Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This may sound simplistic but I am of the firm belief that the reason most evangelicals do not support 6/24 and a literal, real historical Adam is that it makes them look and feel silly at dinner parties and academic events where their "colleagues" will be.
The fear of man brings a snare.
This may sound simplistic but I am of the firm belief that the reason most evangelicals do not support 6/24 and a literal, real historical Adam is that it makes them look and feel silly at dinner parties and academic events where their "colleagues" will be.
Where does he teach now? Wasn't he at Westminster once? It just shows how liberalism and evolution put pressure on people's brains until they seep or flood in!
I don't disagree totally with on the emotions but he seems to find it difficult expressing himself verbally on it.
"Church life can be pretty thin": sometimes because we ourselves are unspiritual. Sometimes because the Psalms have been abandoned for bland hymns. Sometimes because the Psalms and the rest of Scripture hasn't been studied to get more out of worship. Sometimes because we want to be entertained rather than worship God.
I'll raise the point about "Adam"/"Adam" in the creation/evolution forum.
Where does he teach now? Wasn't he at Westminster once?
Wow! He doesn't exactly step up to the plate to defend a literal Adam, does he?
I don't agree with a non-ordinary day (e.g. "6/24" view) of creation, but I don't think it makes was heretical or even unorthodox or untrustworthy (generally).
But to deny an historical Adam makes one either greatly confused or completely untrustworthy, since it makes Luke (3:38), Paul (1 Co. 15:45; 1 Tim 2:13-14) and Jude (v14) explicitly liars, and thus the Scriptures untrustworthy. It also destroys the foundation of our redemtion by Christ (Romans 5:12-21).
I don't agree with a non-ordinary day (e.g. "6/24" view) of creation, but I don't think it makes was heretical or even unorthodox or untrustworthy (generally).
But to deny an historical Adam makes one either greatly confused or completely untrustworthy, since it makes Luke (3:38), Paul (1 Co. 15:45; 1 Tim 2:13-14) and Jude (v14) explicitly liars, and thus the Scriptures untrustworthy. It also destroys the foundation of our redemtion by Christ (Romans 5:12-21).
Indeed. One might as well deny the necessity of a historical Jesus if the Fall and Original Sin are ahistorical.
Fred, I watched that clip.
He didn't deny it was true or inerrant, he just said that some anonymous authors may have contributed to parts, such as the death of Moses being recorded in a book attributed to Moses.
Fred, I watched that clip.
He didn't deny it was true or inerrant, he just said that some anonymous authors may have contributed to parts, such as the death of Moses being recorded in a book attributed to Moses.
Fred, I watched that clip.
He didn't deny it was true or inerrant, he just said that some anonymous authors may have contributed to parts, such as the death of Moses being recorded in a book attributed to Moses.
First, I'm getting way beyond tired of the canard that since Moses couldn't have written Deuteronomy 31 (and why not, exactly?) we have to assume that there were a bunch of redactors, editors, etc. who wrote the Pentateuch. Jesus never says that. He says "Moses."
Wonder why he does not say "wrote"? But "associated" or "traditions"?
What exactly did these "editors" do? Were all these men and women inspired by the Holy Spirit? No statement about that is forthcoming from Longman. The Bible is full of examples of referring to actual authors as evidence of inspiration (Who wrote the Bible? Holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit) - just one example is Hebrews 3:7 and Psalm 95. Longman's blather attempts to completely destroy this foundation of inspriation.
I guess I am so "conditioned" to believe that the Bible says what it says, so I am so "highly literalistic." So the Bible does not actually mean what it says - it is just a kind of legal brief against Babylon. Puke.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KysKaOAl2MA]YouTube - Tremper Longman III - On The Creation Account - Part 4[/ame]
This brings back so many wonderful memories of the mainline and college professor rants against "fundamentalists." These lectures are given in such a Pat-on-the-head "I'm smart and you are dumb" attitude that's just so full of bland contempt for orthodoxy.Fred, I watched that clip.
He didn't deny it was true or inerrant, he just said that some anonymous authors may have contributed to parts, such as the death of Moses being recorded in a book attributed to Moses.
