tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8919792576065090868..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Was Adam real?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38091651531131044882010-07-15T13:12:14.633-04:002010-07-15T13:12:14.633-04:00Jeremy Pierce: "My congregation would never ...<b>Jeremy Pierce</b>: <i>"My congregation would never allow this sort of thing."</i><br /><br />If you don't mind sharing, what congregation would that be?<br /><br /><i>"Anyone in the congregation who sought to make it an issue would rightly be dealt with as a disciplinary matter."</i><br /><br />Jeremy, if you happen to be in the know, what disciplinary matters has your congregation had to exercise, if it's exercised any at all? <br /><br /><i>"There are several things to distinguish here: ...</i>"<br /><br />That 4-part section was very good. Thank you.<br /><br /><i>"I see no gospel implications of that whatsoever [Waltke's writings on old earth common descent], and anyone saying there are is the one I'd have harsh words for."</i><br /><br />You'll have harsh words for quite a few people, Jeremy.<br /><br />;-)Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74160620730473522622010-07-13T10:38:33.580-04:002010-07-13T10:38:33.580-04:00He's inaccurate about Boyd, also. Boyd doesn&#...He's inaccurate about Boyd, also. Boyd doesn't deny foreknowledge. On Boyd's view, God knows every truth about the future. It's just that only necessary truths about the future exist. The more accurate way to depict Boyd's view is to say that there aren't contingent truths about the future. God's knowledge isn't limited compared with what's true. It's truth about the future that's limited. On Boyd's view, all continent statements about the future are false.<br /><br />Johnson then goes on to use Greg Boyd's open theism as if it affects these other issues (which it may or may not do, but he gave no argument that it does) and is if BioLogos as a whole accepts his position on such matters (which I doubt most of them do, since I'm pretty sure its founder accepts complete divine foreknowledge about contingent truths).<br /><br />He says scripture is rarely defended, when one of their chief goals is to defend scripture against the claim that scripture is incompatible with the accepted claims of our best science. They're all about defending scripture. They're just not all defending the actual teachings of scripture. But that's not the same as not trying to defend scripture. They're quite obviously doing that.<br /><br />He's got a funny postscript that engages in a pretty awful equivocation. He says they reject original sin (which as I've argued they haven't really done) but then says original sin comes with much empirical evidence. Is there any reason to think they've denied the doctrines that the empirical evidence supports, though? Have they denied that we're all imperfect? Have they denied the impossibility of living a perfect life without Christ? Surely not. They've given alternative accounts of why such things, as taught by scripture, might be true. But they have neither denied original sin nor disputed anything the empirical evidence he's referring to might lead us to conclude.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9055701080977335472010-07-13T10:37:44.065-04:002010-07-13T10:37:44.065-04:00OK, that comment was based on your quote. I went a...OK, that comment was based on your quote. I went and read Johnson's whole post, which linked to some BioLogos stuff that goes well beyond the Waltke and Enns stuff that we've discussed before.<br /><br /><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/after-inerrancy-evangelicals-and-the-bible-in-a-postmodern-age-part-6/" rel="nofollow">This Kenton Sparks piece</a> starts out well, but it quickly devolves to something that I do consider an outright denial of the core basis of inerrancy. He says that the author of Deuteronomy presents a warped view of God in saying God commanded the slaughter of people. He seems to be treating this as if the distance between the human author's meaning and God's is very great, but he won't specify what God's meaning is.<br /><br />Now I do think you could technically be an inerrantist and say such a thing, but this is far beyond taking Job to be a fictional dialogue illustrating theological truths. It's taking Deuteronomy to be a fictional account of God's words to Israel through Moses. If God didn't actually command the slaughter of the Canaanites, hen we can't trust anything Deuteronomy says God said. Not only is it bad hermeneutics (because we don't, as he claims, know from elsewhere in the scripture that this is a warped view of God, since it's entirely consistent with the rest of scripture), but I consider this to be a truly dangerous approach to the scriptures. It would be grounds for removal from a teaching position, I would say, whereas Waltke's being dismissed (not that they publicly portrayed it that way) is, in my view, an opposite case where it's the seminary that was in the wrong for supplying any pressure at all against him.