Pastoral Musings

There is a certain naivete that tells us that a person who professes to be faithful is indeed faithful; and we are not to say anything in regard to their actions.

After all, we must always take folks at their word, regardless of their actions.

That, however, is quite naive.

You see, many are not what they proclaim to be. That is why Jesus called some hypocrites: they were acting, but were not what they portrayed themselves to be.

Paul also spoke of some whose works showed the lie of their words. ( Titus 1:16 )

We are all inconsistent in some ways. Of that there is no doubt. The reality is that we should also be aware of that so that we can correct it. Neither is it unkind to speak of this problem when it is detrimental to the faith of others.

Something needs to be said concerning the Peter Enns, James McGraths, and Daniel Kirks of the world. They need to be told how much they need to speak positively.
For too long folks have questioned and reinterpreted the Genesis creation narrative with impunity. It is implied, insinuated, and explicitly stated that Adam did not literally exist. We are told that we can have the doctrine and covenant of Adam without having had Adam himself. The issue, we are told, is that the Bible is Christotelic and Christocentric. Supposedly that means that somehow the literal Adam is unnecessary. We can have the antitype, Jesus Christ, without the type, Adam. We aren’t told exactly how this is so.
We are simply left with doubt about Adam’s existence.
We are left with a void where Adam once was.
We are left with the negative, and we are given very little positive.
If these gentlemen truly care for the church, they will supply us exegesis, theology, and sound reasoning based upon Scripture as to why and how we can and must do without Adam.
Replace the void with something constructive.
Offset the negative with something positive.
Don’t leave people in doubt of the Scriptures and of God. Use Scripture to build a constructive case for your position.
Give God’s people a reason for believing Scripture.
If you can only sow seeds of doubt, stir up dissension, and leave the man in the pew scratching his head in confusion, just hush it up! You are doing no one any good.
Either teach a truly positive and Christocentric theology which upholds the veracity of Scripture as Jesus did, or be silent until you can.

Well spoken by a lady named Heather.

Liberals are why we homeschool.

Because Liberalism stands in direct opposition of the freedoms that our founding fathers sought to protect for all men. Because Liberalism stands in direct opposition to the value of human life and the worth of the human child that God says we should have. Because Liberalism would take my child and exploit them, abort them, distort their minds and darken their souls.

{ Liberalism is the greatest threat to America. }

The leap from microevolution to macroevolution is unobserved: it is simply an extrapolation.

See this article.

One does not have to accept macroevolution simply because he accepts microevolution.

First of all, definitions:

Microevolution:

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

 

Macroevolution:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

Note that macroevolution refers to evolution above the species level  and tries to understand the origin of groups larger than species, while microevolution looks at change that is pretty much change within species.

Now Young Earth Creationists generally speak of created kinds instead of species, because kinds seems to include more than a single species. That does not mean that the change within kinds that YEC believe in necessitates their believing in macroevolution. The reason is that macroevolution looks far beyond speciation to the largest of all trends in evolution. Notice that the definition above shows that macroevolution looks at the origin of mammals and not simply change within mammalia. Thus there is a vast difference between the YEC view of change and the macroevolutionary view of change.

Furthermore, YEC are not the only folks who have issues with macroevolution. There are proponents of Intelligent Design who have problems with it.

Surprise! There’s no satisfactory mathematical model for macroevolution, at the present time

In 2006, Professor Allen Macneill acknowledged that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution is. He could have meant that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable at all; alternatively, he may have simply meant that macroevolutionary models are not as detailed as microevolutionary models. If he meant the latter, then I would ask: where’s the mathematics that explains macroevolution? Surprisingly, it turns out that there is currently no adequate mathematical model for Darwinian macroevolution. Professor James Tour’s remark that “The Emperor has no clothes” is spot-on.

Click here for the full article.

The argument that YEC’s belief in multitudes of changes within created kinds is a belief in some form of Darwinian macroevolution is simply a strawman fallacy.

Lamb (Photo credit: GrahamPics1)

John 1:29

This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it, is a Christian; whoever does not, is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: “This is the Lamb of God, who bears the sin of the world.” Moreover, this text is the Word of God, not our word. Nor is it our invention that the Lamb was sacrificed by God and that, in obedience to the Father, this Lamb took upon Himself the sin of the whole world. But the world refuses to believe this; it does not want to concede the honor to this dear Lamb that our salvation depends entirely on His bearing our sin. The world insists on playing a role in this too. But the more it aspires to do in atonement for sin, the worse it fares. For there is no atoner but this Lamb; God recognizes no other. Would it not be reasonable and right to take these words into our hearts that we might become aware of our sin?

