Tremper Longman, Adam, and Teaching the Truth (2)

What a remarkable event the new birth is!  What a reversal, a triumph, an utter transformation!  I (I should say “we”), who am a continuing stain on God’s landscape (Rom. 3:10-18) – contributing nothing but a deepening of the stain (Matt. 6:11a)  – I have been born from above (1 Pet. 1:23)!  I have been cleansed and forgiven (Heb. 9:11-15)!  God has given me a new life and He has adopted me as His dear son (Rom. 8:15-17).  According to the Apostle Paul I have been “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred… to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13).  Jesus says I have eternal life, that I shall not come into judgment, but have actually “passed from death unto life” (Jn. 5:24).

The reason I believe these great truths is because I believe Jesus and those He appointed and inspired.  Jesus is the Truth (Jn. 14:6), and He comes from Him that is true (Jn. 7:28-29).  As the Truth He attests to Himself (Jn. 8:14, 16), and to know Him is to know the truth (Jn. 8:31-32).  Therefore, all that are of the truth hear His voice (Jn. 18:37c).  Jesus’ very character is “Faithful and True” (Rev. 19:11).

Now for my point: When Jesus says that “in the beginning God made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4) He is referring to Adam and Eve in the Garden (cf. Gen. 2:18-24).  Jesus also refers to the murder of their son Abel in Luke 11:51.  When Paul, who received his teaching from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:15-17),  gives a reason for not admitting women to the teaching office of the church he goes back to Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-14).  But why did they bother arguing along these lines if they knew their doctrines were resting on mythical foundations?  And what is Jude doing telling us about Enoch being “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14) if he didn’t believe in Adam?  (Perhaps he didn’t believe in all the other historical data he refers to either!).

Now comes the magnificent phalanx of scholars, with (on this occasion) Tremper Longman at the head.  In the first part of this article I noted that Longman has gone one better (or worse) than those evangelicals who denied the literal six day creation, and even those who taught theistic evolution, by casting real doubt on the historicity of “a little historical Adam” as he rather contemptuously refers to him.  Is Longman calling Jesus a liar then?

Personal Thoughts about Commentaries (5): MATTHEW

Here are my personal picks for the most profitable commentaries on Matthew.  I favor a modified Dispensational approach to the book which takes seriously the way Matthew provides lines of continuity and discontinuity with the Old Testament.  But I have little problem with including studies which do not handle eschatological issues as satisfactorily as I would like.  There is, after all, more to Matthew than eschatology:

1. Donald A. Hagner (WBC) – This was a hard choice as I don’t hold to ‘Q’.  But there is so much great exegetical, historical, and practical material in these two volumes that I cannot think of being without it.  Eat the meat and spit out the critical bones!

2. D. A. Carson (EBC) – I rarely find Carson as helpful or as clear as Hagner, but this is a first-rate work.  More tentative on ‘Q’s’ influence than Hagner though.  The revised work in this set is sure to keep Carson at or near the top of everyone’s list.

3. R. C. H. Lenski – Scoff if you must, but then get over it!  It teems with solid exegesis and outstanding preaching values.

Personal Thoughts about Commentaries (4): EPHESIANS

These are the top commentaries for the Pastor on Ephesians:

1. Harold Hoehner – A massive work, both in size and erudition.  It is very well written and quite user-friendly.  Every issue is chased down thoroughly, and the Pauline authorship of the book is convincingly upheld.  A real standard!

2. Peter T. O’Brien (Pillar) – O’Brien is an expert on the Prison Epistles.  This, I think, surpasses his work on Colossians in the WBC series.  Attractive style and what might be called a thoughtfully sensible approach make this a valuable commentary.

3. F.F. Bruce (NICNT w/Col. & Phile.) – All the trademarks of Bruce’s scholarship are on view here.  Gets to the point of the text quickly while also considering alternative interpretations.  Bruce published an English Bible commentary on Ephesians in 1961.  It should be purchased if found.

Review of “Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman”

Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman, by John R. Muether, Phillipsburg, PA: P&R, 2008.