<br /><br />I'm not sure I agree with him that the post he links to as indifferent to original sin is actually doing that. It might be indifferent to the doctrine that original sin is literally inherited, but it's not indifferent to original sin as determined by Adam and Eve's standing in a relationship of representation toward all humanity, which I think does not interfere with the gospel in any direct way and does not uncontroversially conflict with genuine gospel implications.<br /><br />Either way on that, there's no conflict with a doctrine of original sin that simply has it that we are all sinners due to our own imperfection, and Adam's role is simply as an example of what's true of all of us. There's a conflict between that view and the view that an actual fall changed the original creation, and I will not therefore endorse such a view. But in terms of the actual gospel message, I don't see a problem with an outright contradiction as long as you're careful. And some of these people might not even recognize a contradiction if it's there, and they may remain at level 1 from my previous comment.<br /><br />I have strong resistance, therefore, to the Enns view that Adam is merely a literary representation of Israel. You need something that makes all humans sinners and responsible for their sins. But Enns doesn't deny that. He just doesn't find the Adam account to be the ground of it. He may be fine, as far as I know, with seeing such a thing in the early chapters of Romans, and thus he might not be denying anything central to the gospel.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82954072806894215572010-07-13T10:00:29.512-04:002010-07-13T10:00:29.512-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7770531203429337462010-07-13T10:00:29.513-04:002010-07-13T10:00:29.513-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83040388687034331102010-07-13T10:00:29.515-04:002010-07-13T10:00:29.515-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12215697782020651642010-07-13T09:59:43.990-04:002010-07-13T09:59:43.990-04:00My congregation would never allow this sort of thi...My congregation would never allow this sort of thing. We've got six-dayers, old-earthers who deny common descent by natural selection and divine guidence, and old-earthers who accept natural selection as a means of divine guidance for human origins. These people don't all know about each other, but some of them do, and it's never stopped them fellowshipping with each other, because they know this isn't a gospel issue. Anyone in the congregation who sought to make it an issue would rightly be dealt with as a disciplinary matter. Division over this sort of thing is dangerously close to the kind of thing that the apostles excommunicated people over. It's one thing to offer a criticism as a matter of truth, but Johnson is declaring specific people to be heretics and even almost-atheists, not because of a denial of anything the gospel itself says.<br /><br />My position on this has been consistent. I think there are views that, when taken to their logical implications, are extremely hard or even impossible to reconcile with gospel implications. Open theism is one of them, but so is Arminianism. I think an argument can be made that a denial of inerrancy is as well, but so is And Can It Be, which non-heretical evangelicals sing all the time without endorsing any heresy. Denial of an individual Adam may well be one of these too. I'm not going to insist that someone has actually denied the gospel merely because they've endorsed a view that, when taken to its logical implications to places they have not taken it, the gospel will have to be denied if they are to remain consistent.<br /><br />There are several things to distinguish here:<br /><br />1. Not realizing the implications of your view that conflict with implications of the gospel.<br />2. Accepting your view's implications but not realizing the inconsistency with gospel implications.<br />3. Rejecting the implications of the gospel but not realizing that one has rejected implications of the gospel.<br />4. Rejecting gospel implications and explicitly recognizing their conflict with teachings that are actually crucial for the gospel (whether or not you call them the gospel).<br /><br />I see no reason to think anyone at BioLogos has moved below stage 1, and I see no reason to assume most people at BioLogos have even done that. One author that I know of has tried to suggest a possible way of fitting a view without a single Adam and Eve to scripture. I'm not sure that author has endorsed such a view even. That instance I can see objections to but not deserving of the kind of divisiveness that Johnson is engaging in. But some of the other stuff, like Waltke, I don't think has even gotten to step 1. All Waltke did is say that he thinks views involving old-earth common descent can be fit to scripture without heresy (without taking such a view himself). I see no gospel implications of that whatsoever, and anyone saying there are is the one I'd have harsh words for.