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 22: Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

When the Creator spoke to Adam and warned him against eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, He warned him that he would die if he at of it. Some have looked at the statement and wondered how a father could tell his child, “If you do this thing, I’ll kill you”. The reality is that something vastly different was taking place. The man would surely die, but he was not being warned of it by one who was solely his father.

The relationship between the LORD (YHWH) and Adam was that of a King and his vassal. There is a covenant that is being established. The covenant is that man is to rule the world as YHWH rules it. He is to take dominion, fill the earth, and enjoy the fruits God gave him. There is one point which is a breaking point: if man does not worship God as evidenced by his enjoying Him through His gifts, but decides to turn aside and worship in his own way by disobeying in the partaking of the forbidden fruit, he will be a covenant breaker who is subject to death.

This is not about a father telling his son that he will kill him for disobeying. This is about the King of kings telling his subjects the consequences of treason. It is about the gracious, Covenant making God declaring the results of man’s failing to worship according to the covenant rules.

That is why there is no discrepancy between the warning that death will come and the fact that they did not immediately die. Though mankind was plunged into sin and was spiritually dead (I.e. he was alienated from God.), there was a sense in which he worshiped God and became covenantally alive by means of the death of an animal in his place ( Genesis 3:21). Man’s shame was covered and man lived a while longer due to the provisional nature of the blood sacrifice.

Thankfully we are aware that there is now a sacrifice that does not need to be repeated- that of the lamb of God ( John 1:29;Hebrews 10:11-14).

The earliest Church Fathers do not speak very definitely on the origin of sin, though the idea that it originated in the voluntary transgression and fall of Adam in paradise is already found in the writings of Irenæus. This soon became the prevailing view in the Church, especially in opposition to Gnosticism, which regarded evil as inherent in matter, and as such the product of the Demiurge.

ref.ly/o/stberkhof/636773?length=429

In general the Greek Church Fathers of the third and fourth centuries showed an inclination to discount the connection between the sin of Adam and those of his descendants, while the Latin Church Fathers taught with ever-increasing clearness that the present sinful condition of man finds its explanation in the first transgression of Adam in paradise. The teachings of the Eastern Church finally culminated in Pelagianism, which denied that there was any vital connection between the two, while those of the Western Church reached their culmination in Augustinianism which stressed the fact that we are both guilty and polluted in Adam.

t.co/aEZvCpXvVi

Original sin, as a doctrinal formula, is common to the orthodox creeds for the expression and characterization of native sinfulness. Augustine first brought it into prominence for this purpose, but it is older than Augustine, and its first doctrinal use is ascribed to Tertullian.

http://bible.faithlife.com/books/jmileysysth01/offset/1135214?length=284

Here are a few quotes from the Justin and Irenaeus on the subject of sin.

While they certainly aren’t as precise as Augustinian and Reformed statements, and possibly not always confining themselves to the idea of original sin, these quotes do show that there was an awareness that Adam plunged humanity into sin and that we inherited it from him.

Justin Martyr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit. [1]

I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam—namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God—that we might recover in Christ Jesus.[2]

they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive.[3]

Wherefore also “the first Adam was made” by the Lord “a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit.” As, then, he who was made a living soul forfeited life when he turned aside to what was evil, so, on the other hand, the same individual, when he reverts to what is good, and receives the quickening Spirit, shall find life.[4]

Wherefore also “the first Adam was made” by the Lord “a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit.” As, then, he who was made a living soul forfeited life when he turned aside to what was evil, so, on the other hand, the same individual, when he reverts to what is good, and receives the quickening Spirit, shall find life.[5]

And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, “Go to Siloam, and wash;” thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know] Him who has conferred upon him life.[6]

 

He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.[7]

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel.”[8]

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin With Trypho, a Jew”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 243 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). chap. lxxxviii.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 446 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 3.18.1

[3] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 527 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.1.3

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 538 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.12.2

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 538 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.14.1-2

[6] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 543 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.15.3

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 544 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.16.3

[8] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies”, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 548 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885). 5.21.1

Practically every time someone such as I warns about the effects of denying the Genesis Creation Narrative as being a true historical narrative we are told that we are employing a slippery slope argument.

