach to understanding God’s Word so that evolution and millions of years can be accepted. To do what Dr. Enns has done is really no different than those people who reinterpret the words of the Bible to fit in evolution. Dr. Enns is doing the same thing, just in a different way.

We need to take God at His Word and reject the fallible beliefs of fallible man.

---

Editor’s note: The headline of this book review was derived from both an AiG supporter who posted a message to my Facebook page and, independently, by an AiG staff member.