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87681110841489223432010-07-12T13:18:41.146-04:002010-07-12T13:18:41.146-04:00Jeremy Pierce: "... my initial hesitations w...<b>Jeremy Pierce</b>: <i>"... my initial hesitations were confirmed: overly simplistic, uncharitable to those who disagree (to the point of straw man mischaracterizations), insensitive to proper distinctions, and full of false disjunctions and false dilemmas. In other words, typical Phil Johnson stuff."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/07/socinianism-in-lab-coats.html" rel="nofollow">Phil Johnson in his post Socianism in Lab Coats</a>: <br /><br /><i>"Whatever BioLogos is peddling, it isn't Christianity. It isn't faith of any kind. It's scientism masquerading as faith—but lacking in spiritual, philosophical, and intellectual integrity.<br /><br />To be more precise, it's a sterile hybrid of scientism and Socinianism. <br /><br />On close examination, BioLogos looks very much like a campaign against Christianity, funded by a hefty Templeton grant. In effect, that's precisely what it is.<br /><br />And this is the key point: <b>You can't legitimately claim to be trying to reconcile science and the Christian faith if your methodology entails systematically dismantling the very foundations of Christianity</b>."</i><br /><br />Hi Jeremy,<br /><br />I don't know if you agree substantively with Phil Johnson's rebuke of BioLogos, but I'm interested in a reply to my last question to you:<br /><br />I.e., could your intellect imagine how a purportedly 2nd-order issue (or an even lower-order issue) could have deep ramifications for a 1st-order issue?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46186658354276094862010-06-30T15:08:19.186-04:002010-06-30T15:08:19.186-04:00Hi Jeremy,
I read your last comment with keen int...Hi Jeremy,<br /><br />I read your last comment with keen interest. FWIW, while I've had deep disagreements with all of the Pyromaniacs (Phil Johnson, Daniel J. Phillips, and Frank Turk), by and large I'm in agreement with the Pyros. As well as with the Triabloguers. And many folks regard Triablogue as being more divisive than TeamPyro.<br /><br />You wrote: "a good deal of it is far too divisive for my comfort on issues that are not gospel issues" and you reaffirmed it with "On the issues that really drive Pyromaniacs, I may actually be closer to them doctrinally, but they make them central, and I don't think the scriptural treatment of them does."<br /><br />You didn't mention what issues they specifically are, but let me instead ask you something of a more general sort:<br /><br />Do you think that an issue that's technically "non-Gospel" could (or actually does) have a great impact (usually negative) on an issue which is technically a "Gospel issue"?<br /><br />I.e., could your intellect imagine how a purportedly 2nd-order issue (or an even lower-order issue) could have deep ramifications for a 1st-order issue?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31486219235711300692010-06-29T21:22:35.428-04:002010-06-29T21:22:35.428-04:00I tend to think of the Pyromaniacs as representati...I tend to think of the Pyromaniacs as representative of what could loosely be called hyper-Calvinism, meaning not the particular kind of hyper-Calvinism that was called by that term initially but any kind of Reformed view that goes too far. I tend not to like the combative style of some of them. I think the historic Reformed position is often more correct than where they go (and in some instances a more moderated newer position is closer to scripture).<br /><br />I took a glance at what's been showing up on that blog recently. Some of what they say about Genesis and BioLogos is all right, but a lot of it strikes me as going way beyond what we should be sure of (not to say that we should endorse the other side), and a good deal of it is far too divisive for my comfort on issues that are not gospel issues. I think on the most substantive issues we might agree a lot more, but on what they're choosing to write about, and what others are choosing to link to, it's been hard for me to find a lot to hold in high regard.<br /><br />I say that as someone who doesn't read the blog regularly, but it's because what I have read comes across this way to me so often. My Arminian charismatic second-cousin at <a href="http://bostonbiblegeeks.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Boston Bible Geeks</a> is much more in line with my interests, my approach, and what I find profitable in biblical blogging. On the issues that really drive Pyromaniacs, I may actually be closer to them doctrinally, but they make them central, and I don't think the scriptural treatment of them does.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23127334503924325902010-06-28T12:57:15.557-04:002010-06-28T12:57:15.557-04:00Okay.