No, it’s not a slippery slope argument to say that the logical results (though one may not carry his theology as far as what would logically follow- people are often inconsistent) are the denial of certain fundamental Christian doctrines which have been held by most Christians throughout the history of Christianity.

Today Peter Enns has proven my point by denying that the Old Testament anywhere speaks of original sin. He gives five reasons why original sin should be reconsidered.

1. Inherited sinfulness is not one of the curses on Adam.

Ok. Granted.

But why should the text spell out what is obvious? Adam and Eve sinned, thus all of humanity sinned. What would Adam’s children then be? Sinners. As a matter of fact, Genesis 5:1 specifically tells us that Adam’s’ son was in Adam’s image; so, though the Imago Dei remained, yet there was that tarnished, sinful, Adamic image in the son of Adam.

Then there’s that statement that David made saying that he was conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity. No, he was by no means implying that the sexual act of procreation was sinful. David was stating that he was by nature a sinner. (Psalm 51:5)

Then, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence that shows that Adam’s offspring were sinful people.

2.True obedience to God is both expected and doable.

Amazing! Pelagius would be so proud of Peter!

If true obedience were doable (This is much different from that which is expected.), then why was there provision made for sin? Why were sacrifices performed immediately after Adam’s fall? Why did men offer blood sacrifices before the law was given? Why was Abel spoken of as being justified by faith- faith which was demonstrated when he offered the blood of an animal, which was a symbol of Jesus Christ crucified for us?

Why, then, does Jeremiah say, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23)   Jeremiah was telling us that we are by nature sinful, just as a leopard is spotted by nature. Being by nature sinful, it is natural for us to sin; thus consistently doing good is impossible.

Further more, wise Solomon himself said, “there is no man that sinneth not.” (1Kings 8:46)

Why is Peter so hell-bent on denying  determined to deny what is so very obvious?

3. With one exception,Adam disappears after Genesis 5.

4. Adam is not blamed for Cain’s act of murder.

5. Likewise, Adam is not blamed for the flood.

I wonder if Peter realizes that he is arguing from silence. Does he not understand that is virtually no argument at all?

Remember: I am only looking at the Old Testament here. I know people will respond, “But what about Paul!?” Fair enough–but–even if Paul sees Adam as the cause of human misery and alienation from God, we still need to grapple with why the Old Testament doesn’t see it that way.

Hmmm…so Peter would have us believe that there is a controversy between Paul and Moses? Oh, wait! Peter doesn’t accept Moses as either author or compiler of Genesis.

Obviously Peter is denying that the Bible is without error, because he has just pitted one portion of Scripture against another; thus he has denied that Scripture is free from error.

Nothing new here. Feel free to move on to the next point. This is classic Ennsianism.

Others will respond: “But if Adam isn’t the cause of it all, we no longer have a good explanation for why people are so messed up?” Fine, but the fact that questions arise that muddle our theology doesn’t make the Old Testament magically fall into line.

What an interesting sleight of the hand/keyboard. Enns moves from contrasting his view of the OT with Paul’s view of inherent depravity and now simply speaks of it as our theology being muddled.

No, we are not expecting the Old Testament to magically fall into line. We understand that Paul knew the Old Testament far better than we or Enns shall ever know it. We expect Paul to exegete, explain, and apply the Old Testament correctly. In fact, once we’ve honestly looked at the Old Testament without our modernistic blinders, we find that it does more than magically fall into line- it drew the line and Paul walked the line.

Still others will respond: “But without Adam as the cause of human sinfulness, the entire gospel falls apart.” Rather, I think only a version of the gospel that needs this kind of Adam falls apart. Perhaps there are other ways (and there are).

Well, now! What have we warned about? The importance of the gospel being diminished.

Now we see that Enns proposes another gospel. It would be well if Enns takes the time to remember the words of Paul:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9)

Yes, Enns is taking a slide down the slippery slope; except, as far as logic is concerned, it isn’t a slippery slope- it logically follows that a denial of the Genesis Creation Account as an accurate historical narrative could have profound effects upon how we view the gospel.

To close with the wise words of a lady who has taken the time to read Enns’ books:

there is always a domino effect when one begins to “reinterpret” Scripture. Dr. Enns does not believe that God created the world and all things in six days. Therefore, Adam cannot be an historical figure who is literally the first man created by God from the dust of the earth. Therefore, Paul must be mistaken. And, therefore, the doctrine of original sin must be “rethought” as well.

As his understanding of Scripture and doctrine continues to unravel, what will Dr. Enns be left with when he’s finished?