Ostensible [Neo-Evangelical] Conservatives Temper Longman & Peter Enns both have a difficult time with the biblical record of creation – and while wanting to be faithful to the Bible (we should seldom try to read motives into other peoples’ statements – but I do so with a judgment of charity) they are in effect more faithful to the world’s conception of reality than Paul or Luke or Jude.
Open questions about whether the Bible actually means to teach that Adam was a literal father to all mankind (a highly “literalistic way of reading Genesis ,” oh, my – not that!), or whether there is possibly an evolutionary process, and the word Adam just stands for “mankind” in general? Hmmmmmmm. What else could be an open question?
If there is real reason to doubt that God created a literal Adam from whom all mankind descended isn’t there also reason to doubt the Bible’s claims about the second Adam – Jesus the Christ, the God- man? Perennially, this has been the crux of the matter. Is Jesus who He claims to be? Is Jesus who the Apostles and the NT claims Him to be? If not, we remain in our sins for He could never be the biblical sacrifice for our sins, nor could He forgive sins. If Jesus is not God in human flesh – we have no hope in this world or in eternity. But if He is the God-man He is the Lord of all as the Creator-God, and the Lord and sustainer of all things. As J. Gresham Machen said in “On the Deity of Christ”:
But now is Christ our Saviour, the one who says, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” revealed as very God. And we believe. Such a faith is a mystery to us who possess it; it seems folly to those who have it not. But if possessed it delivers us forever from fear. The world to us is all unknown; it is engulfed in an ocean of infinity. But it contains no mysteries to our Saviour. He is on the throne. He pervades the remotest bounds. He inhabits infinity. With such a Saviour we are safe.
Baalism says the Sun married the Mud and the world came up. Egypt said so to. So does modern “science.” The difference is that what were personal forces back then are now impersonal forces. And that ain’t a dime’s worth of difference.
Although I have never personally encountered it, Open Theism is something that has been growing over the last several years. Some of the college students at church have been taught it at their “Christian” universities.
Books, articles and blog posts have been written to address the errors of Open Theism – A couple of which I can highly recommend: No Other God: No Other God: A Response to Open Theism
Here is an three part audio series that I received from Uri Brito, Pastor of Providence Church, who is also one of the hosts of Trinity Talk, a live internet radio show on BlogTalkRadio. In the two part series below Joel Garver gives his interesting perspective on Open Theism.
The issue of Open Theism is one of those pesky problems in the church that first requires grounding the family of God firmly in a deeply Biblical, Confessional and orthodox understanding of who God is – so that they can readily see and reject it. When I first read about Open Theism I was astonished to hear that Evangelicals would be in any way tempted to believe such claims. It is an indication to how ignorant many of the Children of God are about God and His Word.
On May 14th I made a post about the coming of the documentary movie about the Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens debate about atheism. Here is an interview of Doug Wilson by John Piper that wonderfully summarizes Doug’s goals, desires and thoughts about the movie “Collision.”
When Doug Wilson debated the famed and articulate atheist Christopher Hitchens he had it filmed in order to make it widely available. Here is a promotional clip in which he reflects on his purposes and how he believes the movie turned out.