I was laboring under the mistaken impressio...Okay.<br /><br />I was laboring under the mistaken impression that you held Phil Johnson and the other Pyromaniancs in high regard.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28091238150667359142010-06-26T06:53:53.065-04:002010-06-26T06:53:53.065-04:00Given the source, I was reluctant to check it out,...Given the source, I was reluctant to check it out, but I did, and my initial hesitations were confirmed: overly simplistic, uncharitable to those who disagree (to the point of straw man mischaracterizations), insensitive to proper distinctions, and full of false disjunctions and false dilemmas. In other words, typical Phil Johnson stuff.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52825311782546660182010-06-25T13:56:06.558-04:002010-06-25T13:56:06.558-04:00Hi Jeremy,
Here's a post by Phil Johnson of t...Hi Jeremy,<br /><br />Here's a <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/06/middle-of-road-rip-kermit.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> by Phil Johnson of the Pyromaniacs that touches upon the historicity of Adam and what the Biologos crowd is doing. Phil Johnson does mention the doctrine of inerrancy in passing.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70657824425664315592010-03-26T11:44:17.137-04:002010-03-26T11:44:17.137-04:00Anthony Scaramone at the Evangel blog posts the fo...Anthony Scaramone at the Evangel blog posts the following:<br /><br />"What, exactly, is inerrant when we speak of the authority of Scripture? The words must mean something before we can speak of their being true. And the texts must relate one to the other in a certain way, with a certain through line of consistency and intention. They have their own history, intrinsically connected to a history of a people. <b>What did the biblical authors intend when they set pen to paper (so to speak) informed by and rooted in that history?</b> If you don’t have an answer to that question, then defenses of biblical inerrancy become directionless.”<br /><br />My response in comment #1:<br /><br />"(On one subpoint) To answer the boldfaced question, Moses intended for his audience to understand that the account of Adam and Eve is historical fact-narrative.<br /><br />To deny that is to deny inerrancy. And I affirm what you say, if folks can’t even affirm a historical Adam or that Adam was real, then their defenses that they hold to biblical inerrancy and to the Authority of Scripture is directionless."<br /><br /><br />See <a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/03/%e2%80%9cto-deny-that-reality-would-make-us-a-cult%e2%80%9d/#comment-8801" rel="nofollow">Here</a>.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48598965150015022822010-03-18T12:37:43.612-04:002010-03-18T12:37:43.612-04:00Just read an article today by Albert Mohler about ...Just read an article today by Albert Mohler about apostate pastors that had an excerpt that touched upon the topic of this post. Here it is:<br /><br />"Wes, a Methodist, lost his confidence in the Bible while attending a liberal Christian college and seminary. <b>"I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people," he explained. Now, he no longer believes that God exists.</b>"<br /><br />From: <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/18/clergy-who-dont-believe-the-scandal-of-apostate-pastors/" rel="nofollow">Clergy Who Don't Believe: The Scandal of Apostate Pastors.</a>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42543201109857776402010-02-25T11:34:30.029-05:002010-02-25T11:34:30.029-05:00Impasse!
Me: "You cannot be an honest and c...Impasse!<br /><br />Me: "You cannot be an honest and consistent inerrantist if you deny the historicity of Adam."<br /><br />Jeremy Pierce: "You can be honest and consistent while holding to inerrancy and denying the historicity of Adam."<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />Thanks Jeremy for the engagement. Although neither one of us has moved an inch, I still found the virtual arm-wrestling invigorating.<br /><br />Pax.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79286865960374382172010-02-25T07:31:16.777-05:002010-02-25T07:31:16.777-05:00You can be honest and consistent while holding to ...You can be honest and consistent while holding to inerrancy and denying the historicity of Adam. Longman's hypoethetical inerrantist Adam-denier would hold a view that I think doesn't fit with the most likely interpretation of Paul, but it's not one that involves serious theological revision, and it's not so thoroughly implausible as to be an obvious ploy. I also happen to think Longman doesn't hold the view and wasn't seriously considering the NT texts when he said this.<br /><br />What Enns does with Moses' naming seems to be so thoroughly implausible that it's hard for me to take it seriously. What the inerrantist atheist you imagine is doing is of the same kind but much more thoroughgoing with it, not to mention involving some of the most serious theological error imaginable.