Reading Genesis One Through Ancient Eyes

Dr. Walton’s presentation was based on his book The Lost World of Genesis One which seeks to understand the text of Genesis One as an ancient text. He believes that Genesis One is not an account of material origins, but functional origins. From this he draws out conclusions for how we read and understand Genesis One today and how it speaks to Modern Science. Dr. John Walton gave this presentation at the Clay Center Covenant Church in Clay Center, Kansas.

Since the video cannot be embedded on other sites, you must click the link in order to view it here – https://vimeo.com/47243363

Reclame

The Flood and Noah

photo credit www.theguardian.com

Somehow these videos are still out there and youtube has not removed them. So, watch while they are still up

The Creation and Flood of Genesis

The story begins with the creation of Man and Woman, the sin committed by Adam and Eve, and the temptationby the snake, which led to their banishment from Paradise. The story continues with the first crime committed by mankind, Cain’s murder of his brother, the condemnation of God, mankind’s corruption and evil, and God’s regret for having created earth. The choice of Noah, a just and upright man to build the Ark, the flood and its clearing the way for a new mankind, the pact of the eternal Covenant between God and all living beings, are told through the clear and simple words of an old nomad shepherd. VIDEO by Victor Girona Noah’s story begins at the 65th minute.

 Noah’s Ark Movie

The question of the historical Adam and why evangelicals are capitulating on this

by STEVEN WEDGEWORTH

creation of man

creation of man (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Modern evangelicalism has always had something of an identity problem. Wanting to be neither Fundamentalism nor Liberalism, it has often found itself unable to sit comfortably in the middle. More often than not, and sometimes with a bit of pressure from either side, it ends up swinging back and forth between the poles, often unable to explain why it isn’t one or the other. Traditionally a commitment to Biblical inerrancy was the one sure thing that all evangelicals could agree upon, but even that, in light of contemporary challenges, is proving inadequate. The question of hermeneutics must (again) be dealt with, as more and more professing evangelicals are re-reading the opening chapters of Genesis as myth. While the particulars of the discussion are not fully uniform (whether one must or should be a “literal” six-day creationist or not), the question of the historical Adam is now quite definitely the new lynchpin. We would like to here lay out some of the consequences of denying the historical Adam in order to substantiate our claim that this is a boundary of orthodoxy, but first a bit of context.

The reason that evangelicals are losing the historical Adam are several, but they all boil down to the dominance of the Darwinistic evolutionary theory, both in the academies and in the media. For both academic and cultural reasons, the denial of this evolutionary theory is shameful, and it is becoming increasingly clear that this theory also demands a sort of polygenesis. Thus the historical Adam cannot be retained. There are certainly those on both sides of the issue who hold out hope for a middle position, but as it currently stands, naturalistic science is basically agreed that the early chapters of Genesis cannot be historical. And so, in the face of this pressure, evangelicals are falling in line.

Read the entire article here – http://calvinistinternational.com/2013/05/10/what-depends-upon-an-historical-adam/

Also read Denny Burke’s article here –

More on the Poison Pill: Responding to Stanley, McKnight, and Bird – The doctrine of scripture is foundational, and at a time when it is so contested it is worth every effort to get it right

Doubting Darwinism – J.P.Moreland PhD quotes atheist Thomas Nagel against Darwinism

J. P. Moreland expresses some doubts on Darwinian evolution. VIDEO by religionphilosophy

J.P. Moreland

Moreland:

Not long ago, the former professor of biology at Cornell University, a man who is known throughout the world for his expertise in biological science, William Provine, made the following statement:

„Let me summarize my views about what modern evolutionary biology tells us: There are no gods. There is no purpose to life. There are no goal directed forces of any kind. There;s no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I’m going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There’s no ultimate foundation for ethics, there’s no meaning to life, and there’s no such thing as free will. „

Now, Provine is a good scientist, but a very bad philosopher.  And, his view is widely believed among the intellectual elite of our culture. And unfortunately, the culture, and what the culture believes is largely determined by the intellectual elites. That’s just the way it is.

Now, Provine’s statement is really not true, because, if evolutionary theory is true, it doesn’t mean there’s not a god. I could grant the truth of evolutionary theory, and I would still have plenty of reasons to believe in God, completely outside of the biological realm.

There is for example an argument for God’s existence

  • based upon the origin of the universe
  • based upon the fine tuning of the universe
  • based on the objectivity of the moral law
  • based on the miracles in the New Testament
  • based on the reliability of the New Testament documents

So, even if evolutionary theory is true, it doesn’t follow, that all the things that Provine has told us are reasonable to believe. As I said, I could grant the truth of evolutionary theory for the sake of argument, and still have plenty of reason to believe in the Christian God.

Well then,

What does evolutionary theory do?

It actually does, I think, 2 things:

  1. First of all, it robs us of an argument for God’s existence, because we can base an argument on God’s existence based upon the design of living things. After all, living things look designed. And so, you can build an argument for God based upon the design of living things, and if evolutionary theory is true, it could be argued – that argument is off the table. Fair enough. Then, evolutionary theory would rob the Christian believer of one of many arguments  for God’s existence. That’s a legitimate point.
  2. The real problem however, with evolutionary theory is not that it touches on whether or not there’s a God. The real problem with evolutionary theory is it tends to undermine some very plausible ways of interpreting the early chapters of the book of Genesis. And the book of Genesis is an important foundational document to the Christian community.

So, it’s important to understand that Provine has it wrong. So, nevertheless, evolutionary theory is an important thing it’s just been misunderstood by the general public and Provine, in terms of the impact of the theory, if it’s true,

Is evolution true?

