In lieu of spending time I don't have on this current discussion, I
just want to affirm that Terry does not stand alone in his recent
posts and I would echo nearly every point of the post below as
reflective of my own thoughts. Thank you Terry for taking the time
to engage in the current discussion and to articulate a position that
is not as rare as may appear on the surface. Joel
George,
Guilty as charged--I guess. I appreciate the concerns with
concordism, and as you know, in following Kline, I am not a strict
concordist. Also, I am fully aware of the theological purposes in
many scriptures--purposes which make "history book" history
subservient to those theological purposes. Thus, differing Biblical
chronologies, differing accounts of the same history, etc. are not a
seriouis problem for me. Also, since I believe that scripture is
fully divine and fully human, I have no problem recognizing human
limited perspective elements in the text. But there is significant
overlap between what is found in scripture and what is found in
history. Even starting with the NT (I concur with your hermeneutic
here!), the pattern of thinking of Jesus and the apostles suggests
that they regarded the early chapters of Genesis as being "history",
i.e. that Adam, Eve, Noah, his sons and daughters, etc. were real
people. If believing that makes me a concordist, then I'll happily
take the label.
Now with respect to Mike's comments:
This whole area is a big struggle for me, because I am fully
convinced that the scientific record shows animal ancestry and that
the most recent biological common ancestor for present day humans is
at least in the 200,000 years ago vicinity and maybe more.
Theologians for at least the past 500 years and perhaps longer have
understood the Bible to teach that Adam is the literal father of the
whole race. A significant chunk of Reformed theology as represented
by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Shorter
and Larger Catechisms
(<http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/westminster_standards/index.html>http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/westminster_standards/index.html)
summarize this view (in their discussions of the fall and the
covenants).
For example, Shorter Catechism Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's
first transgression? A. The covenant being made with Adam [a], not
only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from
him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his
first transgression [b].
[a]. Gen. 2:16-17; Jas. 2:10 [b]. Rom. 5:12-21; ICor. 15:22
Conservative presbyterians to this day continue to understand Genesis
2-3 and Acts 17 and Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and passages in the
Pastoral Epistles in this light. (Actually, we would really say that
these passages provide the Biblical basis for the summary found in
our confessions.) So we have this long history of interpretation and
this large community of pastors and theologians that hold to this
view. It is no simple matter to say "whoops--we got it wrong!" This
is not mindless following of dogma, but an appreciation for the work
of the spirit in leading the church through the ages and through the
whole church. I also don't believe that these views are unique to
Reformed Christianity--that really most of Western Christianity at
least holds these views creedally and confessionally.
I think it's a fairly new development in the history of Christianity
that we go off and come up with our own views and don't have them
"ratified" by the church as a whole. Of course, the church as a whole
is rather fragmented these days. And so even if I can get my
conservative presbyterian brothers to agree on some novel
interpretation, this is only one small branch of the church. The
point is that Mike and Dick's view signficantly alters a view common
among many Christians and throughout church history of the role of
Adam.
I think that the alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 that
Mike points out is not one at all. Genesis 1 gives us the grand
picture of creation in fairly general terms--no need to go into the
details about the two trees for that account; Genesis 2 gives us the
specific account of the establishment of the so-called "covenant of
works" where the probation is precisely in terms of the "tree of the
knowledge of good and evil"; the prohibition there is central to the
account.
Finally, in answer to some of Jim's questions:
I understand the "sons of God" to be the descendents of Seth--the
godly line in covenant with God and the "daughters of men" to be the
descendents of Cain--the ungodly line not in covenant with God. Thus,
we have here the "mixed marriage", "unequally yoked" prohibited by
God throughout scripture, yet practiced by God's people throughout
time. Of course, the passage is difficult and this view may not
answer all the questions, but in the context of the geneologies of
Genesis 4-5 and the subsequent judgment in the flood, it fits the
context. I'm not going to hang my understanding of scripture or of
science/faith interaction on this obscure passage.