<br /><br />I'm of mixed feelings about open theism, since I think that is serious theological error but much less plainly at odds with the texts (because there are actually texts that seem on the surface to support it, even though a careful interpreter should realize that insisting on such a view is as bad as insisting on a geocentric solar system because Joshua says the sun stood still).<br /><br />Gundry seems to me to be of the too-implausible-to-take-seriously category. It seems like a ploy in his case that it's hard to take as genuine, because his approach is so at odds with any serious claim about the genre of Matthew.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40064176089363372492010-02-24T12:56:41.024-05:002010-02-24T12:56:41.024-05:00"You cannot be an honest and consistent inerr..."You cannot be an honest and consistent inerrantist if you deny the historicity of Adam."<br /><br />Do you affirm this, Jeremy, or do you deny it?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14092544610863374782010-02-24T12:34:38.116-05:002010-02-24T12:34:38.116-05:00There are two issues. One is the general philosoph...There are two issues. One is the general philosophical principles Enns states. On those, I said that what Enns says, if meant seriously and literally in terms of their natural conclusions, would amount to a denial of inerrancy but that Enns doesn't really mean those things the way he says them.<br /><br />Then there's the particular example of the naming of Moses, which I take it is where you're pressing me. I claimed that this example is so ridiculously implausible as to be a front. He's technically able to present a view that maintains inerrancy but denies something obvious to all.<br /><br />Is that true of those who take a more literary approach to Gen 1? I doubt it. I'm sympathetic to those approaches myself, so you're not going to see me rejecting them as ridiculously implausible. It takes connecting it with NT claims to see any issue at all, and I'm 99% sure that Longman wasn't thinking of the NT when he made his statement. He was simply commenting on whether someone could take the OT narrative to be inerrant but deny the historicity of Adam. It strikes me that he was simply correct in that judgment. If you know of him discussing NT passages, please make me aware of that, but that wasn't the sense I got from his comment.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58808478873054415102010-02-24T12:15:58.585-05:002010-02-24T12:15:58.585-05:00Jeremy,
I saw this comment of yours in your blog ...Jeremy,<br /><br />I saw this comment of yours in your blog <a href="http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/03/two_mistaken_se.html" rel="nofollow">post</a> titled "Two Mistaken Searches."<br /><br />Excerpts: "Let me give you an example from the Exodus commentary by Peter Enns that shows why what he says might be a threat to inerrancy if followed to its natural conclusion.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Now an example I found when reading the Exodus commentary is the naming of Moses by Pharaoh's daughter. I was sorely disappointed when I read what he had to say about that....<br /><br /><b>Ultimately I don't think an inerrantist can maintain such a view consistently when it's pushed to its logical conclusions.</b> He apparently (but he doesn't say so in the commentary, so I'm guessing) wants to take the speech act of saying that she said it as really just communicating that some have said it. I think this is like those who deny the obviously attributed authorship of certain NT epistles but say that the audience would have known the indicated author didn't write it. This is supposed to be wiggle room to allow an inerrantist to hold such a thing, but it relies on such a thoroughly implausible view of the psychology of the reader and the literary patterns of the time that I describe it the way I did. <b>If what he says is taken seriously enough, it amounts to denying inerrancy.</b>"<br /><br />Two things come immediately to mind when reading that comment in light of your arguments that you've made earlier in this thread:<br /><br />(A) The argument that you're making that the argument that Enns is an errantist is a reasonable charge is easily adaptable to the case against Longman.<br /><br />(B) Earlier in this thread, you wrote the following:<br /><br />"The issue that matters for me is whether the error in interpretation is serious."<br /><br />And you used this as a basis to state, more or less, that denying Adam's historicity is not a serious error of interpretation [because you don't think it has an impact to the Gospel] and thus, according to you, an inerrantist could deny the historicity of Adam and still be honest and consistent.<br /><br />Hah! Now we see you arguing that Enns' interpretation of the issue of Pharaoh's daughter naming Moses as Moses amounts to saying that he denies inerrancy, "if what he says is taken seriously enough."