Well, that depends on what you mean by it. I am going to characterize 3 different meanings of evolution and tell you where the tension lies, and then I’ll give you 3 reasons why I don’t believe in the theory of evolution. (See rest of transcript below video)

Evolution can mean 1 of 3 things:

  1. Microevolution- Evolution can mean that organisms change when they go to new environments. This is true. If you take a group of brown rabbits, and if they migrate to an area where there’s a lot of snow, it could be (that) after several generations their coats turn white, rather than brown, and that enables them to survive better. Is that definition of evolution true? Yes, and nobody disputes it. That’s called microevolution.
  2. Common descent- The second meaning of evolution is called the thesis of common descent. This is the idea that living things appear on earth in a sequence of simpler life to a more complex life, in a sequence of new life forms all the way from single cell organisms (simple life, supposedly) up to human beings. That’s called the thesis of common descent (from chimps to mankind).  All of the evidence for evolution is evidence for this thesis. There is no evidence for the third thesis, I’m about to tell you (about). Well, is the thesis of common descent true? I’m inclined to say, „No.” But, let me say very clearly, „If the thesis of common descent turned out to be true, I would have very little problem with it, as an evangelical believer, because I think that the early chapters of Genesis teach us that life appeared on earth, by and large, through a sequence of events from the simple to the complex. So, if the thesis of common descent was true, which I don’t believe it is, but, even if it were, it would cause my Christian faith very little adjustment because I am committed to the idea, according to Genesis, that living things appeared on earth, by and large, from simple to complex.
  3. The blind watchmaker thesis– The real problem with evolution is the third definition, and that’s where all the tension lies. This is called the blind watchmaker thesis.  According to the blind watchmaker thesis of evolution, the processes that gave rise to living things are totally naturalistic processes, and there was no room for God to do anything. We don’t need to postulate God to explain where life came from, that God was involved in creating different life forms along the way because mutations and natural selections, that is blind processes- the watchmaker who designed us was blind- that means not conscious, not intentional, had no purposes in mind. Why? Because the processes that gave rise to us are purely material physical processes of mutation and natural selection, and that’s where the real tension lies, because this thesis says that the common descent of animals from simple to complex took place without any intervention from God creating anything, or doing anything in the process. The process is purely naturalistic, and we don’t have to postulate a supreme being to explain life. (9:00)

There is, in my opinion, not a shred of evidence to this thesis.  All of the evidence in debates are evidence for common descent, not for the blind watchmaker thesis. I am going to give you three reasons why I think it’s false. In other words, I am going to give you 3 reasons why I believe that God had to be involved in the process, and that you cannot explain the living world, as we know it, without there being a Creator intelligent God. Before I do, there are many lines of evidence I could have selected, but, I’m gonna pick 3.  In most fields there are pace setters that set the pace in that field. I am an academic and a professional philosopher, and there are certain people in my discipline that are pace setters. If you’re gonna be a responsible, professional philosopher, you have to read what they write, because if you don’t know what they say, you’re not up to speed on your discipline. One of the professional philosophers in my field, for 50 years, who has been one of the leading intellectuals in the entire world, I would list him in the top 30 western thinkers in the world, is Thomas Nagel. He is a professor of philosophy at New York University. He is clearly an avowed atheist. In his book ‘The Last Word’, he makes it clear „I fear God, and what I mean by that is I don’t want God to exist. I don’t want the universe to be like that and I hope there’s no God.” It’s called the cosmic authority problem.   He doesn’t want an authority over his life and he is clear about that. Photo above via http://ebooksdownloadfree.com Photo below Thomas Nagel – via Wikipedia.

A week ago, a major event happened. Nagel, who is an atheist, published a book with Oxford University Press (1 of the 2 top academic Presses in the western world (Cambridge being the other)), and he has argued in this book that the general theory of evolution is nonsense for 3 reasons.  Now, he doesn’t believe in God, he’s hoping for other solutions. But, the point is that you have one of the top academic atheists in Europe and in the United States publishing a book that just came out (video is from 2012). I’ve taken notes from this book, and he says that there are 3 things that evolution cannot and will never explain and so we have to abandon the theory, in terms of its adequacy of explaining living things. I am going to use the ones he lists, because he’s a critic of our views.

1. The Origin of Life

Too improbable to happen by natural processes. Living things contain information & we know, as the SETI scientists themselves assume that if we discover information, that is evidence that the cause of that info is intelligent minds Nagel claims, and he’s right about this, that the probabilities of natural law and chance to produce life  is abslutely ridiculous. That you will never get living things, by natural laws and Darwinian processes to appear. Why is that? When Darwin looked through the microscopes of his day, a living cell looked like a simple little blob of jello. Not so anymore. We now know that the simplest single cell is like the city of Detroit or Chicago or New York. It’s got a police dept., it’s got a library, it’s got street signals… I mean, it’s as complicated as a city.  The problem has become then, how do you get through natural processes and random chance? Something that complicated in 4 billion year (let’s grant/say), and Nagel says, „There’s not a snowballs chance in a certain place (hell) that that’s gonna happen. Here’s an example: Suppose I filled the state of Texas a mile high with quarters and I put an X on one quarter, and I flew over it in a helicopter and I put it somewhere in the state of Texas. The chances of evolving through natural processes a single cell would be the chances of me giving the opportunity to pick one quarter and picking the right quarter on the first draw. No one in his right mind would believe anything like that. What if I did pick the quarter on the first draw? You would know that it was rigged, that it was done by cheating, done on purpose. And Nagel says that there’s just not any possibility that the probability of forming life through Darwinian processes are so astronomically small that they’re comparable to picking the quarter on the first draw in the state of Texas. No one in his right mind would believe that.

By the way, there is a second problem with the origin of life. We now know that information comes from an intelligent mind. When we discover information, it is evidence that intelligence stands behind that information. You’ve heard of the search for life in outer space. It’s called SETI the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The assumption that is made by the SETI scientists is that information can only come from an intelligent mind. So, if we discovered a signal from outer space that contained information, we would conclude that the origin of that signal was an intelligent mind of some kind. What we have discovered is that there is more information in a single cell than in all the books in the libraries where I did my phD at USC. It is stacked with information and the evidence of information is evidence of mind. So, the origin of life is the first reason why Darwinian theory fails because (a) it is too imporbable to be rational, to believe it happened that way, and (b) living things contain information and information is evidence that the cause is an intelligent thinker.

