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.

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?

“To you, O LORD, I call; my rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if you be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit. Hear the voice of my pleas for mercy, when I cry to you for help, when I lift up my hands toward your most holy sanctuary. Do not drag me off with the wicked, with the workers of evil, who speak peace with their neighbors while evil is in their hearts. Give to them according to their work and according to the evil of their deeds; give to them according to the work of their hands; render them their due reward. Because they do not regard the works of the LORD or the work of his hands, he will tear them down and build them up no more. Blessed be the LORD! For he has heard the voice of my pleas for mercy. The LORD is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him. The LORD is the strength of his people; he is the saving refuge of his anointed. Oh, save your people and bless your heritage! Be their shepherd and carry them forever.” (Psalm 28, ESV)

David declares that He will worship YHWH by praying to Him.

There are those who do not pray. They are wicked. They will be destroyed.

The wicked will be destroyed because they will not take the time to consider the works of God. Because of this, God will destroy them.

On the other hand, David will trust in YHWH, rejoice in Him, and sing his thanks to Him.

What is it that drives David to trust in the LORD? What is it that causes him to rejoice and sing? He regards the works of the LORD. He contemplates the work of Providence and sees the glorious hand of God as He works all things for the good of His children.

The wicked does not stop to think about God. God is not in all of His thoughts (Psalm 10:4). He does not trust His Creator, and does not look to Him to take care of him.

For those who consider the works of God, however, is deliverance and strength; because all who contemplate His works trust in Him.

Let us never forget to meditate on the providential works of our Savior. He does these things not only for our good, but to strengthen our faith and inspire our praise.

To say that you get the Holy Spirit later, after salvation because the apostles did is to misunderstand the redemptive history of God. The Spirit came here because this was the time for the Spirit to come. And there had to be a beginning. It is not to say that this is the example of every Christian who then gets the Spirit X number of years after his salvation. Not at all.

Now, this is a mystery. The body of Christ is the collective unity of all saints of which Christ is the head. When you believed in Jesus Christ, you were placed into that unity, that body. You became one with Christ and one with every other believer, right? If you’re in the body of Christ, you’re one with Him. 1 Corinthians 6:17, “He that is that joined to the Lord is one,” what, “one Spirit.” When you became saved, Paul says, “nevertheless I live yet,” not I, but what, “Christ lives in me.” My life is not my own anymore, it’s Christ’s. I am in Him. I’m one with Him. I’m joined to Him.

So when you believed in Jesus Christ at the very moment of your salvation, He placed you into the body in union with Christ and every other believer. Are we one with each other in Christ? Sure. How did we get there? That’s what the baptism of the Spirit is. Now in case you want to look at another passage, look at Romans 6. And keep in mind that there’s no water around. These passages aren’t talking about water baptism at all. This is theology at this point apart from the symbol of it, which is in the water baptism.

via The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Part 1.

See also:

The Church

The Baptism With The Holy Spirit

Image via Wikipedia

Verse 18. “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

And he insists again upon it, saying,
Verse 19. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offense of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation , if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (φιλοσοφίας). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater. blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ’s sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come.
Verse 20. “Moreover the Law entered: that the offense might abound.”
Since then he had shown that the world was condemned from Adam, but from Christ was saved and freed from condemnation, he now seasonably enters upon the discussion of the Law, here again undermining the high notions of it. For it was so far from doing any good, he means, or from being any way helpful, but the disorder was only increased by its having come in. But the particle “that” again does not assign the cause, but the result. For the purpose of its being given was not “in order that” it might abound, for it was given to diminish and destroy the offense. But it resulted the opposite way, not owing to the nature of the Law, but owing to the listlessness of those who received it. But why did he not say the Law was given, but “the Law entered by the way?” It was to show that the need of it was temporary, and not absolute or imperative. And this he says also to the Galatians, showing the very same thing another way. “For before faith came,” he says, “we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” And so it was not for itself, but for another, that it kept the flock. For since the Jews were somewhat gross-minded, and enervated, and indifferent to the gifts themselves, this was why the Law was given, that it might convict them the more, and clearly teach them their own condition, and by increasing the accusation might the more repress them. But be not thou afraid, for it was not that the punishment might be greater that this was done, but that the grace might be seen to be greater. And this is why he proceeds,
“But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”
He does not say did abound, but “did much more abound.” For it was not remission from punishment only that He gave us, but that from sins, and life also. As if any were not merely to free a man with a fever from his disease, but to give him also beauty, and strength, and rank; or again, were not to give one an hungered nourishment only, but were to put him in possession of great riches, and were to set him in the highest authority. And how did sin abound? some will say. The Law gave countless commands. Now since they transgressed them all, transgression became more abundant. Do you see what a great difference there is between grace and the Law? For the one became an addition to the condemnation, but the other, a further abundance of gifts. Having then mentioned the unspeakable munificence, he again discusses the beginning and the root both of death and of life. What then is the root of death? It is sin. Wherefore also he saith,
Verse 21. “That as sin reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This he says to show that the latter ranks as a king, the former, death, as a soldier, being marshaled under the latter, and armed by it. If then the latter (i.e. sin) armed death, it is plain enough that the righteousness destructive hereof, which by grace was introduced, not only disarms death, but even destroys it, and undoes entirely the dominion thereof, in that it is the greatest of the two, as being brought in not by man and the devil, but by God and grace, and leading our life unto a goodlier estate, and to blessings unlimited. For of it there will never be any end (to give you a view of its superiority from this also). For the other cast us out of our present life, but grace, when it came, gave us not the present life, but the immortal and eternal one. But for all these things Christ is our voucher. Doubt not then for thy life if thou hast righteousness, for righteousness is greater than life as being mother of it.

