Seems like all the concerns about Pete Enns were not in vain. Enns has recently denied that Adam was a historical being. You can read the article here.  Camden Bucey has a helpful post, in which he considers the relationship between Enns' theology and his apparent affirmation of the teaching of the Westminster Standards. You can read that post here. The question that must now be asked is, "If we deny the historicity of Adam, how can we affirm the historicity of Israel and Christ?" In other words, "If Adam is simply a theological construct to help Israel understand their theological position as "son of God," why not say that Israel was not an historical people, but simply a theological idea to help the people of God understand that Jesus was the second Adam and true Israel? For that matter, why not say that the Son of God was not a historical figure, but was simply a theological construct to help the people of God understand that they are sons of God? How does denying the historicity of Adam, the son of God, not lead to a reappraisal of the historicity of everything in the Bible? Why not, as so many solid men have done, take the Bible's testimony that Adam was the first human being, as well as a type of the Son of God--representing his people? How is a denial of the historicity of Adam not moving where the neo-orthodox and existentialists have already gone?

Editors Note: The comment about Tremper Longman denying an historical Adam has been removed due to some concern that it was not completely substantiated. I will leave that to you to decide. You can hear what Longman says here and here.