2. The Diversity of life forms 

(a) Diversity of life is far too complex and intricate for it to have evolved in 3.5 billion years through natural processes and chance mutations and through the laws of chemistry and physics. (b) Living systems contain irreducibly complex structures and it will not confer survival values for a mechanism if it doesn’t have all the parts. Here’s the second reason why I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution: It’s the diversity of life forms that we see all around us. The diversity and the complexity of life around us. Nagel makes the point that if evolutionary theory were true, and somehow, if we could get a single cell organism say, 3.5 billion years ago, there’s not enough time in 3.5 billion years to go from a single cell organism to lions, and tigers, and bears. Because, if evolution were truewe would not expect there to be enough time for very much diversity to have appeared. In other words, the sheer complexity and diversity of living things is far too much for the mechanisms of evolution to account for it. And Nagel runs a probability argument on this as well, saying, pretty much like the state of Texas, „Suppose we could evolve a single celled organism, the probabilities of developing life as we know it are again, like picking the quarter on the first draw. It’s way too improbable. Think of a butterfly, for example. The mechanisms that can take you from a caterpillar to a butterfly are staggering. You start with a caterpillar, it goes through a stage where you have a stack of goo with not much information, and then you get a butterfly squirting out that is totally different than the caterpillar. And the processes and the staggering detail, and the amount of complexity involved in something that simple are simply too much for the mechanisms of evolution to explain.

Consider the brain. I’m doing research on the soul and the brain this year. If you take a look at what are called the neural nets, these are networks of neurons, and in order for you to have a thought, you have to have billions of neurons firing in just the right place, at just the right time. There’s not a chance that that could happen through natural consequences, it’s way too complicated.  So, the probability of life diversifying into the staggering complexity that we see is simply too large for evolution to explain, says Nagel, and I agree with him. (20:00)

One other problem with the diversity of life involves what is called irreducible complexity. Something is irreducibly complex if it contains parts that won’t work if all the other parts aren’t there. Let me give you an example of an irreducibly complex structure: a mousetrap. It is composed of 5 parts- the base, the spring, the trap, the thing that holds it down, and so on. A mouse trap won’t work with only 4 of the parts. It doesn’t work until you have all 5 parts in the right place and then it works. That means that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex. The problem is that you can’t evolve irreducibly complex structures one part at a time, because it’s not gonna work till all the parts are there. And, how is a structure that’s only got some of its parts there, but it doesn’t work gonna help an organism survive ? Let me illustrate it. There’s a little single celled organism called a flagellum, that you can see under a microscope. It has a rotary tail. The thing will turn at 100,000 rpm’s in one direction and propel the little guy through fluid. It will stop on a dime and turn 100,000 rpm’s in the opposite direction, just like that. It contains 50 parts. Guess what? If you’ve got 49 of the parts it doesn’t work. It needs all 50 parts, before an of it will work. How are you gonna evolve the rotary tail from precursors that didn’t have a rotary tail, one part at a time? You can’t evolve irreducibly complex structures  one part at a time because the structures will not confer survival value on their owners unless all the parts are present.  And, irreducibly complex structures are a huge, huge problem for Darwinian theory.  (25:00)

3. Consciousness

This is the one Nagel spends 2/3 of the book arguing. Consciousness. The real problem is that you can’t get mind from matter. If you say, „In the beginning were the particles…” then what you end up with is brute sub atomic particles, electrons, strings, protons, neutrons, whatever they think is down there. You end up with particles that aren’t conscious- an electron doesn’t have consciousness. The laws of chemistry and physics cause these particles to bind together to form molecules. Those bind together to form cells, and those bind together to form the bodies of living things. The process is a process of taking matter and simply forming it into more complicated arrangements of matter. But now there’s a problem here, and Nagel points it out. If you start with matter and all you do is rearrange matter, you know what you’re gonna end up with? Rearranged matter. You’re not gonna get mind squirted into existence. To put the point differently, you might end up with brains, but you’re not gonna end up with minds. Cause if you end up with minds, that’s getting something from nothing, and that’s a pretty tough sell.

Basically, what I mean by consciousness is what animals and we have, and that’s what we’re aware of when we introspect- when you close your eyes and introspect, you are aware of your consciousness. Your consciousness includes:

  • sensations – experience of pain and pleasure
  • thoughts – like the thought that 2+2=4
  • beliefs – like my belief that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States
  • desires – my desire to be a good dad and to have ice cream and avoid the dentist
  • acts of free will – where I freely choose to raise my arm to vote, for example

So, what we have is consciousness is not physical. It is invisible. I could look all throughout your brain and I couldn’t see your thoughts or your feelings, or your desires, or your beliefs. All I would find would be  neurons firing. The problem is, as Nagel points out, if you start at the beginning with the particles, and you rearrange the particles according to the laws of chemistry and physics you’re never gonna get consciousness. I don’t have that problem cause I believe in God. I don’t think ‘In the beginning was the particles…”, I think in the beginning was the logos. So, I start with mind. I don’t start with matter. And it’s not a problem to explain where our minds came from because the universe began with a grand mind. Surely a grand mind could make subsequent minds.  If the universe began with consciousness, it means that there was a kind of big mind out there, a big conscious being. If you don’t mind, I’ll just use the word God for Him.

Conclusion:

If Nagel and I are right about this, why are all the scientists Darwinist? There are 2 reasons:

  1. They are taught to think that way in graduate school. They’re internalized into a theory that you have got to force the evidence to fit. They are not open to alternative methods of explanation, because if you start appealing to a designer, they claim that you’ve stopped doing science. And so, they are angry at Intelligent Design advocates. I was at UC Berkeley a couple of years ago (2010), and just before I came, William Demski was on campus defending intelligent design. Do you know what happened? The biology department boycotted the meeting and wouldn’t let their graduate students attend it. There’s free thought for you. If this guy’s so stupid and his ideas are so ignorant, go to the meeting and expose him as a fraud. But, why boycott a meeting? Because when you do an undergraduate and graduate degree in science you are taught a certain set of theories that you’re not allowed to question, because if you question Darwinism, you’re now going to religion and religion and science are not supposed to mix.
  2. The cosmic authority problem. Nagel says, „I don’t want God to exist.” I think, frankly, the reason Darwinism is held widely is because of sex. In the early days of Darwinism, Huxley, who was Darwin’s bulldog, stated clearly that the reason he defended Darwinism is he wanted to do sex anyway he wanted to anytime, and he didn’t want anybody telling him what he should do. And today, we are a sex crazed culture in the west and I think evolution gives you the permission not to have to worry about a divine being who might judge your sexual behavior. I think that’s got a lot to do with it. What it doesn’t have to do with is the evidence. Because, I’m telling you, while there may be evidence for microevolution, there may even be evidence for common descent (though I don’t accept that), there is to my knowledge a terribly inadequate defense of the blind watchmaker thesis, and there are good reasons not to believe it.

