If you want to get caught up on the historical Adam debate, which has been prompted in part by Peter Enns’ book The Evolution of Adam, here are some good places to start…
Christianity Today published a balanced summary last year in their feature article “The Search for the Historical Adam.”
Over on the Jesus Creed blog, RJS is going through Enns’ book chapter by chapter, starting here.
While he doesn’t mention Enns by name, Kevin DeYoung has weighed in with “10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam.” Which, in turn, has generated responses from New Testament scholar James McGrath (“Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam”) and Oxford don Timothy Law (“Kevin DeYoung’s Misunderstandings”). Enns has also weighed in here.
(Still waiting for the promised review by Albert Mohler.)
Ben Irwin 
I skimmed through the ten reasons not to believe in a historical Adam. It made me wonder why you even took the time to mention it. It is my opionion that those so called scholars are not believers at all. More importantly, you speak of it as a reporter and I was expecting you to have some personal comment on it. After all don’t you try to expound on spiritual truth?
So what do you think, is there a historical Adam and is it important to believe there was one in order to have a faith that agrees with saving faith?
LikeLike
I’ve written a few other posts w/my own thoughts on the historical Adam debate. But in this case, I was just trying to point to some of the other conversations taking place that people might find interesting. For myself, I think Enns is raising some important questions. I believe they deserve careful consideration rather than a rush to judgment. But I don’t think Christianity falls apart without a historical Adam.
I mentioned these two responses to DeYoung’s essay because I think they, like Enns, raise some important challenges worth considering, whether you agree or disagree w/them. To me, whether or not they’re believers is between them and God.
LikeLike