[image: Sharp Turn, 2014, JA Van Devender]
Location: Outside Lahinch, the Burren area, County Clare, Ireland
Genesis 2:7 (NKJV)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
On the whole, I count myself pretty conservative in regarding the doctrines of the Christian religion. But there are some who consider me too liberal in my view of creation though I am far removed from denying the historicity of the Genesis account. However I am generally inclined to what is called an "old earth" view because I think it best fits with the overall biblical hermeneutic that I think does justice to the entire text of Scripture and specifically to the texts of Gen. 1-3. In my view a person has to read the New Testament within the same hermeneutical approach as one does the Old Testament, because, foundationally and uncompromisingly, they must be considered a single text, inspired by God and inerrant and infallible in what they teach.
Thus, for me, the question about Adam and Eve is one of "what do the Scriptures principally teach" concerning them and that controls and informs how, then, I am to read the texts which speak of them.
All this is said because in the news this morning is a story about Bryan College in Dayton, Tn. (HERE)
Full disclosure: Bryan college publishes a very informative periodical "Illumine" from which I have benefited over the years and one of their ethics professors, J. Daryl Charles, was a mentor in my seminary days and I count him as a beloved friend and acquaintance now.
Bryan College has taken a stand on the historicity of Adam and Eve by making this declarative statement: "But in February, college officials decided that professors had to agree to an additional clarification declaring that Adam and Eve “are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life-forms."
This more rigorous position was added to their original declaration and is directly counter to a current trend in Evangelical theology to make allowance for Theistic evolution as being the basis of Adam and Eve's existence. This "compromise" is thought to allow for the continued historicity of Adam and Eve without losing the foundational issue of a true "first parents" who actually sinned in such a way as to constitute the fall of humanity and to place human beings in the state of requiring a Savior.
The Bryan position does not require a "young earth", 6/24 day creation cycle but it completely denies Theistically guided evolution and I completely support their position.
I believe the doctrine of Adam's and Eve's direct creation by the fiat command of God, as a unique creature, uniquely set apart as bearing the image of God and alone, in the universe, given the privilege of exercising dominion in it, is a line that must not be crossed for any person to be recognized as having a valid Christian profession of faith. In more blunt terms, this is a red-line for Christians separating heresy from the bounds of orthodoxy and that the Church of Jesus Christ should enforce this distinction.
Why?
I do not believe the 6/24 creation cycle has the same urgency... I don't think the text of Scripture, from beginning to end requires it nor even that it best explains Genesis 1. But, the Divine act of creating Adam and Eve is, hermeneutically, linked to the Divine Fathership of the man Jesus, who is the Christ of God and who was born and remains still, the New Adam. As Adam was miraculously "conceived" so was Jesus miraculously and literally conceived. There is absolutely no way that the text of Scripture can be read in such a way as to distinguish, hermeneutically, the two accounts, that of Adam and Eve and that of Jesus.
If one squeezes the text and argues about the "clay" of the ground as representing some metaphorical relation to the earth that can comprehend the concept of a prior pair of beings who gave physical birth to Adam but who differed substantially (here the idea of evolution gets pretty hazy... since Adam has to be regarded as a different being "in kind" that those postulated to have been his parents) from them, then those so-called Evangelicals who are open to Theistic Evolution find some straw of support for their continued insistence on Scriptural authority .
The problem is that they cannot treat this passage this way and then with any consistency treat the first chapters of Matthew and Luke as being literal historical truth.
Furthermore, doctrinally, the divine source of Adam as a specific individual is expressly and necessarily connected to the entire doctrine of Federal Headship which is the foundation of all Evangelical confessions of faith. If we did not have a sinless head who fell from that status with devastating effect, then we do not need nor have we had a sinless Head whose single work has reversed that condition and brought about salvation for all those who belong to His Headship.
The express tie between Adam's person and Jesus' person is too explicitly and prescriptively taught in Scripture for there to be any allowance, whatsoever, for the idea that Adam originated from physical forebears and that he was not distinctly different than all other creatures of whatever form they might take.
Most modern Christians have been bullied and brain-washed into a form of tokenism. They don't like controversy because, at root, they aren't secure in the defense of those things they do believe and therefore are embarrassed in the whelming flood of criticism. Thus they don't like strong distinctions being drawn such that a judgment about another person's faith, its validity and its sufficiency unto salvation, and putting them in the position of having to deny another person's professed Christian status.
However this is intrinsic to Biblical Christianity. Paul said that such must be the case. Jesus not only practiced it but gave the keys of the Kingdom to His Church for them to continue the practice. The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 are commended or criticized based upon their zeal in maintaining doctrinal and ethical purity. So, the bottom line is, Christians are not given any other option.
Lines have to be drawn... Bryan College has drawn a wise boundary, allowing for significant differences of opinion within the pale of orthodoxy but clearly articulating the line that must not be crossed.
Christians should defend not only their right to do so but also commend their courage and integrity. If a professor does not hold to this position he cannot be considered to have a valid Christian profession of faith. Only professors with a valid Christian profession of faith should be allowed to teach at a Christian college. Ergo and necessarily, Professors who do not hold to this minimum position should not be allowed to teach at Christian colleges.
I do not think the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament can be accepted as authoritative in what they teach and, at the same time, hold to a contrary view.
My heart breaks for those like Bruce Waltke, whose works have had such value to me in the past, who have apparently lost their way in this regard.
Which Is More Impressive????
[Cliffs of Moher, 2014, JA Van Devender]
Psalm 49:6–7 (NKJV)
6 Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches, 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—
About the only impressive feature of the tower poised at this point, is the perspective it gives to the majestic cliff it crowns.
The image can be taken metaphorically I think. When you stand right at the foot of this tower and notice its solid construction, the attention given to its placement and the strategic view it commands, it is easy to grow proud of man and his accomplishments. It is easy to see it as representing his (man's) potential to shape his world and bring his will to bear on anything that is set before him. It is easy, when you are in the midst of it and the work of man or the condition of man is "up close and personal" to lose sight of the big picture.
Standing close on to a mile away, staring across the gaping divide, the tower appears puny and somewhat paltry. When one shifts gaze to the stretching cliff, the massive power of jutting stone, the intricate and delicate interplay of vegetation and color and the sheer obstinate strength that resists the constantly pounding waves, then the tower of man's achievements is not so impressive at all.
Man, by his native constitution, is rich in potential and executive ability. Those who trust exclusively or primarily in these inherent talents or even worse, in the mere financial wealth or resources that they have accrued through these talents, have lost whatever true perspective they may have previously possessed. The ultimate proof of man's inherent helplessness stares him in the face each time he confronts the ultimate questions of life.
Can man do anything to purchase his own salvation? Can man do anything to cancel the ultimacy of his own mortality? If birth is the first step on the road to death, how can it be possible to not see every passing moment as being comparable to life on death row?
Man is helpless against the power of death... and the threat of death (its sting) which is its judicial character. Death is the wage of sin and validates the equation. Death stands as the ever present witness to man's ultimate wickedness and the certain retribution which such wickedness requires. And no man can "purchase" his redemption from that sentence nor possess the power to prolong his life without end.
Yet there is that cliff.... there is that massive foundation on which the puny strivings and edifices of man are built. Even as there is the witness to the omnipresent and inevitability of death, so man's achievements, by their very nature, point beyond themselves to the foundation on which those achievements have been gained. Man's achievements necessarily demonstrate that he carries and functions as bearing the image of God. The image of God points beyond itself to the God whose image we bear. Man's towers point to the cliff... they become the observation point by which the perspective of the cliff is appreciated. Properly viewed they teach that man's wisdom points to the wisdom of God, man's creations point to the Creator and His Works, man's folly highlights God's perfection, ...
At every point, man's achievements, in all their glory and impressive results, always act to shift our eyes to a different perspective so that humility and gratitude replace arrogance and pride.
No matter how glorious are man's works, they are puny and futile compared to God's, but not such that they lack consequence, meaning or purpose... but rather find their consequence, meaning and purpose in the manner which they point to the Source of every blessing and the Provider of all good things.
We need to step back and put things in perspective every once in a while... or every day if need be. The world of man and our own smaller world of self can occupy the full range of our interest if we let it. Whether as causes of joy or as heralds of fear, the details of the little tower that is our individual life may so consume our attention that the majesty, power and glory of the rock on which we rest may be completely ignored.
But by drawing aside, taking a moment to just gaze at the whole picture, our tower can regain its rightful significance and sense of purpose. Our finite life is important to the whole picture... but we have to remember which aspects of that picture truly are the most impressive.
Posted by Gadfly on May 22, 2014 at 09:04 AM in Commentary, Devotional Meditation, Discipleship, Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0) | | | |