<br /><br />C'mon Jeremy. The historicity of Adam is a bigger deal than Pharaoh's daughter naming Moses Moses. And if you're going to make a case against Enns denying inerrancy based on that, then you need to be logically ocnsistent, and do the same thing for Longman (and any other person professing to be an inerrantist):<br /><br /><b>You cannot be an honest and consistent inerrantist if you deny the historicity of Adam.</b> <br /><br />Shake my hand. Check and mate.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66252063452995769102010-02-11T16:15:37.208-05:002010-02-11T16:15:37.208-05:00Jeremy Pierce: "I think it's most likely...<b>Jeremy Pierce</b>: "<i>I think it's most likely that Jesus and Paul believed in a historical Adam.</i>"<br /><br />"<i>"If you can’t get a hermeneutic from a text, then you can’t get it from a hermeneutics textbook. Since that seems obviously false, you better be able to get it from another text too. In fact, the Bible does offer plenty of exemplars of hermeneutics, including the epistles’ statements on how to interpret the OT, Jesus’ own interpretations and how he applies them, quotations and allusions from earlier portions of scripture, etc."</i><br /><br />From <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/02/11/walton-vs-poythress/#comment-58081" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br />"Walton does say in the book (p. 139)that “the biblical text treats [Adam and Eve] as historic individuals (as indicated by their role in genealogies)” and he uses the phrasing “the creation of the historical Adam and Eve”."<br /><br />C'mon Jeremy. An honest inerrantist *must* affirm the historicity of Adam.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32153747431749027512010-02-11T16:10:25.248-05:002010-02-11T16:10:25.248-05:00"If there's intellectual dishonesty,it...<i>"If there's intellectual dishonesty,it's not in affirming inerrancy while denying Adam."</i><br /><br />Plenty of folks, including myself, would firmly disagree with you.<br /><br />They'd say the opposite:<br /><br />"If there's intellectual dishonesty, it's in affirming inerrancy while denying Adam."<br /><br /><i>"Justin's argument really does require him to say that Arminians aren't inerrantists and that egalitarians aren't inerrantists. There are those who say such things, but Justin doesn't seem to me to be that type."</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't. But as an aside, I have read that a number of egalitarians (not all, mind you) are abandoning inerrancy in order to hold onto egalitarianism.<br /><br />Furthermore, here'a nuance that you seem to have missed: Arminianism and Egalitarianism are doctrinal issues. Historicity of Adam is not doctrinal in the sense that Arminianism and Egalitarianism are.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57140711484043249612010-02-06T10:01:56.580-05:002010-02-06T10:01:56.580-05:00I think it's most likely that Jesus and Paul b...I think it's most likely that Jesus and Paul believed in a historical Adam. It's much more certain that Matthew intended to be giving a historical chronicle. But in both cases someone could get it wrong on that issue and maintain inerrancy consistently. I would not claim that either denies inerrancy, just as I would recognize that your hypothetical athiest does not deny inerrancy. The question is what each does deny and how serious it is as to whether it would be worth the ETS making an issue of it.<br /><br />I think it's clear that atheism is incompatible with ETS theology, apart from the inerrancy issue. Historicityof the gospel accounts should also be important, because those tell the accounts of what our Lord actually did. Whether Paul believed the fall had to have come from one person or whether his statements can be true because of one larger generation falling is not so central an issue to make as big a deal out of it, even if I were 100% sure that the biblical texts require one Adam, and I'm not. I just think it's very likely.<br /><br />But it just seems crazy to me to say that someone who thinks there are no errors in the Bible is not an inerrantist, even if their interpretation of the scriptures is so wacky as to deny its plain meaning. It's not inerrancy that's the issue with such people. It's their wacky view of the genre, meaning, and so on, their view of what makes the Bible true or in what way it's true. Justin's argument really does require him to say that Arminians aren't inerrantists and that egalitarians aren't inerrantists. There are those who say such things, but Justin doesn't seem to me to be that type.<br /><br />When I said you can get a heremeneutic from a text, I was objecting to a flat-out false claim that you can't. I wasn't claiming that you can derive the correct hermeneuticentirely from the pages of scripture. There are some things you can get from scripture and some things that have to come from thinking about the nature of language, the particular biblical languages, cultural and social facts, anthropological and archeological discoveries, and so on.