Philip Schaff, vol. 11, The Nicene Fathers, electronic ed., 0 (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000).

Related articles

• Justification By Faith (pastoralmusings.com)

ScottL said on his blog:

Image via Wikipedia

my thesis is that, a) in his incarnation, Jesus did not know everything and b) this can be an encouragement to us. ..

Jesus, as a full human, submitting himself to being like us (Heb 2:14; Phil 2:6), lived as a human as God intended, fully relying on the Father in all things. He was an example to us and was able to do what we actually are not able to do fully. That’s why we will find Christ making statements such as this:

Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19)

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. (John 8:28)

There are plenty of other examples, especially in the Gospel where John states his point is to show that Jesus is the Messiah-Christ and Son of God (John 20:31). But what is coming through all of this is that Jesus was depending absolutely upon the Father – in what he both spoke and did…

And so I do believe we can find great encouragement in these things. Jesus, though the Son of God, humbled himself, laid aside his grasp at his omniscience, laid aside his grasp at being served by humanity, and lived as one totally dependent upon the Father and the Father alone.

My reply:

Actually, the John 5 quote is out of context.
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” (John 5:19–21)
Jesus actually stated that the Father showed Him all that He was doing. All. That is the Father works (John 5:17) and the Son works. They do what they do hand-in-hand. Whatever the Father does, He shows the Son. Perfect, uninterrupted communion and communication.
How did Jesus know the hearts of men, as we see demonstrated at various times?
If you take omniscience away from Jesus, you take away a divine attribute, and thus, deity.
It was not that Jesus emptied Himself of these things. In fact, John 1:18;3:13 show us that Jesus was still in the very presence of the Father, so His incarnation did not cause omnipresence to cease.
Jesus’ emptying Himself speaks of not clinging to the glories of being worshiped and adored as He was before the incarnation. He became a man of sorrows. Yes, He chose to not exercise His divine attributes from time to time. There’s no doubt about that. To say that they were not in Him and not active would be incorrect.
This is the imbalance that we need to correct. We can overemphasize deity, or we can overemphasize humanity.
We must strive for balance.

ScottL replied:

a) I didn’t use the John 5:19 passage out of context because my point was that Jesus relied fully on the Father, and this was an example.

b) Do you think that the ALL that was revealed meant that it all came at once with an instantaneous download? [Not to mention that I doubt this verse speaks about mathematics, economics, politics, astronomy, etc.]

c) You didn’t deal with any other verses that actually show Jesus, in his incarnation amongst us, did not know everything.

My reply here:

I think we’re talking past each other. What I’m dealing with is in response to your saying that Jesus did not grasp at omniscience, as though Jesus emptied Himself of it.

I say once again that, Jesus without omniscience is only human. Deny Him the divine attributes and you deny Him deity.

I can certainly accept Jesus as man growing in wisdom and knowledge. I can accept that He did not always exercise His omniscience, but used it at will. I cannot accept the statement that He was not possessed of omniscience.

Peter even stated that Jesus knew all things (John 20:), so we know that He did possess omniscience.

It is not the human side of Jesus that I reject. I reject the stripping of Jesus’ deity which amounts to nothing more than ancient Arianism in modern day clothes. Kenotic Arianism is Arianism none the less. It just has a new look.

Related articles

• Inerrancy: Jesus, John And The Scriptures (pastoralmusings.com)
• Why I Dont Buy Kenotic Theology (withalliamgod.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

HT:TR

An evangelical theologian, dying, cabled a colleague: “I am so thankful for the active obedience (righteousness) of Christ. No hope without it.” As I grow old I want to tell everyone who will listen: “I am so thankful for the penal substitutionary death of Christ. No hope without it.” That is where I come from now as I attempt this brief vindication of the best part of the best news that the world has ever heard.

It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God, and from his throne to send the Spirit to induce faith in himself and in the saving work he had done, to communicate forgiveness and pardon, justification and adoption, to the penitent, and to unite all believers to himself to share his risen life in foretaste of the full life of heaven that is to come. Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like “divine child abuse” as a comment on the cross are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be.

Full post here.

Lisa speaks of those who base their Christianity and doctrinal preferences upon the subjective “peace” that they feel.  If they feel “peace” then it must be OK, is the idea.

She concludes:

we are only fooling ourselves in believing that God must be subjected to our internal harmony. If you are born of the Spirit, you have peace with God although that may not always feel good in this life. Let’s stop looking for peace in all the wrong places lest we go into wrong places in which there will ultimately be no peace at all.

Read the complete post at  Looking For Peace in All the Wrong Places | Parchment and Pen.

Image by Micah_68 via Flickr

what marks a possible wolf-in-the-making is not simply that he rejects or accepts any particular biblical truth, but that he isn’t deeply oriented on the Bible. He is more oriented on experience. He isn’t captured by the great old faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead he’s enamored by what is new and innovative.

via Pastors, How to Recognize a Wolf-In-The-Making – Desiring God.

Cover of Revival

What the church of today needs is revival.

Sometimes folk will say that the world is simply too wicked for revival, and the church is to compromised for revival.

A sinless church wouldn’t need revival, would it?

We don’t need to clean ourselves up for revival.

We don’t need to be faithful to have revival.

Those things are good things, no doubt.

They are not required for revival.

Habakkuk’s prayer for revival shows that what is necessary for revival is a weak, sinful, needy group of people ( aren’t most saints in that condition?)  and God’s mercy.

“A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth. O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, In the midst of the years make known; In wrath remember mercy.” (Habakkuk 3:1–2)  KJV

“A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth. O LORD, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy. ” (Habakkuk 3:1–2)  ESV

Revival doesn’t come to people who have earned it, or who deserve it.  Revival comes to people who deserve wrath.  Revival is graciously and mercifully given by God.

Let us pray for it.