Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
ADAM AND EVE
- Thread starter Andy C
- Start date
Hol
Well-known
“Daniel Baird Wallace (born June 5, 1952) is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, the purpose of which is digitizing all known Greek manuscripts of the New Testamentvia digital photographs.
Wallace, …has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit conservative evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.” From Wikipedia and so is the Bart Ehrman below.
“Bart Ehrman (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks.
Ehrman was raised in the Episcopal Church; as a teenager, he became a born-again evangelical. In Misquoting Jesus, he recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to study ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and textual criticism. During such studies at Princeton, however, he became convinced that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled.
Nika Spaulding and Robert D. Marcello
…
The moderator, Dr. Mark Chancey, a former student of Ehrman’s and chairman of the Religious Studies Department at SMU, did an outstanding job introducing the speakers, fielding the questions, and keeping the audience on track. He was quite neutral, as his reputation had suggested he would be. Dr. Ehrman throughout the evening posited that the text of the New Testament was corrupted beyond repair. His main argument stems from the absence of New Testament manuscripts from the first 200 years after the writing of the New Testament. This “silence” he argued could have resulted in chaos from the scribes; thus, it follows that the text is no longer trustworthy. Conversely, Dr. Wallace asserted that much evidence exists which affirms the reliability of the text—including from the first 200 years: nearly 80 Greek MSS from that period! He compared the New Testament manuscripts to that of even the best Greco-Roman authors. To say the New Testament exceeds this literature in quality and quantity of manuscripts would be a gross understatement. Thus it follows, on the grounds of textual reliability, the New Testament far exceeds other literature of its kind.
Me: we have reliable evidence that many of our translations (not all, the JWs & other cults have their own versions) are reliable. We do not have the original autographs, but enough to trust God’s Word.
Wallace, …has been an outspoken critic of the alleged "popular culture" quest to discredit conservative evangelical views of Jesus—including the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman.” From Wikipedia and so is the Bart Ehrman below.
“Bart Ehrman (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks.
Ehrman was raised in the Episcopal Church; as a teenager, he became a born-again evangelical. In Misquoting Jesus, he recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to study ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and textual criticism. During such studies at Princeton, however, he became convinced that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled.
REVIEW OF DEBATE BETWEEN DANIEL B. WALLACE AND BART D. EHRMAN
19 October 2011Nika Spaulding and Robert D. Marcello
…
The moderator, Dr. Mark Chancey, a former student of Ehrman’s and chairman of the Religious Studies Department at SMU, did an outstanding job introducing the speakers, fielding the questions, and keeping the audience on track. He was quite neutral, as his reputation had suggested he would be. Dr. Ehrman throughout the evening posited that the text of the New Testament was corrupted beyond repair. His main argument stems from the absence of New Testament manuscripts from the first 200 years after the writing of the New Testament. This “silence” he argued could have resulted in chaos from the scribes; thus, it follows that the text is no longer trustworthy. Conversely, Dr. Wallace asserted that much evidence exists which affirms the reliability of the text—including from the first 200 years: nearly 80 Greek MSS from that period! He compared the New Testament manuscripts to that of even the best Greco-Roman authors. To say the New Testament exceeds this literature in quality and quantity of manuscripts would be a gross understatement. Thus it follows, on the grounds of textual reliability, the New Testament far exceeds other literature of its kind.
Me: we have reliable evidence that many of our translations (not all, the JWs & other cults have their own versions) are reliable. We do not have the original autographs, but enough to trust God’s Word.
Ghoti Ichthus
Genesis 18:32, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Acts 5:29
Bart Ehrman went off the rails many years ago and clearly his intellectual pride won't let him acknowledge anything other than his own reasoning. He has all of the academic credentials of the finest Pharisee; but sadly none of Saint Paul's humility of mind.
Hol
Well-known
Sad way to end. His outsized ego won’t let him examine evidence.
