JOURNAL OF CREATION 30(1) 2016 || BOOK REVIEWS

Strong defence of the biblical Adam

created kinds with the species (p. 87), God, Adam, and You: Biblical while yet another posits that the speed Creation Defended and Applied of light may have been faster in the Richard D. Phillips (Ed.) past (p. 129). This shows that while pastors and teachers definitely have P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2015 something to teach specialists in creation apologetics, the reverse is def­ initely true as well. Lita Cosner

What difference t a time when it is common for does Adam make? Aprofessing evangelicals to deny the importance of the historical Adam The first chapter is by Joel Beeke, and biblical creation, it is refreshing President of Puritan Reformed Theo­ to see a group of pastors and teachers logical seminary where he is Pro­fessor (p. 36). He criticizes those who deny come together to defend the Bible’s of Systematic Theology and Homi­ the historical Adam: account of creation and human origins. letics, as well as a pastor of Heritage “They deny that the Bible says any­ God, Adam, and You is a book with Netherlands Reformed Con­gregation. thing authoritative about scientific six contributors who have written ten He argues that “Sometimes people matters. On the contrary, they treat chapters looking at the subject from will attempt to graft the word Adam modern science as the eyeglasses different viewpoints, and explaining its onto a concept that is quite foreign to by which we should read the Scrip­ vital importance in Christian doc­trine the Scriptures” (p. 15), and affirms the and church life. importance of the biblical presentation tures, so that through our scientific of who Adam was. While affirm­ing the knowledge we can sift out God’s real pressures in the current academic message from the erroneous Pastoral and theological views environment to deny the historical beliefs of the ancient community of One of the characteristics that Adam, he documents that Scrip­ture faith” (p. 37). makes God, Adam, and You stand presents Adam as the literal first man, out is that it is written by pastors and the ancestor of everyone else who ever Two views of the theo­logical professors. Most of creation lived, and his Fall as a real historical human person apologetics is dominated by scientists event. He asks: “If Adam was not a and specialists who have made cre­ation real man, who else was not?” (p. 25). Kevin DeYoung, the senior pastor the focus of their ministry. Hearing a He adds: of University Reformed Church, ar­ defence from people who spend most “What about Moses or David? They gues that our view of human origins of their time pastoring and teaching also appear in historical narra­tives makes a tremendous difference in how brings out some unique elements, in the Bible. They are listed in we think of human ontology, dignity, which is helpful. Their teaching genealogies. They are spoken of and destiny. He shows how creation experience also helps to make the as real people by our Lord Jesus. If indicates that there is purpose for points of the book understandable to all that evidence is not enough to hu­man existence and humans have laypeople. prove that Adam was a historical in­herent worth because they are in the Unfortunately, this lack of special­ figure, then why should we believe image of God. He also argues that a ization also means that the authors that any of them were historical fig­ biblical view of the Fall of mankind is occasionally fall back on arguments ures?” (p. 26). the only accurate diagnosis of human­ most creation apologists no longer He goes on to note Adam’s im­ ity’s sin problem. Most importantly, a use, such as creation with ‘appearance portance when it comes to important biblical view of human origins gives of age’ or starlight created in transit biblical doctrines, and calls the his­torical us an accurate view of what believers (p. 7). Another author equates the Adam “a test case for biblical authority” can look forward to in heaven—the