TG
>TG wrote: Scripture seems pretty clear that Adam is head, not only
>covenantally but also biologically, of the whole human race.
>
>I don't believe the Bible clearly teaches such a thing at all. I think the
>scriptures are simply saying that Adam's disobedience formally established
>the fact that men are sinful and are, thus, unworthy of eternal life. Because
>Adam in paradise, a perfect specimen of a man without a problem in the world,
>could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated
>and established the fact that the entire human race, including those who had
>lived before him and those who would live after him, were unworthy of eternal
>life.
>
>So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he
>wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." ( to
>"constitute" means to "formally establish." Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) So,
>after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good
>reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of
>the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift
>God had not yet given to any human being.
>
>
>TG wrote: I don't find the attempts to see two different human creation
>accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 to be convincing.
>
>Notice that in Genesis 1:29 God told the people He had created, "I give you
>... every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."
>Compare those words of God spoken to those people to the first words God
>spoke to Adam. "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must
>not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:16,17) That
>sounds like two different creation accounts to me. If not we have a big
>contradiction.
>
>Mike
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu <http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/>http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801 --============_-1191840404==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 } --></style><title>RE: Black Sea Flood</title></head><body> <div>Approved: asa.admin</div> <div>Subject: RE: Black Sea Flood</div> <div>Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:55:32 -0400</div> <div>From: "Duff, Robert" <rjduff@uakron.edu><br> To: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu></div> <div>Cc: <asa@calvin.edu> Terry et al.</div> <div><br></div> <div>In lieu of spending time I don't have on this current discussion, I just want to affirm that Terry does not stand alone in his recent posts and I would echo nearly every point of the post below as reflective of my own thoughts. Thank you Terry for taking the time to engage in the current discussion and to articulate a position that is not as rare as may appear on the surface. Joel</div> <div><font size="-1"> </font><br> </div> <blockquote><font size="-1">George,<br> <br> Guilty as charged--I guess. I appreciate the concerns with<br> concordism, and as you know, in following Kline, I am not a strict<br> concordist. Also, I am fully aware of the theological purposes in<br> many scriptures--purposes which make "history book" history<br> subservient to those theological purposes. Thus, differing Biblical<br> chronologies, differing accounts of the same history, etc. are not a<br> seriouis problem for me. Also, since I believe that scripture is<br> fully divine and fully human, I have no problem recognizing human<br> limited perspective elements in the text. But there is significant<br> overlap between what is found in scripture and what is found in<br> history. Even starting with the NT (I concur with your hermeneutic<br> here!), the pattern of thinking of Jesus and the apostles suggests<br> that they regarded the early chapters of Genesis as being "history",<br> i.e. that Adam, Eve, Noah, his sons and daughters, etc. were real<br> people. If believing that makes me a concordist, then I'll happily<br> take the label.<br> <br> Now with respect to Mike's comments:<br> <br> This whole area is a big struggle for me, because I am fully<br> convinced that the scientific record shows animal ancestry and that<br> the most recent biological common ancestor for present day humans is<br> at least in the 200,000 years ago vicinity and maybe more.<br> <br> Theologians for at least the past 500 years and perhaps longer have<br> understood the Bible to teach that Adam is the literal father of the<br> whole race. A significant chunk of Reformed theology as represented<br> by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Shorter<br> and Larger Catechisms<br> (</font><a href="http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/westminster_standards/index.html" ><font size="-1" >http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/westminster_standards/index.html ></a><font size="-1">)<br> summarize this view (in their discussions of the fall and the<br> covenants).<br> <br> For example, Shorter Catechism Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's<br> first transgression? A. The covenant being made with Adam [a], not<br> only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from<br> him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his<br> first transgression [b].