 

David Platt on Biblical Mahood and Womanhood

Click for David Platt RESOURCE PAGE

What better day to listen to David Platt giving the biblical perspective on manhood and womanhood, than on March 8 – the official international woman’s day.

adam eve gardenIn Part 1 – Platt gives a Summary of Manhood  & Womanhood in Genesis

Some of the Bible’s statements may sound chauvinistic or domineering in our contexts today, if they’re not understood in the context of the Scriptures’s teaching in Genesis 1&2. In part 1 we see 3 truths:

  1. Equal dignity. God created man and woman with equal dignity, both man and woman created in the image of God, and likeness of God, as representatives of  God. Man, not superior to woman, woman not superior to man. Any man who belittles a woman is violating the design of God. Any woman who disparages a man  is undercutting the beautiful design of God.
  2. Different roles. At the same time, men and women are created with different roles. Roles that don’t call into question one’s dignity and worth in any way. This is clear, we look to Genesis and walk through 8 reasons we know this is true. Man created to be the head, in a position of authority, Created first by the design of God with responsibility, representation, authority, entrusted by God. And woman, created to be the helper. Genesis 2:18 and 20 woman created as suitable helper for man, equal in dignity, different in roles in a complementary way, in a good way, not unfair, not demeaning. Cause God did this as a reflection of Himself and of the Trinity- God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit- Equal in essence, worth, different in role. It’s not chauvinistic, domineering for God the Father to have authority over, and for God the Son to submit to God the Father. This is where we see, the understanding of the personhood of God is huge for understanding our own manhood and womanhood.
  3. For our good and His glory. So, He created all of us, men and women with equal dignity, different roles, for our good and His glory.

David Platt – Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Part 1

Platt recounts the points from the first part (video) and begins the second part message at the 9:30 minute mark.

Sin has woefully distorted those 2 roles. , and we bear, feel the effects of sin. Broken relations with men and women abound. Distorted ideas of manhood and womanhood abound all across our culture. What I want to show you is that it all goes back to Genesis 3.  Every detail is important. The anatomy and the consequence of sin are intertwined directly with manhood and womanhood. I want to show you how sin affects men differently than it affects women, how it expresses itself differently in man and in woman, how the results of sin are different in man and in woman. As sin expresses itself in man and in woman, we see how there’s an active picture and a passive picture.

Manhood-

  • Spineless abdication of his responsibility. This is the essence of what Adam did in verses 1-5. He stands by and does nothing. The serpent, in the very way he is tempting this couple, he is subverting the design of God. He does not come to the head (the man), he comes to woman. The serpent’s saying to woman, „Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you make this decision?” The serpent is undercutting the design of God, in the very way he is tempting. Then, when you get to verse 17, when God speaks directly to Adam, „Adam, because you have listened to the voice of your wife…” before He even addresses the fact that Adam ate the piece of fruit- direct disobedience to the command of God that Adam had been given. He says, „Fundamentally, you listened, instead of leading. You stood silently by, doing nothing.” Like a wimp, and then has the audacity, when God confronts his sin, to blame the woman.  Spineless abdication of responsibility in men, and dads, that is alive today because men refuse to lead. They sit and watch TV, play video games, surf the internet, who never come home from work, who don’t step up and take responsibility for wives and children. Males who think they are men, but in reality are little boys, shirking the responsibility that God Himself has entrusted to them. (13:00)
  • Aggressive: Selfish abuse of his authority. Then you go to the other extreme. And what you have is a more aggressive picture, selfish abuse of his authority. A man will rise up and say, „I’m not gonna be a wimp in this relationship, I’m gonna dominate this relationship. Some believe the end of v. 16 „he shall rule over you”, that word there is depicted of harsh, forceful, oppressive rulership, domineering, which is a distortion of God’s design. Headship does not equal domination, man’s controlling woman, man abusing his authority in his position of authority in the relationship. 
  • He will experience pain in his role of breadwinning. Notice of how punishment for sin in man’s life is then specifically linked to his responsibility. As a result of sin, man shall experience pain in his role of breadwinning. This is something that man was commanded to do in a way that woman was not commanded- working the ground and providing for the family. This is gender specific punishment for sin.

Womanhood-

  • Passive: Spineless dismissal of any responsibility. We can’t misunderstand the picture here. It’s not that woman was not responsible for her sin, here in Genesis 3. Man certainly had a level of responsibility, we see that when God confronts man for the accountability for sin, but, woman was obviously and clearly directly responsible for her disobedience to God. And, there’s a distorted picture, as a result of sin that leads, particularly when it comes to submission. Sin distorts this role and causes women to think, „Ok, well, if I’m the helper, he’s the head, then I’m not accountable for what I do. Maybe a woman sees her husband or her children doing something they should not be doing, she doesn’t do anything about it because she says, „That’s my role.” Or maybe she has a husband who is abusing her and she sits idly by, thinking that’s what submission is all about. That is a tragic distortion of biblical womanhood. God has created no woman to be a door mat. He’s created women with a responsibility towards God for how they think, for how they live, for the choices they make, the way they use and present their bodies. SIDE NOTE here- as we come up on summer here. I want to say to the women in our midst that you have a responsibility before God for the way that you dress for the summer, not to lead men into sin. Some would say, „Well, it’s their problem .” It is their problem and it is most definitely your problem. Do not do what Eve did in Genesis 3, leading your brother into sin. Run from every appearance of that. Guard your brother from sin in every way you can. 
  • Agressive: Selfish defiance against authority. In v. 16, as a result of sin, God says to the woman, „Your desire shall be for your husband.” Now, why is that bad, that the woman will desire the husband, as a result of sin? What does that mean- desire? You go to ch. 4:7, and you see the same word, the same language used when God is speaking to Cain about sin in his life. Listen to what God says to Cain, „If you do well Cain, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. It’s desire is for you. But, you must rule over it.” Same language there. Sin’s desire is for you. Is it good for sin to desire you? No. Sin’s desire is to overpower you, to oppose you, to work against you. That’s what sin does. And so, it’s the same picture that’s being used here in 3:16, when God says, „Your desire will be for your husband.” You will desire to overpower him, to oppose his leadership, to work against his leadership. This is defiance of his authority. Your desire will be to usurp his leadership with your own leadership. Not in a complementary way, but in a competitive way. The result of sin in you is you will say, „I wanna do this my way, my rule, regardless of what my husband says or does. I’m in charge here. That is a very sinful sense, desiring the authority that God has given to man.
  • She will experience pain in her role of childbearing. Here, the same way that we saw God’s punishment, uniquely fitted to man, we see God’s punishment and  sin uniquely fitted to women. As a result of sin, women will experience pain in her role of childbearing.Just as God had given man a specific role in providing, working the ground, God has uniquely given woman the role of bearing children. So, God says to woman, I will surely multiply your pain as a woman. You bring forth children. In other words, that which I have created you uniquely to do as a woman, will bring about pain in your life as a woman. You put this together and you realize just how much sin is intertwined with manhood and womanhood. This is not just a generic picture of sin in Genesis 3. This is a picture of sin that is a direct assault, from the adversary on manhood and womanhood , as God has designed it to be. (20:00)

