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.

…it has never been shown that texts are always or necessarily misinterpreted when they are used as proofs for doctrines.

John Frame

The Doctrine Of The Knowledge Of God

Pastoral duties have me busy presently, but I could not pass this up.

One of the most foolish things that we hear today is the idea that Scripture is incarnate.

It is not.

God the Word, Jesus the Christ, is incarnate.

Scripture is inspired, but not incarnate.

The closest that Scripture comes to being incarnate is in its being fulfilled in Christ.

The next closest Scripture comes to being incarnate is by being wrapped in Moroccan leather, or something similar.

I do not say that irreverently. I say it seriously. We cannot make Christ and Scripture so totally one that we do not distinguish between them.

The Son of God came to us in flesh. Scripture came via the Spirit in a text.

God The Fount Of All Truth And Rationality

“Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”¹

Many years ago a man asked the question, “What is truth?”² We can only speculate about why he asked this question. It is, however, a question that we all must ask. What is truth? Truth is that which conforms to reality. It is the actual state of a matter, and it is also fidelity to a required standard or law³ Having this answer will help us move forward.

The greater problem is that all of us believe that we have truth on our side. Folks who believe in absolute truth argue for their position and do so quite strenuously. Those who do not believe in absolute truth are often absolutely sure of their position as well. Those who believe that there is no such thing as truth and that all things are meaningless are also convinced that their arguments have meaning and are true. How do we judge these claims? How do we deal with this issue? Who is correct? Whose truth is true?

The answer to the above questions brings us back to our definition of truth as that which is faithful to a required standard or law. There must be a standard of truth or we will never have anything by which to measure truth claims. Every man could, and would, be a law unto himself. Truth would be relative without an absolute standard. One man’s truth would be another’s lie, and one nation’s lie would be another nation’s truth. There must be a standard.

What is this standard? First of all the standard must be absolute, or else there will be no consistency or rationality. After all, if truth is forever changing, there is actually no truth at all; because what is true at one point in history would susceptible to becoming an untruth in a moment of time, though nothing but the standard changed. The goal posts would forever be moving and mankind would have no ability to be rational. “David Hume, the great skeptic, has effectively argued that if you allow any room for Chance in your thought, then you no longer have the right to speak of probabilities. Whirl would be king. No one hypothesis would have any more relevance to facts than any other hypothesis. Did God raise Christ from the dead? Perchance he did. Did Jupiter do it? Perchance he did. What is Truth? Nobody knows.”⁴ There must be an absolute standard of truth.

We all are convinced that we have truth. Even the person who believes that truth does not exist, or is relative, is ironically certain that his position is the truth. The one who says that there is no truth, and that words have no meaning, still expects us to find meaning and truth in what he says. Cornelius Van Til responded to such ideas and said, “No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.”⁵

How does God even come into this discussion? Does logic equal God? Hardly, but, on the other hand, logic cannot exist without God. Truth cannot exist without God. Speaking of the Van Tillian view of knowledge, John Frame says, “Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”⁶ Greg Bahsen spoke of God and said, “His existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world.”⁷ This necessity for God is the thing we must prove.

We have already seen that there is a necessity for an absolute standard of truth if we are to have rationality. Why must this standard be God? First of all I must be clear that I mean the transcendent, immanent, eternal, immutable, personal, Trinitarian God of the Christian Scriptures. “Nothing is intelligible unless God exists, and God must be nothing less than the Trinitarian, sovereign, transcendent, and immanent absolute personality of the Scriptures.”⁸ Here I speak of Him only as the eternal and immutable God. (The other attributes will be addressed later in this series.) This God is the standard of truth. He is the truth. John Frame has said that “the argument is transcendental. Rather than offering straightforward empirical evidence for God, it asks the deeper question: what must be the case if evidential argument and knowledge (and hence objective moral standards) are to be possible?”⁹ The answer is that God exists and the Bible provides the only grounds for truth and rationality. But we still must prove God’s necessity.

This world has no other standard of truth than God. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), and He alone is the arbiter and source of knowledge and truth (Deuteronomy 32:4;1Samuel 2:3;John 14:6¹⁰;2Corinthians 1:18;1John 2:27). Why is He the standard? Because He is the Creator. “If the Christian position with respect to creation, that is, with respect to the idea of the origin of both the subject and the object of human knowledge is true, there is and must be objective knowledge. In that case the world of objects was made in order that the subject of knowledge, namely man, should interpret it under God. Without the interpretation of the universe by man to the glory of God the whole world would be meaningless. The subject and object are therefore adapted to one another. On the other hand if the Christian theory of creation by God is not true then we hold that there cannot be objective knowledge of anything. In that case all things in this universe are unrelated and cannot be in fruitful contact with one another. This we believe to be the simple alternative on the question of the objectivity of knowledge as far as the things of this universe are concerned.”¹¹ There is simply no other way that there can be coherence and rationality. Either God the Creator is the sole and absolute standard and authority, with all things relating to Him and subordinate to Him, or there is no knowledge, truth, or rationality.

Thus we conclude by saying, if God then absolute truth. If we know anything at all, it is because God is the fount of all knowledge and truth.

Here is a statement from Infidels.org.

“NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.

IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by “inconsistencies” I do not necessarily mean “contradictions.” Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions.”

What is contradictory about this statement?
The fact that they think that they are able to point out contradictions.
You see, logic is only logical in the worldview of the Christian Theist.  The atheist and agnostic cannot use logic consistently with their worldview.

Why?

Because there is no absolute, intelligent, reasoning personality.  That is, there is no standard for logic.  If we have simply evolved to where we are today, our logic has evolved.  That means that, tomorrow, our logic may have evolved even more.  If that were the case, what was an inconsistency or contradiction today may be perfectly clear to us tomorrow.  Reason would not be reason, because our thinking would be in a constant state of change.

Logic DEMANDS an absolute.  Atheism and agnosticism have no absolutes.  Thus they have no logic.

Thus they cannot logically speak of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures.

Just musing..

For the last year or so I have refused to take the bait from Joel and folk of his kind.

I simply haven’t the time for foolishness, straw men, liberalism, and the desire to misconstrue the things that are said by those with whom he disagrees.

Today, however, he decided to call me a blasphemer. Oh, he didn’t use that word directly: he just said that my words about Genesis were blasphemous. That is essentially the same as calling me a blasphemer.

The problem is that Joel willingly refuses to see that Jesus is the Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-19,Hebrews 1:1-4  etc.) When one speaks of God’s act of Creation, one speaks of Jesus creating.

Far from denying the centrality of Jesus, I emphasize it. It is also the reason I will not compromise with unbiblical and irrational worldviews that deny that inherent and eternal authority of Christ as He is revealed to us in Scripture.

Instead of denying the centrality of Jesus, my beliefs concerning Jesus give Him His proper place not only as Creator, but as the autonomous God who reveals Himself to us in His Word (Scripture). That is very different from trying to be autonomous and declare that Scripture must conform to the irrationalism of the present age that seeks to deny that truth of Scripture.

When Jesus spoke of His exalted being He was called a blasphemer. I’m glad to know that, as imperfect as I am, that my exaltation of Jesus puts me in good company.

So, Joel, continue on the path you take if you wish. I want no part of it. I have no respect for it. I pity you for your lack of faith as well as the lack of character that leads you to willfully show disrespect with no good cause. I shall continue to pray for you, but I have no more time for your foolish denial of the truth of Scripture.

God’s act of creation is the foundation for the entire biblical history.

ESVSB Gen 1:1

If the foundation of a house is not square, or level, the whole house will be difficult to build correctly. There will have to be serious adjustments to the rest of the building, the building will be unlevel or not squared, or the foundation will have to be reworked.

It is the same with our understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we get them wrong, the whole of our biblical understanding will be out of line to some degree.

I took the plunge.

I have purchased, downloaded, and am now indexing.

I cannot wait until it is finished so that I can explore and learn this updated program.

Three Things The Bible Does

(And If You Miss Them, You Will Misunderstand It Terribly.)

There are a number of different approaches taken by those who read the Bible. Many of those approaches are errant and only lead to more error.

Among the approaches taken is the approach of declaring that the Bible is either morally wrong, or inconsistent due to there being mentions of such things as polygamy.

The problem with this approach to interpreting the Bible is manifold, but glaringly evident is the fact that the persons making such claims miss the three things that the Bible does.

What are the three things that the Bible does? The reader of the Bible must recognize these three things, or he will misunderstand it and terribly misinterpret it. The Bible prescribes, describes, and circumscribes.

Let me demonstrate this by using the example of polygamy.

The Bible prescribes something concerning marriage. What the Bible prescribes is monogamy. The Bible tells us that God Himself said that two (a man and a woman) become one flesh in marriage (See Genesis 2:17-25;Matthew 19:1-6). No more than two are in a marriage. The Bible prescribes monogamy in marriage.

The Bible describes polygamy. Over and again we find polygamy described. Many times God’s children fell into this sin. Solomon is an extreme example of this. Lest we should think that the description of polygamy is a condoning of polygamy, we need to recall Solomon’s being rebuked because of this. We should also recognize that Scripture often describes the problems that arose from polygamous relationships. Description is not prescription.

Finally, the Bible circumscribes polygamy in that, knowing that some people would be wicked enough to disobey God in this matter, rules were given to Israel about how they were to deal with the issue (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17;Exodus 21:7-11). To circumscribe something is not to say that the whole of the issue is not problematic and sinful. To circumscribe something is not to prescribe that thing that is circumscribed.

Far too many people believe that the Scriptures prescribe things which it often only describes or circumscribes. Wise is the one who will recognize the need to approach that Bible carefully, and seeks to recognize these three things.

1 The Ancient Near East an Anthology of Texts and Pictures., ed. James Bennett Pritchard, 60-61 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

2 The Ancient Near East an Anthology of Texts and Pictures., ed. James Bennett Pritchard, 62 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

3 The Ancient Near East an Anthology of Texts and Pictures., ed. James Bennett Pritchard, 66 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

4 The Ancient Near East an Anthology of Texts and Pictures., ed. James Bennett Pritchard, 68 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

5 The Ancient Near East an Anthology of Texts and Pictures., ed. James Bennett Pritchard, 69 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).