“I hold to a historical Adam and Eve, though not on exegetical grounds,” Pahl wrote in his defense to trustees, which CT obtained. “My reasons are more theological in nature….”
- About SI
It's an odd way to frame the issue. There are really two propositions at stake:
Cedarville is basically saying you must believe both to teach there. Good for them.
Ah, the modern American church in all it's tarnished glory.
"It doesn't make sense," said Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. "It does damage to a college atmosphere to pretend there's no sensible diversity of opinion among Christians."
Diversity reigns supreme. Who cares if we gut the foundational 3 chapters of the Bible. Who cares if we gut Paul's reasoning behind the Gospel. As long as we exult the college atmosphere. Used to be that verbal, plenary, infallible, unlimitedly inerrant inspiration was considered a fundamental of the faith. Fundamentals schmundamentals - we're all God's children today no matter what we decide to believe in our postmodern approach to Christianity.
Frankly, I'm not even sure what the guy means when he says he affirms literal Adam for literary reasons but not exegetical reasons. What does that even mean - I believe what the text says but not because the text says it?
Evangelical hermeneutics is getting fixated on literary genres and structure and often that trumps the words and grammar in context. They use it to mess with the propositional nature of Scripture; they use it to mess with the creation chapters; they use it to mess with the covenants; they use it to mess with prophecy.
Basically, motifs and genres can be and are used to make Scripture teach nearly anything. It comes down to, "Except you receive my word like a modern biblical scholar you cannot be my disciple." Okay, that's a bit much, but more and more the Bible is being made the domain of "specialists." Just my ten cents