Adam and Eve Casted Out from the Garden Genesis 3:24You can almost picture Satan, at the end of Genesis 3, just laughing, saying, „I’ve got things so distorted now, they’ll never figure this thing out.” You have aggressive man, and you say, „You need to be more passive.” You’ll have passive women, and you’ll say, „You need to stand up and be aggressive. Now, go back and forth between distortions, i.e. contemporary culture, and you’ll never get to the root of the issue. So, take us to the root of the issue: When you put all this together, and the results of Genesis 3 are all across this room.

So, what shall we do? This is the beauty, that in a sense, this is the worst chapter in the Bible. Genesis 3:15 is the promise of grace- the proto evangelion- the first Gospel. And it’s God saying, at the midst of the entrance of sin into the world, to the serpent, „I’m gonna raise up an offspring from woman, and He shall bruise your head, you will bruise His heel.” It’s a promise. God says, at the first entrance of sin in the world, „I’m going to send one, from woman, who is going to conquer sin and Satan and who will bring my redemption. And so, what shall we do, in light of the effects of sin on our marriages, in our homes, and our cultures, on manhood, and womanhood? What we must do is look to Christ. Because He is the one who conquers sin and its effects.

And this is the beauty, you realize. You come to Christ, you’re saved from sin. You trust in Christ as your Lord and Savior and follow the process of sanctification, where you and I, as followers of Christ are being made  in the image of Christ. Sanctification, all growing into the image of Christ. This is where we realize, that as you and I are conformed into the image of Christ, we’re not just conformed into the image of Christ generically. Certainly, some generalities across the board. But, we’re being formed into the image of men and women, and sanctification. If sin affected and is expressed in certain ways, among men and women, then  salvation and sanctification will then be expressed in certain ways among men and women. And our salvation in Christ is not just about becoming the people that God desired us to be, but, our salvation in Christ is about becoming the men and the women God desires us to be. Turning from sinful expressions of manhood, and womanhood, sinful inclinations of manhood and womanhood, to where in Christ be redeemed as the men and women He desires. SO, that’s where we come to God’s design.

This is God’s ideal- God’s design. None of us are there. How can we, from our unique situations, by the grace of Christ, pursue God’s design?

Manhood-

  • praying husband and wifeMan’s primary responsibility is to lead. 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, God has entrusted, in His design, from the beginning, man for the primary (not sole, but we’ll get to that) responsibility to lead, for the good of the woman. It was good in Genesis 1, and turned bad since Genesis 3. It was good in the design- good for man and for woman. This was not leadership for self appeasement, for self gratification, self exaltation.
  1. This is leadership for the good of others. Christ is our leader and He is good. He is a good leader, and so we gladly submit to Christ, our leader. God’s design , and that’s the whole picture, His design is for men to lead in a way that reflects Christ. Some say, „What about men who area abusive do women, domineering over women?” That’s not good, and that’s not God’s design. There’s a manual on church discipline from the 2nd century. And this manual gives the following instruction. „If there is a man that is abusing his wife in the church, the pastor should take 2 stout elders and go visit that home…”
  2. So it is for the good of woman, and ultimately for the glory of Christ. Man realizes that he is a leader under authority. Man is not the ultimate leader. He is the head. Christ is the head of man, and Christ is the ultimate leader, and man, in the design of God, never resumes the authority of Christ over woman. Man leads in a way that points woman to the authority of Christ. That’s God design from the beginning. That’s why God setup the whole picture, to show who Christ is. This is what drives men to lead: The good of woman and the glory of Christ.
  • In that, man is accountable to God for two things, based on what we see in the first 3 chapters.
  1. Man is accountable to God for protection of his wife and of women. It is clear here in chapter 3 that he does not protect his wife from the adversary. And this is what we see all throughout Scripture in spiritual warfare, in physical warfare, family warfare, man is protector for all of God’s people. In the Old Testament, it’s the men who go off to war, not women. In the New Testament, Joseph is told by God to protect Mary and the child, and go into Egypt. Men are commanded in the church, in the New Testament to protect the body.  In a general sense, we all know this. If you have 2 single guys, and 2 single ladies walking down the street together, and an attacker comes up, we all know it is not a sign of manhood for the men to step back and push the ladies forward. Spineless abdication. It is outside the design of God. Man is accountable to God for the protection of his wife.
  2. Man is accountable to God for provision in the home. When God doled out his punishment for sin, he’s directly addressing the responsibility He had given man to work and to provide for a family. A man feels accountability for provision. Now, it doesn’t mean sole accountability. The Bible’s not saying that it’s wrong for women to work outside the home, or to help provide for the family. But, the primary accountability here is upon man, the leader in the home. (29:00)