<br> [a]. Gen. 2:16-17; Jas. 2:10 [b]. Rom. 5:12-21; ICor. 15:22<br> <br> Conservative presbyterians to this day continue to understand Genesis<br> 2-3 and Acts 17 and Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and passages in the<br> Pastoral Epistles in this light. (Actually, we would really say that<br> these passages provide the Biblical basis for the summary found in<br> our confessions.) So we have this long history of interpretation and<br> this large community of pastors and theologians that hold to this<br> view. It is no simple matter to say "whoops--we got it wrong!" This<br> is not mindless following of dogma, but an appreciation for the work<br> of the spirit in leading the church through the ages and through the<br> whole church. I also don't believe that these views are unique to<br> Reformed Christianity--that really most of Western Christianity at<br> least holds these views creedally and confessionally.<br> <br> I think it's a fairly new development in the history of Christianity<br> that we go off and come up with our own views and don't have them<br> "ratified" by the church as a whole. Of course, the church as a whole<br> is rather fragmented these days. And so even if I can get my<br> conservative presbyterian brothers to agree on some novel<br> interpretation, this is only one small branch of the church. The</font></blockquote> <blockquote><font size="-1">point is that Mike and Dick's view signficantly alters a view common<br> among many Christians and throughout church history of the role of<br> Adam.<br> <br> I think that the alleged contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 that<br> Mike points out is not one at all. Genesis 1 gives us the grand<br> picture of creation in fairly general terms--no need to go into the<br> details about the two trees for that account; Genesis 2 gives us the<br> specific account of the establishment of the so-called "covenant of<br> works" where the probation is precisely in terms of the "tree of the<br> knowledge of good and evil"; the prohibition there is central to the<br> account.<br> <br> Finally, in answer to some of Jim's questions:<br> <br> I understand the "sons of God" to be the descendents of Seth--the<br> godly line in covenant with God and the "daughters of men" to be the<br> descendents of Cain--the ungodly line not in covenant with God. Thus,<br> we have here the "mixed marriage", "unequally yoked" prohibited by<br> God throughout scripture, yet practiced by God's people throughout<br> time. Of course, the passage is difficult and this view may not<br> answer all the questions, but in the context of the geneologies of<br> Genesis 4-5 and the subsequent judgment in the flood, it fits the<br> context. I'm not going to hang my understanding of scripture or of<br> science/faith interaction on this obscure passage.<br> <br> TG<br> <br> >TG wrote: Scripture seems pretty clear that Adam is head, not only<br> >covenantally but also biologically, of the whole human race.<br> ><br> >I don't believe the Bible clearly teaches such a thing at all. I think the<br> >scriptures are simply saying that Adam's disobedience formally established<br> >the fact that men are sinful and are, thus, unworthy of eternal life. Because<br> >Adam in paradise, a perfect specimen of a man without a problem in the world,<br> >could not manage to obey one simple command from God, he clearly demonstrated<br> >and established the fact that the entire human race, including those who had<br> >lived before him and those who would live after him, were unworthy of eternal<br> >life.<br> ><br> >So, with these things in mind, Paul accurately referred to Adam when he<br> >wrote, "By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." ( to<br> >"constitute" means to "formally establish." Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) So,<br> >after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good<br> >reason to retroactively condemn the entire human race as being deserving of<br> >the deaths they had been suffering, and undeserving of eternal life, a gift<br> >God had not yet given to any human being.<br> ><br> ><br> >TG wrote: I don't find the attempts to see two different human creation<br> >accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 to be convincing.<br> ><br> >Notice that in Genesis 1:29 God told the people He had created, "I give you<br> >... every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."<br> >Compare those words of God spoken to those people to the first words God<br> >spoke to Adam. "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must<br> >not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:16,17) That<br> >sounds like two different creation accounts to me. If not we have a big<br> >contradiction.<br> ><br> >Mike<br> <br> <br> --<br> _________________<br> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist<br> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University<br> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523<br> grayt@lamar.colostate.edu </font> <a href="http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/"><font size="-1">http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/></a><font size="-1"><br> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801</font></blockquote> </body> </html> --============_-1191840404==_ma============--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 15:47:07 EDT