Creation of Adam

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?

Does God Talk to Us Through Fiction? Unpacking a Non-Literal Interpretation of the Bible

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.

Cranach law and grace woodcut

John Frame

John Frame is Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary, and author of numerous important works (the bolded titles below I have read and recommend – the others I have either not read or cannot recommend):

Van Til , the Theologian (1976)

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (1987)
Medical Ethics (1988)

Perspectives on the Word of God (1990)

Evangelical Reunion (1991)

Apologetics to the Glory of God (1994)
Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought (1995)

Worship in Spirit and Truth (1996)

Contemporary Music: a Biblical Defense (1997)

The Doctrine of God (2002)
Salvation Belongs to the Lord (2006)

Frame has admirably battled what has become a popular theology in Reformed circles known as “Two Kingdoms” theology. Here is a link to a recent article that deals with both Natural Law theory of ethics and epistemology and the “Two Kingdoms” theology.

Here is another article by Frame taking on Michael Horton, another popularizer of the “Two Kingdoms” theology.

Back in the early 1990′s I had the opportunity to review a book by Doug Wilson (which I did not like in any way) called, Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists, (Moscow, Idaho: Ransom Press, n.d.) A short booklet which makes three objections to Reconstructionist writings, i.e. in regard to tone, humility, and exegetical method (namely – The Interpretive Maximalism of James Jordan), and offers Biblical counsel in each of these areas. From what I remember of the book, and subsequent conversations I had with Doug about the issue not long after it was published – he had grave concerns about Jordan’s biblical hermeneutic. From his perspective, at the time, he didn’t see how Jordan’s interpretations of various passages and the connections he was making between passages were limited by any meaningful rules of interpretation. Thus, a maximal approach, as he called it, could potentially make a text say whatever the interpreter decided, without regard to what the biblical author intended to communicate.

Doug has obviously changed his perspective on Jordan’s works, especially, Through New Eyes.

Through New Eyes

by James B. Jordan

Jordan wrote an article for the Biblical Horizons Newsletter that explain some of what he understood  Interpretive Minimalism to be: No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”?

I understand the value of Doug’s analysis of Interpretive Maximalism and Interpretive Minimalism, but it is certainly true that those who would advocate Interpretive Minimalism also find things in the text that simply are not there – usually “religious” stuff as moderns understand “religion” or psychological lessons. Interpretive Minimalism interpretations of the OT text, for example, can be quite fantastic and imaginative when it comes to pulling out psychological lessons from stories.

The Minimum and Maximum labels are only marginally helpful because it makes them even, like both have an equal amount of usefulness and problems. It also implies some kind of middle ground that’s to be preferred. We should want to get it all, even if it means grabbing some weeds with the fruit, because the difference between the two methods of interpretation is that Minimalism doesn’t want to get it all, but the “too far” of Maximalism will only grow for a time before it withers away. Interpretive Maximalism solves its own problems.

Once person interacting with Doug’s video said: “If were changed the terms to One Eyed Interpretation and Two Eyes (two new eyes) Interpretation there’d be a different response.”