WOMANHOOD – 

  • woman prayingWoman’s primary responsibility is to support. She is a helper by God’s designGenesis 2. She is not devalued by that, but she is honored by that, in the same way the Son is honored by before the Father.
  1. She supports through a humble disposition that yields to man’s leadership. The reason I put disposition there is because I know there are all kinds of circumstances in this room. That’s what makes this issue really difficult to apply. I have yet to meet a woman who has a husband, that desires to show loving, Godly leadership, protection, provision, humble sacrificial care for her, I have yet to meet a woman that is complaining about that- that says God’s design is not good. Now, I’ve met a lot of women who have not seen that. But, when this is there, we see this is good. It’s very good. knowing that there’s all these circumstances in this room, knowing that there’s manhood nonexistent in many cases, the reason I use the word disposition, is because there is in the pattern of God, the design of God and inclination, a disposition that He has designed for women to desire that, in a good way, that kind of leadership. You might say, „What about a situation where you’ve got a wife that is really, really gifted? And the husband, not so gifted?” Should she still follow his leadership? Absolutely. This is the design of God, based on position, not on ability. Any husband is going to maximize his wife’s gifts
  2. With ultimate devotion to following Christ’s leadership. The husband is the head of the wife, but not ultimate head. Christ is the ultimate head. And, biblical womanhood does not say, „Whatever my husband tells me to do, I’ll do it, no matter what. No, biblical womanhood has a discerning spirit that is inclined to submit to a husband, but is further inclined to submit to Christ. And if her husband wants her to do something that goes directly against the word of Christ, she yields to Christ over him.
  3. Affirming her husband’s role. (35:00)
  4. Nurture in the home. She is equipped by God to nurture in the home, in a way that compliments a man’s leadership with the children. He protects, provides; she affirms and nurtures.

That is the ideal, and none of us are living in it. And, the temptation is to think, „I would, if my husband would get right.” Or, „I would, if my wife would start living out womanhood.” You could spend all day figuring out how to fix the other people in your life on this issue. But, let’s step back and see the application to our own lives. Let’s resist the temptation to shift blame and responsibility for lack of manhood and womanhood in our culture, in the church, in our families, and our lives. And, to say, „In my own life, how God, by your grace, can I be the man and woman you designed for me to be?

Overall exhortations to guide the application in our own lives:

MEN

Initiate humble, hardworking leadership. God made you to work hard, for the good of women, and the glory of His name. Work at leadership.

  1. in spiritual devotion. Is your wife and are your children flourishing in their relationships with Christ? 
  2. in marital duties. Don’t wait for your wife to come to you and say, „There’s some problems in our marriage and we need to talk about.” You initiate that conversation every single time. Turn off the TV, stop hiding on the ball field, behind the computer or at work. Go to her, as your wife, say, „How can I love you better?’ That’s your responsibility. Consistently and periodically sit down with her, and she will love you for it.
  3. in parental discipline. Men who don’t stand idly by, while their kids talk back to their wives. But use humble, loving discipline of children.
  4. in essential decision. It is not that men are supposed to make every single decision for his wife and family. But, that man will feel the overarching responsibility for decision making. That his wife and his children will look to him for leadership in decision making. That he’ll be known for making decisions for their good, and for the glory of Christ.
  5. amidst inevitable disagreements, in those tough decisions,  to lovingly, caringly, graciously, make the tough decisions, with a commitment to love, lead, guide, protect, shepherd his family in the implementation of that decision. This is not easy, brothers. None of us can do this on our own. That’s why Scriptures call us to look to Christ
  6. lay down your life to honor women. Honor your wife. Do not belittle our wife for her failures.
  7. train boys to be men. We need to show boys the humble responsibility, what it looks like in action.

WOMEN –

  1. incline yourselves toward wise, willing, submission. First and foremost to God, in constant prayer. Obviously, you need not submit yourself to abuse. You take that to a church.
  2. and then to men. If you are a wife, obviously, incline yourself to wise, willing submission to a husband, as best as you can, in a way that honors Christ.
  3. for the glory of Christ, live in a way that demonstrates Godly respect for men
  4. live in a way that shows girls how to be women.

David Platt – Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Part 2

Sin’s distortion of Manhood and Womanhood

Coming March 3rd 8/7C pm- A new History Channel Mini Series will feature the Bible- from Genesis to Revelation (Preview Videos)

The Bible is an epic five-week, 10-hour television mini-series premiering March 3, 2013 on the History Channel from Emmy Award winning husband and wife team, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. For two hours each Sunday night millions of viewers will see the Bible from Genesis to Revelation come to life in a way never before seen. The final episode of the series will air on Easter Sunday and will feature the death and resurrection of Jesus.

8:00 pm
Premiere
The Bible: In the Beginning/ExodusNoah endures God’s wrath; Abraham reaches the Promised Land but still must prove his faith in God; M… TV14 V | CCShow Site

source outreach.com via SermonCentral.com

Source for table below – http://www.outreach.com/the-bible/about.aspx

March 3, Episode 1 The Beginning – Noah, Abraham thru Jacob, Israel begins
March 3, Episode 2 The Exodus – Pharaoh, Moses, Red Sea and Ten Commandments
March 10, Episode 3 The Homeland – Joshua, Samson, Judges, David & Goliath
March 10, Episode 4 The Kingdom – David, Saul, Solomon
March 17, Episode 5 The Survival – Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Jews return to Jerusalem
March 17, Episode 6 The Revolution – Roman occupation, Birth of Christ, John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter
March 24, Episode 7 The Mission – Jesus ministry & miracles, Pharasee, the Disciples
March 24, Episode 8 The Betrayal – Last supper, Judas, Peter’s Denial
March 31, Episode 9 The Passion – Nicodemus, Caiaphas, Pilate, Crucifixion, Resurrection
March 31, Episode 10 The Courage – Jesus returns, Holy Spirit comes, Martyrdom of the Disciples, John survival and exile to Patmos, Revelation

The Nativity

Mary did you know

The Bible Trailer

Coming March 3rd 8/7C pm- A new History Channel Mini Series will feature the Bible- from Genesis to Revelation (Preview Videos)

The Bible is an epic five-week, 10-hour television mini-series premiering March 3, 2013 on the History Channel from Emmy Award winning husband and wife team, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. For two hours each Sunday night millions of viewers will see the Bible from Genesis to Revelation come to life in a way never before seen. The final episode of the series will air on Easter Sunday and will feature the death and resurrection of Jesus.