First, I'm getting way beyond tired of the canard that since Moses couldn't have written Deuteronomy 31 (and why not, exactly?) we have to assume that there were a bunch of redactors, editors, etc. who wrote the Pentateuch. Jesus never says that. He says "Moses."
Wonder why he does not say "wrote"? But "associated" or "traditions"?
What exactly did these "editors" do? Were all these men and women inspired by the Holy Spirit? No statement about that is forthcoming from Longman. The Bible is full of examples of referring to actual authors as evidence of inspiration (Who wrote the Bible? Holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit) - just one example is Hebrews 3:7 and Psalm 95. Longman's blather attempts to completely destroy this foundation of inspriation.
I guess I am so "conditioned" to believe that the Bible says what it says, so I am so "highly literalistic." So the Bible does not actually mean what it says - it is just a kind of legal brief against Babylon. Puke.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KysKaOAl2MA"]YouTube - Tremper Longman III - On The Creation Account - Part 4[/ame]
Where does he teach now? Wasn't he at Westminster once?
Tremper and I were classmates at Westminster in the 1970s. After graduate studies, he returned to Westminster and taught there for 18 years . . .
But as Trialblogue put it in "Loving our Own" back in 2006 (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/loving-our-own.html) . . .. . . one of the reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the seminary was beginning to change from the deeply Reformed but outward facing institution that it was from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a more inward defensive institution. I remember talking to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I felt the Bible taught something that the Confession did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible that I know and love. However it is a perspective that I think has only grown with time.
There’s a natural, if chauvinistic, tendency to love our own. When one of our own publishes a book, we let our guard down.
So, if, for example, Dillard and Longman take the same positions on higher critical issues as Fuller faculty, then we give them a pass although we’d be quite hostile if the same book were written by Fuller faculty.
I don’t share this double standard. If anything, we should hold our own to a higher standard, not a lower standard.
y the way, DMc, regarding the quotes about WTS, I don't think from the much I have heard, it is about scripture and inerrancy. WTS had gained a lot of students over the years who were not going to be preachers (women and men in various types of ministry or secular work) with yes, an outward focus on engaging with the culture to some extent, CCEF classes, and that sort of thing. Lillback and Trueman wanted to move back to more of Machen's vision of preparing preachers to preach sound doctrine as the main objective.... (nothing wrong with that, and I hope they produce a thousand LLoyd-Joneses) but it was a defensive posture towards training preachers to maintain the confessions rigorously, as opposed to the outer evangelistic looser type view (somebody like Tim Keller comes to mind). I know when we lived in PA in the 80s and 90s it was like everybody was taking classes at WTS....housewives, Baptists, charismatics, missionaries....people are hungry for good theology and they offered it. But then the vision to go back to producing Machenite Presbyterian preachers started to take hold and there was a shift. Anyway, not to ramble but it really wasn't about this subject, all that inward and outward stuff.
Where does he teach now? Wasn't he at Westminster once?
Tremper and I were classmates at Westminster in the 1970s. After graduate studies, he returned to Westminster and taught there for 18 years . . .
Man, this makes me feel a whole lot better about my seminary education in So.Cal. I always assumed that WTS was a bastion of orthodoxy. Sounds like we were both taught pretty much the same stuff! ..
The problem, of course, as Lynnie alludes in her defense of Dr. Longman's character, is that some of the ideas that do real damage to the church begin as questions by some of the best teachers, nicest guys, and people we most admire. Dr. Longman has been in print explaining that he eventually grew dissatisfied with the atmosphere at WTS and an "inward defensive" focus that he saw creeping in and that many saw in the Enns debacle. As Dr. Longman put it:
. . . one of the reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the seminary was beginning to change from the deeply Reformed but outward facing institution that it was from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a more inward defensive institution. I remember talking to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I felt the Bible taught something that the Confession did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible that I know and love. However it is a perspective that I think has only grown with time.
Once upon a time scholars began with questions and concluded with answers. These days they have a tendency to begin with answers and conclude with questions.