He reminds me of this political cartoon from the 1920s when Henry Fosdick waged war against evangelicals. (Mods, please delete if it takes up too much space!)
Cartoon illustrating the “Descent of the Modernists,” E. J. Pace
At the risk of opening the flood gates , I'll allow this one. It pictures what happens when once we begin to explain away the Bible or cast some doubt on its 100% reliability in all things.
TCC
Well-known
Looks great to check out Hol. Thanks.You seem like a diligent student of Scripture @Adziílií
Have you encountered the debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman? The two scholars debate the question: Can we Trust the Bible
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.youtu.be
TCC
Well-known
Awesome observation Cheeky. Also it was noted by Jack that Adam was with her when she ate. I have not done enough research on that. Yes, in English translation we see that in versions. But when we look at the interlinear Hebrew, I am not so sure it renders the same meaning, that Adam was present at that time. He could of been. But when I look at it in Hebrew, it does not jump out and bite my nose that Adam had to be with her when that occured.
That is not your question. But I think that being aware that Adam may not have been present does not necessarily validate that Eve strayed because Adam was not around. For what is clear is that it could have been in Adam's presence or not. Perhpas if Adam was with her for sure she might not have. For it would seem natural that if Adam was with her that Eve would have included Adam in the conversation in some way. Like, "Hey Adam, is what the serpent saying correct?" She acted like he was not there. And if Adam was, did he just freeze? lol. "Oh no, the serpent is talking to my girl, I better just stand here and say nothing." That does not really make all that much sense. Especially if we want to say that Adam ate because he cared for her. This may well be true, but if that is so, he would have jumped in if in that same moment by virtue of "Adam' eating because of his great love for her" argument. Yet this sort of thing can get lost in shuffle and make distinguishing the signal from the noise in the argument more difficult perhaps when lining up considerations not as well weighted out in light of eachother holistically.
. . . . .
So I like your question. But the way I would look at it is I don't think knowing whether God would redeem if he sinned or not is the place to view this from. My view would be that the argument of Adams love for Eve is greater than that question we cannot possibly know, would be how I might approach thinking upon this. Not because it is a bad question. It is a great question. But since we are first shown the gospel in God judging the serpent then Eve (and not seemingly before that we are told), it would seem the redemptive revelation only came on the wings of judgement after the fall. Or affirming them as fallen. But not before.
So I would say that what makes the most sense is that Adam was not there when this happened. And Eve gave Adam after. Although in looking at how the dance of words in the Hebrew seem to embrace Adam as eating first before the mention of Eve eating. Not meaning to say that Adam ate first. lol. I am just saying that the poetic use of the Hebrew there seems to imply something by embracing Adam so much in front like that.
"then she took to make one wise a tree and desirable to the eyes and he ate with her to her husband also and she gave and ate"
So it is hard to tell. An argument could be made Adam was there. And I believe one that implies not. In part if we include Adam as having seen how good the fruit is to the eyes and just opened his mouth like "Yeah baby" and let Eve just place the fruit in his mouth to bite, I mean in that sense how would it be Adam was not deceived if he was there at that same exact moment? No discussion. It would seem a little forward for God to just say Eve was deceived. But Adam heroically just stood by with his mouth open and neck leaning forward for the placement of fruit to be upon his lips by which he had no deception regaring...lol. That would be insane. Some of these views are worth deeper discussion I belive.
But since it is so poetically unclear, what seems to be clear is the love Adam would have toward Eve. What we do know is that he was not deceived. This implies to me he was not there at the time Eve was deceived. Because to me that opens up a perhaps even harder issue...why would Adam just go "Duh!!!" And be in love with Eve? "Duh, go for it Eve, but as for me i'm only gonna eat it because you were a sucker and I love you." lol. Obviously that is silly. But I just stress it to kind of make the point that to try and make Adam present so as to offset the "not under her husbandry care" argument is, at least in my view, looking at scripture through a filter to offset bad doctrine perhaps more than looking at scripoture where it might most radiate organic like. To me, just saying.
But because we don't know I think we don't get to make all manner of doctrine everywhere around the seams and sides of what we are looking at. What I believe in that is the greater doctrinal point that Eve was deceived and Adam not. So what would be good I believe would be how that might look if Adam were present and if Adam were not. Training our minds to understanding by juxtaposing those two considerations. But we technically usually don't go that far and tend to look for more near shore fixes. It's not just Jack. Actually I think Jack is awesome for being so bold as to see this upon the connection to Christ. If that claim came from a street rogue it might be highly suspect. But I like that it is from Jack. Because he does have a meaure of biblical clout. And my end time theme is the Character of God MORE than deception. So see what really happened is I went back in time in my time machine and paid Jack to say that to make my greater point...hehehe. And see, that is how love works...lol.
But yeah for sure I pat Jack on the back for such a bold statement we don't find in scripture. I would ask CFF to extrapolate that onto the end times, and then lets all get ready to pack.
So I say this with good and considerate intent upon where Jack is coming from. Amen. So maybe the best way to answer your quetion is: I don't believe Adam would know. He just loved her. Christ knew, yet on the cross said "Why have you forsaken me?" Precisely because love will do what logic won't permit, I believe.. . . . .
Just a final note on this awesome (thank you @Andy C for this) thread. I really like Gill on this one, specifically for the virgin earth take. Never thought about that before:
who is the figure of him that was to come; meaning, either his posterity that were to come out of his loins, whose figure, type, and representative he was; or rather Christ, who is sometimes called , "he that was to come"; and the Arabic version reads the words thus, "who was a type of Adam that was expected"; that is, of Christ the second Adam, that was expected to come, according to the promise and prophecy: of him the first Adam was a type, in his human nature, in the formation and quality of it; as the first Adam was made by God of the virgin earth, the second Adam was born of a virgin; as the first, so the second Adam was pure, holy, upright, and wise; in his office, as Lord of the world, head of the woman, priest in his house, and prophet to his posterity; in his marriage with Eve, a figure of the church; but in nothing more clearly than in his being a covenant head to all his offspring: and this is what the apostle chiefly designs, since he runs the parallel between them on this account in the following verses; showing, that as the one conveyed sin and death to all his seed, so the other communicates righteousness and life to all that belong to him. So the Jews say (e), that by Adam is intimated the righteous branch, the Messiah; and that , "the secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah".
Gill was a super genuis but I often am not drawn to his takes because of his Western reformed leanings. But I never heard virgin earth/virgin birth compare before lol. So kudos to Gill. There was one other stellar moment I had with Gill. About a decade ago, when in Zechariah he noted the first chapter demonstrating peace under Cyrus. Which is a bold view. I like when Jack and Gill tend to stick their necks out.
Blessings dear sister. Hope this has been helpful or at least edifyingly entertaining at minimum. Blessings. 
Cheeky200386
Well-known
It was definitely entertaining and fun to think about. I also side with the view that Adam was not just idly standing next to her while the serpent beguiled her. That would be idiotic of him.Awesome observation Cheeky. Also it was noted by Jack that Adam was with her when she ate. I have not done enough research on that. Yes, in English translation we see that in versions. But when we look at the interlinear Greek, I am not so sure it renders the same meaning, that Adam was present at that time. He could of been. But when I look at it in the Greek, it does not jump out and bites my nose that Adam had to be with her when that occured.
That is not your question. But I think that being aware that Adam may not have been present does not necessarily validate that Eve strayed because Adam was not around. For what is clear is that it could have been in Adam's presence or not. Perhpas if Adam was with her for sure she might not have. For it would seem natural that if Adam was with her that Eve would have included Adam in the conversation in some way. Like, "Hey Adam, is what the serpent saying correct?" She acted like he was not there. And if Adam was, did he just freeze? lol. "Oh no, the serpent is talking to my girl, I better just stand here and day nothing." That does not really make all that much sense. Especially if we want to say that Adam ate because he cared for her. This may well be true, but if that is so, he would have jumped in if in that same moment by virtue of "Adam' eating because of his great love for her" argument. Yet this sort of thing can get lost in shuffle of the signal from the noise in the argument perhaps.
. . . . .
So I like your question. But the way I would look at it is I don't think knowing whether God would redeem if he sinned or not is the place to view this from. My view would be that the argument of Adams love for Eve is greater than that question we cannot possibly know, would be how I might approach thinking upon this. Not because it is a bad question. It is a great question. But since we are first shown the gospel in God judging the serpent then Eve (and not seemingly before that we are told), it would seem the redemptive revelation only came on the wings of judgement after the fall. Or affirming them as fallen. But not before.
So I would say that what makes the most sense is that Adam was not there when this happened. And Eve gave Adam after. Although in looking at how the dance of words in the Greek seem to embrace Adam as eating first before the mention of Eve eating. Not meaning to say that Adam ate first. lol. I am just saying that the poetic use of the Greek there seems to imply something by embracing Adam so much in front like that.
"then she took to make one wise a tree and desirable to the eyes and he ate with her to her husband also and she gave and ate"
So it is hard to tell. An argument could be made Adam was there. And I believe one that implies not. In part if we include Adam as having seen how good the fruit is to the eyes and just opened his mouth like "Yeah baby" and let Eve just place the fruit in his mouth to bite, I mean in that sense how would it be Adam was not deceived if he was there at that same exact moment? No discussion. It would seem a little forward for God to just say Eve was deceived. But Adam heroically just stood by with his mouth open and neck leaning forward the placement of fruit to be upon his lips by which he had no deception regaring...lol. That would be insane. Some of thes views are worth deeper discussion I belive.
But since it is so poetically unclear, what seems to be clear is the love Adam would have toward Eve. What we do know is that he was not deceived. This implies to me he was not there at the time Eve was deceived. Because to me that opens up a perhaps even harder issue...why would Adam just go "Duh!!!" And be in love with Eve? "Duh, go for it Eve, but as for me i'm only gonna eat it because you were a sucker and I love you." lol. Obviously that is silly. But I just stress it to kind of make the point that to try and make Adam present so as to offset the "not under her husbandry care" argument is, at least in my view, looking at scripture through a filter to offset bad doctrine perhaps more than looking at scripoture where it might most radiant organic like. To me, just saying.
But because we don't know I think we don't get to make all manner of doctrine everywhere around the seems and sides of what we are looking at. What I believe in that is the greater doctrinal point is that Eve was deceived and Adam not. So what would be good I believe would be how that might look if Adam were present and if Adam were not. But we technically usually don't go that far and tend to look for more near shore fixes. It's not just Jack. Actually I think Jack is awesome for being so bold as to see this upon the connection to Christ. If that claim came from a street rogue it might be highly suspect. But I like that it is from Jack. Because he does have a meaure of biblical clout. And my end time theme is the Character of God MORE than deception. So see what really happened is I went back in time in my time machine and paid Jack to say that to make my greater point...hehehe. And see, that is how love works...lol.
But yeah for sure I pat Jack on the back for such a bold statement we don't find in scripture. I was ask CFF to extrapolate that onto the end times, and then lets all get ready to pack.
. . . . .