8:00 pm
Premiere
The Bible: In the Beginning/ExodusNoah endures God’s wrath; Abraham reaches the Promised Land but still must prove his faith in God; M… TV14 V | CCShow Site

source outreach.com via SermonCentral.com

Source for table below – http://www.outreach.com/the-bible/about.aspx

March 3, Episode 1 The Beginning – Noah, Abraham thru Jacob, Israel begins
March 3, Episode 2 The Exodus – Pharaoh, Moses, Red Sea and Ten Commandments
March 10, Episode 3 The Homeland – Joshua, Samson, Judges, David & Goliath
March 10, Episode 4 The Kingdom – David, Saul, Solomon
March 17, Episode 5 The Survival – Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Jews return to Jerusalem
March 17, Episode 6 The Revolution – Roman occupation, Birth of Christ, John the Baptist, Jesus and Peter
March 24, Episode 7 The Mission – Jesus ministry & miracles, Pharasee, the Disciples
March 24, Episode 8 The Betrayal – Last supper, Judas, Peter’s Denial
March 31, Episode 9 The Passion – Nicodemus, Caiaphas, Pilate, Crucifixion, Resurrection
March 31, Episode 10 The Courage – Jesus returns, Holy Spirit comes, Martyrdom of the Disciples, John survival and exile to Patmos, Revelation

The Nativity

Mary did you know

The Bible Trailer

Geology and the Genesis Flood – Dr Emil Silvestru

Published on Aug 29, 2012 by 

http://creation.com | The biblical Flood and geology—a closer look at plate tectonics and how they could explain the biblical Flood. An approach from world’s mythology is also taken, proving the global character of the Flood. Evidence from the geologic and fossil records is analyzed and explained in accordance with the biblical account.

Rape Seen Through Jacob in the Bible – Biola University President Barry H. Corey

Shechem siezes Dinah

Shechem siezes Dinah (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jacob’s indifference was his tragic flaw, demonstrated after his daughter was defiled. Instead of standing up, he backed down.  Chapter 34 ends with a pathetic Jacob living in fear with a sense of defilement and scandal on a family that has lost its spiritual soul. But, thank God for chapter 35, for the One who is missing in chapter 34, steps into this family to begin chapter 35 with these three words: „Then God said”.

Men of Biola, don’t be like Jacob of Genesis 34. Stand up for women and their dignity. Speak out against friends who try to commoditize women, objectify them, who disparage their purity. Don’t be that way and refuse to tolerate those piranhas who think of women in terms of „get me her”. And, one day you might have a wife and daughters. Don’t allow your own self interests, as noble as those self interests might be to trump your obligation to love and protect your wife and your children. (see rest of notes below video).

Published on Aug 13, 2012 by  Chapel from Sexual Violence Awareness Week  April 23, 2012

The sincerity of words must be earned. As you men live respectively in community, here with women honor their dignity and honor their beauty. Spend more time looking at Biola women above the neck, then below the neck. May this be  palace known for honoring women as they flourish in the image of God, the way they were created: intelligent, bright, wise, insightful, beautiful, nurturing, strong.

And, whenever injustices take place against women in our society- from pornography, to sex trafficking, to comments, to employment discrimination, to domestic abuse, to a sense of gender superiority don’t ever think the right response is Jacob’s (i.e. silence after his daughter’s rape) seeing injustices and turning a blind eye to symptoms that steal the dignity from women. That’s not right. The world has enough exploitative men like Shechem (Dinah’s rapist). Let’s fight back by being men of integrity, not indignity.

And by the way, pornography is one way you commoditize  and objectify women. As fathers, and husbands and boyfriends, as classmates, as friends, as fathers and sons, as leaders in your communities and your careers- treat women with respect and dignity. There’s a place still for chivalry

#2 Don’t be like Shechem of Genesis 34–  just as you should not be like Jacob. Men, don’t say what you think women want to hear in order to get what you want to get. You know what I mean. Honor the dignity of the girls who are your friends and the girls and the girls you begin to feel tender for. Dignify them with your words and actions, don’t objectify them. „Get me her”, in order to feed your own sensual cravings. Shechem couldn’t give a rip about Dinah or at least he cared a lot more about himself then this girl otherwise he wouldn’t have treated her like the object of his one sided sexual desires.

Women of Biola, know that you are precious in God’s sight, even if you feel like someone has taken advantage of you, or didn’t stand up for you. Not all men are like Shechem and want to exploit you. Not all men are like Jacob and refuse to defend you. But there are men that way. Don’t let these exploitative and cowardly men define you. There are also men like many guys sitting around you today who want you to flourish in all God has called you to be and they will honor your dignity and cherish your beauty inside and out. Ladies, don’t let cheap words of tenderness and shallow love sway your sense about who you are.

Ladies, each of you is worthy to be pursued, to be wooed and ravished with love by a man who is crazy about you and exclusively faithful. It’s the poetry of Song of Songs that describes the beauty of a man truly pursuing a woman and a woman truly yielding to a man.

#3 Don’t be like Simeon and Levi of Genesis 34– although, I have to admit I am more sympathetic to them. Just like the right response to Dinah’s violation was not Jacob’s indifference, neither was it his sons’ vengeance. Violence breeds violence. They mocked the Lord by taking the holy rite of circumcision  and they abused it in order to get even. Vigilante style, they bypassed justice as they kicked the stuff out of Shechem and his father along with all the other men of the city. They did the right thing by rescuing their sister, the victim, from Shechem’s house. But, then, they did the wrong thing when they ridiculed the covenant of God, when they murdered the men and took the women and children of the city as bounty replicating the same indignity Shechem and his father had done.

We don’t respond to injustices against women by indifference and neither do we by vengeance. We respond by rescuing the victims and seeking to right the system that led to these wrongs. What God wants of us is to rise above the pathetic indifference of Jacob and the pathetically irrational actions of Simeon and Levi and to work to free the victims who are sexually manipulated and to correct the systems that allow this to happen. I’m so proud to know many of you will be doing just that- (through) your lives as social workers, as journalists, as teachers and film makers, as counselors, as physicians, as attorneys, as researchers, as entrepreneurs, as pastors, as good citizens.