Any biographer of a man like Cornelius Van Til needs to assume certain things.  First, Van Til’s thought, though brilliant, is not always easy to divine.  Second, that this is made more  problematical by the coming together of at least two different obstacles: a. Van Til’s sometimes awkward way of putting things, and, b. the difficulty many of us have with obeying the injunction to “bring every thought into captivity to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).  Third, one who would write about Van Til must keep in mind that owing in no small part to the foregoing points, the famed Westminster apologist is often not closely or sympathetically read by his opponents, who content themselves too much with the misrepresentations of him which have been handed down as unquestioned truths over the years.  Fourthly, these characterizations help serve the agendas of those conservative Christians who like to flirt with wayward evangelicals who enjoy rubbing shoulders with non-evangelical intellectuals like Barth, Balthasar or Ricoeur.  It is for reasons such as these that the uncompromising thrust of Van Til’s thinking, and its conscious antithetical attitude towards unbiblical opinions must be explained if his important work is to be appreciated, especially by readers who may desire to be introduced to the man and to understand his influence.

The Assurance of New Life – Psa. 118:17

Intro.

Psalms 113 to 118 form what is known as the “Hallel”; a set of Psalms that have for millennia been sung at the Feast of the Passover and other festivals. At the Passover Psalms 113 and 114 were sung before the meal and Psalms 115 through 118 were sung after it. Thus, in the Gospels we read that at the Last Supper, “after they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives.” (Matt. 26:30). This means that this text was on the lips of our Lord just prior to His arrest and Passion!

1. The Testimony of a Child of God

At one time or another most Christians have dealt with folks who were quite indignant about the Christian claim to actually know their sins are forgiven and that they are safe for all eternity.

To make such a statement – to believe that one may have perfect assurance about going to heaven when we die, strikes some people as presumptuous in the extreme. Their experience of life tells them that nothing is for certain – not in this life, so how can we be sure of what will be in the next life (if there is one)? How could any rational person say with the Apostle Paul, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”? “No” they say, “that is just in that old book, you can’t believe what that book says.”

Now, if their contention is true, or if it has any grounds, then I would have to admit that we Christians can’t really know what we profess to know. We cannot know for sure that when we die we shall enter into new life; that we shall, as it were, be released from the grip of death and shall step out of this life and into eternal bliss with our God and our Redeemer. If they are correct, they need not listen to the Gospel. The Gospel, in fact, would not be worth the preaching!

Entering Blogsville (with a very small bang)

My friend Tom Pryde is an accomplished blogger. My beautiful wife Gina always has something interesting to say. Many other pals of mine have cool blogs. As for lil’ ol me, well, I’m not sure I really grasp this whole culture of blogdom, blogtown, blog..whatever, but I do enjoy it. So, I’m gonna give it a try.

My blogs will likely center on what I’m doing at Veritas School of Theology or on what I’m reading or what I’m meditating on, or maybe what evangelical goofball or atheist ingrate I’ve allowed myself to be affected by. Whatever it may be, I am going to try to observe the “golden rule of blogging” (orchestra!!) – blog for yourself first.

As I sit here I have just completed the recording of one of the final lectures of my course “The Doctrine of God (1). Today I dealt with the Incomprehensibility of God and the matter of God accommodating Himself to our capacity. I stuck this material near the end of the course because it is somewhat abstract and I hope that the preceding stuff on God’s attributes and trinitatian nature will have ‘prepared’ my students to better appreciate it. I only have to cover God’s names and images (again, placed here in order to bring the discussion back to Scripture), some heretical concepts of God – such as modalism, open-theism and process thought, plus what I believe is a pretty serious problem in J. Feinberg’s formulation of the Trinity, and God’s relation to time (where again Feinberg departs from classic orthodoxy), and I’m done!

After DG (1) has finished I intend to begin recording “Intro. to Biblical Apologetics’ and (DV) and “The Doctrine of Revelation.” I might take a stab at Church History (1) as well. This blog will keep prospective students updated on progress.

Another thing I’m going to start is a “Quote for the Day” category where I shall place a new (and worthwhile) thought from a great Christian of the past -why is it that only dead Christians have great thoughts? – . Don’t be surprised if the guy has been dead for a few centuries. Folks back then seemed to ruminate on things more than we do today. Precisely why that is the case will maybe be a subject I’ll broach down the road a bit.

Let’s see what happens…..