<br /><br />There's a funny element of how you worded your conclusion.You speak of honest inerrantists. Honesty may be a factor. Is Gundry intellectually honest? Maybe not. Is it because he can't consistently hold inerrancy with his denial of Matthew's historicity? That's your contention.Rather, I think his dishonesty is in thinking his hermeneuticfits with the literary discoverieswe've made about the genre and historical issues involving the gospel of Matthew. It may well be that Gundry isn't honest, but it's not b because he holds contradictory views in affirming inerrancy and then denying historicityof Matthew. It would be a dishonesty in interpreting Matthew. The same goes for the denier of Adam's historicity, I would say. If there's intellectual dishonesty,it's not in affirming inerrancy while denying Adam. It's in how the text is read and interpretedand what assumptionsare brought to that process.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72258504528919004012010-02-06T08:59:21.557-05:002010-02-06T08:59:21.557-05:00Dear Jeremy,
Your last comment is probably the cl...Dear Jeremy,<br /><br />Your last comment is probably the closest I'll ever get to seeing you cry "Uncle!"<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />Seriously, your reputation as a sharp Christian thinker is well-known. Folks who know you or know of you will not want to trifle with you without cause. But when you take a position whereby even folks who agree with you the vast majority of the time take respectful exception to your claim (that one can deny the historicity of Adam while still claiming to be an inerrantist), folks such as Steve Hays and Justin Taylor, don't you think you should reconsider the logic of your argument to see why it's not seen as sound or persuasive?<br /><br />Look at Justin Taylor's question to you:<br /><br />"But the trickier part is what to do with the authorial intent of the NTers. E.g., if we grant (a) that Jesus and Paul believed in a historical Adam, and (b) that they intended to convey this in citing God's dealings with Adam (re: marriage, divorce, male headship, creation, Adam-Christ federal headships, etc); then wouldn't (c) the denial of such historicity amount to (d) the denial of inerrancy--namely, that Jesus and Paul's intended meaning was factually incorrect?<br /><br />JT"<br /><br /><b>Do you grant JT's point that both Jesus and Paul believed in a historical Adam?</b> Remember, you wrote: "If you can’t get a hermeneutic from a text, then you can’t get it from a hermeneutics textbook."<br /><br />-----<br /><br />The reason why your last comment elicited a chuckle from me as being tantamount to an implicit cry of "Uncle!" is that it's essentially a non-sequitur response to what I wrote very plainly before:<br /><br />"If you're going to be a honest, consistent inerrantist, then you're going to affirm the historicity of Adam.<br /><br />If you're going to deny the historicity of Adam, then it's perfectly legitimate for folks to deny your claims that you're an inerrantist."<br /><br />Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. <br /><br />Now whether there is a more serious error elsewhere (which is what your immediately previous comment is noting and doing) has nothing whatsoever to do with folks who claim that they can deny the historicity of Adam and still remain honest inerrantists.<br /><br />NO, THEY CAN'T.<br /><br />(And whether there's some other more serious error is utterly beside the point.)Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67527843816184803012010-02-05T23:10:13.265-05:002010-02-05T23:10:13.265-05:00But someone who wonders whether Adam was real but ...But someone who wonders whether Adam was real but who accepts all the important theological claims about the gospel is a far cry from the atheist who denies most of the Bible while affirming inerrancy. The issue that matters for me is whether the error in interpretation is serious. To misinterpret Paul's argument about the one Adam and the one Christ by thinking it could be referring to an entire generation and Christ might well be a mistake. As I've said, I'd have to look more carefully at those texts to be 100% sure of even that, although that is where I lean. But the question is how serious a mistake it is. It seems to me that there are plenty of mistakes in interpretation that aren't very serious. Thinking Paul's statement is compatible with Adam representing an entire generation doesn't seem to me to be all that grave an error. Would you say someone denies inerrancy for taking the wrong view on the role God plays in initiating salvific faith? If I took your arguments seriously, I'd have to say that Arminians deny inerrancy for taking a view that seems to me to conflict with the plain meaning of scripture. Yet that seems to be entirely the wrong thing to say about that, even though that issue is far more fundamentalto my mind than whether the one Adam in Paul must mean one Adam or could mean an entire generation whom the one Adam stands for literarily.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.com