At Biola University we believe there are great challenges in this world, challenges that call for life giving and Christ centered redemptive voices. This story of Genesis 34 shows adjective injustices when women are de-dignified, women made in the image of God and we need to be voices of compassion, we need to be voices of justice and mercy. And, as much as this chapter shows injustices in the way that these men failed because they were cowardly- like Jacob, or ego maniacal- like Shechem, or vindictive – like Levi and Simeon, there is a bigger story here and that is the failure of spiritual leadership. This chapter is an absolute mess. A girl is forcibly raped, a father doesn’t seem to care, the sons lose it and slaughter people, a family is torn apart. Well, what’s wrong? This chapter is a mess not because of what is there, but because of what is not there. What’s missing from Genesis chapter 34? God’s name is missing. It’s one of the few chapters of the historical books of the Bible that doesn’t mention the name of the Lord in any form. What does that tell you about why family chaos erupted when a bad thing happened to them? And why no Godly leadership emerged from the family patriarch- Jacob. No one was recognizing that the antidote to the family crisis and moral implosion was to respond to the Lord, to stand up as a braveheart God has called us to be as a spiritual leader, especially the father, Jacob.

Students, our world is no less messed up now than it was then. Are you nurturing the habits of your heart in your deep relationship with God, so that you can stand up and be a spiritual leader? In your relationships, one day in your family in addressing the injustices you will give yourself to correct, where are the spiritual leaders? We need a rising generation to lead with biblical and Godly courage. We don’t need you to sit back Jacob like and live in indifference, worrying about your own hide or your own success… Don’t squander these college years with the anemic disease of indifference. Enjoy your friendships, enjoy your leisurely time, but let it refresh you to be motivated for more than a degree to get you a job. Stand up for a cause that is dear to the heart of God. Take some risks, you have nothing to lose. Standing up to lead sometimes means stooping down to serve. Don’t feel like some roles of serving are below you, that’s arrogance and pride. Don’t feel that some roles of serving are bigger than you and you can’t rise to the challenge, that’s timidity.

I would actually, in the spirit of Genesis 34, like to see more of you standing up with Godly courage for causes that matter, not to fritter away your days. And a word to the guys of Biola, I often see risk taking leadership more in women, here. There are plenty of guys leading, but no one is off the hook. Don’t fail to stand up for a cause that rises from your obedience to God and His word. And that means dethroning the idols of self and sloth that get in the way. Stand up and be servant leaders, men.

Jacob’s indifference was his tragic flaw, demonstrated after his daughter was defiled. Instead of standing up, he backed down.  Chapter 34 ends with a pathetic Jacob living in fear with a sense of defilement and scandal on a family that has lost its spiritual soul. But, thank God for chapter 35, for the One who is missing in chapter 34, steps into this family to begin chapter 35 with these three words: „Then God said”. After all this family mess and spiraling chaos God shows up through His word. Then God said to Jacob, „Get up and go to Bethel, where you first encountered Me and settle there and build an altar there to God.Finally, be like Jacob in Genesis 35. It says that all the people followed him and he was a spiritual eager again. God gives this renewed sense of worth to Jacob and He gives Him a command. He says, „Go to Bethel and build an altar to me there, right where I first appeared to you decades ago when that ladder came down from heaven and I bridged that gap between heaven and earth and you experienced me for the first time in your life. Go back to that place where you found me when you were alone, you were frightened, you were fleeing for your life. Go to that same space and know Me again like you once did before you drifted so far from Me”

And those of you who feel like you’ve drifted, it’s time you took a lesson from Jacob and made things right with God, one on one in whatever this sacred space is for you and then build an altar of commitment. So, Jacob began that pilgrimage, back to the place where he first heard from God in Genesis 28, where he set up an altar. That place of brokenness where he turned to God and faith. „And, as you go,” God told Jacob in verse 2, „I want you to begin shedding the junk that has been accumulating in your life in these intervening years. Lead that family of yours by getting rid of the foreign gods that you have with you  and purify yourselves. Go in purity and power by surrendering your fears to my strengths.”

So in verse 6 Jacob returned to that place where God first showed up, he reprioritized his life and in so doing he regained that spiritual leadership with his family, so absent in chapter 34. As we stand up and in a community walk together in healing, we take back the dignity the devil has stolen from so many. And this is our calling students. Allow the spirit of God and the word of God to wake you from your slumber, to call you to greater things. Don’t squander the best years before you. Then in verse 6 it says Jacob and all the people came with him to Bethel. Finally, he began to model a father’s love, the love that God has for us. With his family around him, this restored Jacob, he built an altar  and he called the place El-Bethel, House of God. And in verse 11, God reminded Jacob of  a promise that sets the stage for a great commission in Matthew 28 that „all nations will be blessed through us”. He says, „I am God almighty and nations and the community of nations will come from you and kings will come from your body, including the Messianic seed of Christ, the King of Kings, the one who restored and through whom we are able to stand up and go forward.

Why the historicity of Adam is important

Adam and Eve Are Driven out of Eden by Gustave...

Adam and Eve Are Driven out of Eden by Gustave Dore. Picture portrayed over passage in Genesis. And he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

via Christian Post By Kevin DeYoung , CP Guest Contributor (article 2/9/12)

In recent years, several self-proclaimed evangelicals, or those associated with evangelical institutions, have called into question the historicity of Adam and Eve. It is said that because of genomic research we can no longer believe in a first man called Adam from whom the entire human race has descended.

I’ll point to some books at the end which deal with thescience end of the question, but the most important question is what does the Bible teach. Without detailing a complete answer to that question, let me suggest ten reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the first human being.

1. The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.

2. The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people „this is how things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the ANE.

3. The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?

4. There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.

5. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.

6. Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.

7. The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam. The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.

8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.

9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.

10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together.

Christians may disagree on the age of the earth, but whether Adam ever existed is a gospel issue. Tim Keller is right:

[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . .If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument-that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’-falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching. (Christianity Today June 2011)

If you want to read more about the historical Adam debate, check out Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins.

For more on the relationship between faith and science, you may want to look at one of the following:

John C. Lennox, God’s Undertake: Has Science Buried God?
Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses, edited by Norman C. Nevin
God and Evolution, edited by Jay Richards
Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach
C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friend or Foes


Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari