Andy Stanley’s Poison Pill for the Doctrine of Scripture

Andy Stanley’s comments on Adam and Eve have been making the rounds since they appeared on HereIBlog.com yesterday. In short, Stanley affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve, but not because Genesis says so. Rather, he bases his belief on what Jesus says about Adam and Eve. You can listen to the entire discussion above, but here are the relevant excerpts:

The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. And the issue is always – Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scripture is simply a collection of ancient documents that tells us that story…

Here’s why I believe this actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels – Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. And it appears to me that he believed they were actually historical figures. And if he believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off – I just believe anything they say.

Let me say first of all that I am genuinely grateful that Stanley affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve. In this day and age, that position is under siege, and I don’t want to minimize the importance of Stanley’s affirmation in this regard.    Continue at Denny Burk

IMAGE

Warning! Rampant Compromise - But Isn't it Really Heresy?

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28–30)

The article I link to below is an extension of what has been going on at Calvin College in Michigan. In previous blog posts and articles I have quoted professors from Calvin College who no longer believe in a literal Adam and literal Eve—or a literal Fall. Calvin professors have been teaching evolution as fact for years. Now, why would any Christian parent spend thousands of dollars to send their kids to a college that attacks and undermines the authority of God’s Word? Calvin College, by the way, is a college of the Christian Reformed Church of North America.

The Banner is the magazine of the Christian Reformed Church and is also located in Grand Rapids. The article I link to below references a 1991 Agenda for Synod document by the Committee on Creation and Science. This was a response to Howard Van Till’s The Fourth Day (1986) and the teachings of Clarence Mennigna and Davis Young, which kicked open the door all the way (partly opened by others) to accepting theistic evolution in the CRC denomination. (Van Till, Mennigna, and Davis were professors at Calvin College.)    Continue at Ken Ham

If We Reject Paul’s Adam, Why Not Reject His Christ?

Daniel Kirk, associate professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, recently wrote an article titled, “Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?” (It Would be helpful if you followed the link and read the entire article). To date, the article has been shared over 1700 times through social media. Kirk is coming against the notion that a person must affirm a historical Adam before he can affirm 

1) the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture, 

2) a good world gone wrong, 

3) the sinfulness of all humanity, and 

4) a historical Christ. 

Kirk agrees that the Apostle Paul assumed there was a historical Adam (In Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15), but he argues that the Apostle was reimagining the Genesis creation account in light of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

Kirk argues, “the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ.” Kirk believes Paul’s account in Romans 5 leaves room, “for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience.” Make no mistake, Kirk affirms Paul’s main point in Romans 5, “that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ.” Yet, he rejects the assumptions with which Paul “illustrated these things to be true” [a historical Adam]. Paul’s emphasis is that God has one worldwide people in Christ. Thus, according to Kirk, Paul does not ask or answer the question of whether an evolutionary account of human origins might stand within the story of God’s new creation work in Christ.

I Disagree with Kirk’s Conclusions for Several Reasons:   Continue at SBC Voices

Stream the 2012 West Coast Conference for Free

On June 8–9, more than 3,000 saints gathered in Seattle to stand firm for the central doctrines of the Christian faith. Drs. Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul boldly proclaimed the authority of the Bible, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, the exclusivity of Christ, justification by faith alone, the mortification of sin, and the existence of God.

All of the messages from this conference—including a very special time of questions and answers with Drs. Lawson, MacArthur, and Sproul—are available for you to stream for free. Thank you to everyone who attended.

By making these messages free to watch, our prayer is that the thunder of God’s Word would continue to echo through the body of Christ for His glory and our good.   Continue at Ligonier

Is Bibliolatry the Real Danger?

Which poses the bigger risk of idolatry–a high view of the Bible that sees Jesus submitting to the Scriptures or a low view of Scripture that sees Jesus standing apart from the Scriptures? Some Christians fear that if they have a high view of the Bible they will end up denigrating Jesus and being guilty of bibliolatry. But what if the danger of idolatry is much more likely when you try to place Jesus above the Bible?

J.I. Packer explains:

Others tell us the final authority for Christians is not Scripture, but Christ, whom we must regard as standing apart from Scripture and above it. He is its Judge; and we, as His disciples, must judge Scripture by Him, receiving only what is in harmony with His life and teaching and rejecting all that is not.

But who is this Christ, the Judge of Scripture? Not the Christ of the New Testament and of history. That Christ does not judge Scripture; he obeys it and fulfills it. Certainly, He is the final authority of the whole of it. Certainly, He is the final authority for Christians; that is precisely why Christians are bound to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Christ teaches them to do so.  Continue at Kevin DeYoung

The Authority of the Word of God

I believe… the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six consecutive twenty four hour days of Creation. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.   Continue at John Samson