16 BOOK REVIEWS || JOURNAL OF CREATION 30(1) 2016

restoration of the original ‘very good’ Bible’s entire storyline. Evolution it addresses a sin problem that is creation (Genesis 1:31). destroys any coherent view of the mythical, not historically real. On authority of Scripture and mankind in what basis may we conclude that the God’s image, as well as destroying the Christian gospel is itself any­thing Adam, Lord of the garden teaching that death is the consequence other than another ancient myth, In his chapter, Liam Goligher, of sin. designed to address a problem that Senior Minister at Tenth Presbyterian Phillips talks about the pastoral we know has no connection to the Church in Philadelphia, argues that implications of an evolutionary view world described by evolutionary God made Adam a priest in the Gar­ of death: science?” (pp. 98–99). den of Eden, and Adam would have “When a man or woman stands over functioned as a mediator of a covenant the bed of his mother watching her God’s design for gender, for his offspring, had he not sinned. He die, Christianity no longer says that marriage, and sex draws some helpful parallels between this is wrong, that this is opposed the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle, to God, that this is an enemy that This chapter by Richard Phillips but non-Reformed readers might take God has vowed to overcome and uses the creation of mankind as male exception to reading so much of the destroy. ‘The last enemy to be and female to promote a comple­ language of covenant into the Edenic destroyed is death’ (1 Cor. 15:26), mentarian view of men’s and women’s relationship with God. says the Bible. But informed by roles in marriage. While not all readers Nevertheless, there are good theo­ evolution, the Christian instead will agree with his complementarian logical insights into some of the dyn­ thinks that only spiritual death is viewpoint, they can nonetheless ap­ amics of what happened in the Fall. the result of the fall. The death of preciate his point that abandoning a There was a total reversal of the created a child or parent or friend is no biblical view of mankind as male and authority structure, with an animal longer in itself a great evil opposed female as the foundation for marriage, instructing the woman, who then by God. Because of the doctrine of including romance and sexual re­ led her husband into sin (pp. 75 ff). evolution, Christians must abandon lationships, opens the door to all sorts Another point that is vital to biblical in principle our position as people of unbiblical practices such as andro­ creationist apologetics concerns death of life and join the secularist culture gyny and gay ‘marriage’. as the result of sin: with its callous acceptance of the “So when sin appears, it appears as fundamental necessity and virtue of an intruder into the garden. … Evil death. To deny this shift is merely Differing views on is not a necessary component of to avoid the implication of what the the days of creation the material and physical world. … theory of evolution is: a description Derek Thomas, Professor of Sys­ People today who think that Adam of human progress by means of the tematic and Pastoral Theology at was some kind of tribal chieftain death of those deemed inferior. Re­formed Theological Seminary and whom God selected and chose to Death is the instrument by which minister at First Presbyterian Church use ignore the fact that this means evolution works, and it must be in Columbia, SC, surveys all the there was sin and evil before Adam, embraced as essentially good in possible views on the days in Genesis, because there was death before him. the worldview shaped by evolution. giving the strengths and weaknesses And that means that sin is built into A religious position more opposed of each view. He is perhaps a little too the very nature of human­ity. But in to Christianity is hard to imagine” charitable to some of the old-earth the Bible’s account, sin is an alien (pp. 96–97). views, and repeats their usual misu­ intruder” (p. 75). But even more significantly, an nderstanding of the Galileo affair, evolutionary view implies Adam did but comes down squarely in the not exist, or at the very least he cannot young-earth camp for his own view. The Bible and evolution have the relationship to humanity that Unfortu­nately, he prefers what he Richard Phillips, senior minister the Bible claims. This undermines calls an “apparent age” view (p. 128), at Second Presbyterian Church in Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 where God created the earth to look Greenville, SC, and chairman of the and Romans 5: old, rather than the view that geological Philadelphia Conference on Reformed “The very argument that Paul activity around the time of the Flood Theology, shows how the Bible and makes about Adam, sin, and death shaped the earth as we see it today. evolution present mutually exclusive is fundamentally at odds with He also gives too much credence to views of origins and how compromise evolution’s version of history. If this c-decay (p. 129). However, his young- inevitably affects the integrity of the is the Bible’s doctrine of salvation, earth view takes the days of creation

17 JOURNAL OF CREATION 30(1) 2016 || BOOK REVIEWS

seriously, the genealogies literally with Original sin and One product of this view is that no or few gaps, and one can commend modern theology the book is overwhelmingly based in him for choosing a view that respects biblical theology, rather than science The chapter by Carl Trueman “the most straightforward reading of or philosophy. While philosophy or (Professor of Historical Theology and the text in accordance with its genre science might be used as supporting Church History, Pastor of Cornerstone as historical narrative” (p. 139). evidence, the main arguments of all Presbyterian Church in Ambler, PA), the authors come from the words of oddly, is an exact copy of his chapter Scripture itself. Christ, the second Adam from Adam, The Fall, and Original The writing styles of the authors are Sin.3 He takes on the treatment of the In Christian writing, there is a pleasant and easy to read. This makes doctrine of Original Sin in modern the book appropriate for laypeople ten­dency to refer to Jesus as ‘the theology and how it has largely interested in the topic. However, an second Adam’. This is an error (strictly been ignored by liberal theologians. index would have been helpful, espec­ speaking, Noah seems to be presented ially of scriptural references. as the second Adam,1 and then there Trueman chooses six theologians who The book’s authors all come from were a variety of people with Adam- have jettisoned a belief in the historical a Reformed tradition and occasionally like vocations who all failed); Jesus is Adam and Eve and Original Sin, and they make statements in line with the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45)2— shows what happens to one’s overall theology when this foundational Reformed theology that other Christian the one who succeeded where all the groups may disagree with (this is other Adams failed. But regardless of doctrine is rejected. He gives a brief summary of the beliefs of Friedrich particularly the case in Liam Goligher’s Joel Beeke’s error with regard to the chapter, “Adam, Lord of the Garden”). Schleiermacher, Walter Rauschen­ precise terminology, his chapter makes All in all, though there are several busch, Karl Barth, Rudolph Bultmann, some good points. statements most biblical creation­ists Reinhold Niebuhr, and Wolfhart Pan­ Christ as the last Adam restored all might disagree with, their overall nenberg. He notes similarities in their that the first Adam lost; He succeeded message of the Bible’s authority re­ where the first Adam failed. He with­ theology: garding creation is one that all Christ­ stood the serpent’s temptation in a “First, all of them repudiate any ians should agree on. wilderness while the first Adam suc­ notion that humanity stands guilty cumbed in a garden paradise. The before God because of the impu­ first Adam bequeathed death to all his tation of an alien guilt, the guilt of References descendants because of his sin, while a historical man called Adam, to all 1. Batten, D., Adam and Noah: two beginnings, Creation 34(1):12–14, 2011; creation.com/adam- the last Adam gives life to all who of his descendants. ... Second, all of and-noah. believe. The first Adam died bodily, the the theologians reject the relevance 2. Cosner, L., Christ as the last Adam: Paul’s use of the historicity of Adam” (p. 207). of the Creation narrative in 1 Corinthians 15, last Adam was bodily resur­rected—as J. Creation 23(3):70–75, 2009; creation.com/1- those who believe in Him will be. This had disastrous consequences corinthians-15. for the theology of all of the surveyed 3. Madueme, H. and Reeves, M., (Eds.), Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin: Theological, Biblical, theologians and serves as somewhat of and Scientific Perspectives, Baker Academic, From God’s garden to God’s city a cautionary tale for those who would Grand Rapids, MI, 2014. See review by Cosner, L., The vital importance of the historical Adam, Richard Phillips traces the simi­ compromise in this critical area. J. Creation 29(3):19–22, 2015. larities between the Garden of Eden and the New Heavens and earth, Scripture as authority emphasizing that the story of Scripture is one of restoration. This logically One refreshing quality of the implies returning at least to a perfect writing in God, Adam, and You is the state from which we fell. He discusses presup­­position that Scripture actually the statement in Revelation 21:1 that addresses whether Adam was a real there will be no more sea, and interprets historical human being. All the authors it in a figurative sense, meaning that the have a commitment to honour what chaos and destruction symbolized by Scripture says, not in some nebulous the sea will be no more (p. 174). But way that allows them to discard the even more importantly, God not only testimony of Scripture, but by actually restores His creation, but His people, believing it and incorporating it into who will live with Him forever. their worldview.

18