Just a final note on this awesome (thank you @Andy C for this) thread. I really like Gill on this one, specifically for the virgin earth take. Never thought about that before:
who is the figure of him that was to come; meaning, either his posterity that were to come out of his loins, whose figure, type, and representative he was; or rather Christ, who is sometimes called , "he that was to come"; and the Arabic version reads the words thus, "who was a type of Adam that was expected"; that is, of Christ the second Adam, that was expected to come, according to the promise and prophecy: of him the first Adam was a type, in his human nature, in the formation and quality of it; as the first Adam was made by God of the virgin earth, the second Adam was born of a virgin; as the first, so the second Adam was pure, holy, upright, and wise; in his office, as Lord of the world, head of the woman, priest in his house, and prophet to his posterity; in his marriage with Eve, a figure of the church; but in nothing more clearly than in his being a covenant head to all his offspring: and this is what the apostle chiefly designs, since he runs the parallel between them on this account in the following verses; showing, that as the one conveyed sin and death to all his seed, so the other communicates righteousness and life to all that belong to him. So the Jews say (e), that by Adam is intimated the righteous branch, the Messiah; and that , "the secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah".
Gill was a super genuis but I often am not drawn to his takes because of his Western reformed leanings. But I never heard virgin earth/virgin birth compare before lol. So kudos to Gill. There was one other stellar moment I had with Gill. About a decade ago, when in Zechariah he noted the first chapter demonstrating peace under Cyrus. Which is a bold view. I like when Jack and Gill tend to stick their necks out.
I still don’t see why Adam loving her would cause him to eat the fruit. Unless if he couldn’t imagine living without her and would rather die with her. That’s the only way it makes sense to me. He would way die with her than live without her. Every other explanation seems like a stretch. Especially the one that Jack Kelly made about Adam knew she would be saved if he ate it too. Huh? Talk about a massive assumption that is alluded to nowhere in scripture.
I have no issues with Jack Kelly and he clearly knows scripture. I just can’t understand that point he was claiming in the post @Andy C shared. I must be clearly missing something.
TCC
Well-known
This kind of thing is not unique of course to Jack K. I have seen massive trends of just placing our thoughts in the text as though it were ancient scripture. In my Americanized Reformed Church, my best friend (who is still there) once told me, when looking through presumptions from a commentary on 1 Thes, you could see exegetical holes large enough for a semitruck to drive through. And that's from the pied piper of exegesis (even for many in the evangelical side who are also attracked to Macarhtur). So its true it is hyper common perhaps pretty much everywhere...even more so when we layer on eschatology. Then its a whole new party...lol.
Thanks for your response Cheeky. All we know Adam knew was that he would die. If Adam had been tricked, Adam would be waiting for the wisdom to kick in. In thinking of it, this biblical scene would make a really intense short film if done the right way. Like what Adam must have likely been going through inside when Eve hands him the fruit to eat...and he sees it looked good too. Seems like some thoughts would be going on for sure. I bet something though, if we combed the relevant scriptures surrounding this event (whether old or new testament) in light of looking for cues or filler backdrop, at some point we might stumble onto something that might highlight the mood with a bit more apeture and exposure to certain things we normally don't associate with the garden event.
Although I have expressed over the years my level of concern over how hermeneutics and exegesis can be man handled in the church, I'm kind of proud of Jack for being bold enough to put something like this in his commentary. He might not be able to discern salvation as a motive for Adam, but to consider Adam's motive as "hope," is actually I think a helpful kind of bulster for key aspects of eschatology in discussion in our day that have not really found a place...except in bad doctrine NAR (they see a jaded temporal hope in eschatology) or reformeds that are looking for church triumph to welcome Christ back with participating in the bringing on of His return. So I see its value in the hermeneutic Jack hopes to have been there. I would not exactly see that as a helpful superimposing in Genesis. But the silhouetted idea of hope in something so tragic I think is an incredible hermenuetic by which to see end times. So I guess for that implication, that kind of works for me a bit in that way.
Thanks again for your reply Cheeky. Aside from where I would seemingly 'take the win," in that there being something positive to perhaps consider in end times (aside from the rapture nearness), I would agree that seeing salvation for Eve to be too far an interpretation. Blessings.
Hol
Well-known
Me either. If Adam deliberately disobeyed God out of a pure sacrificial love for Eve, I would wonder why that act earned us all God’s curse on us & the earth.
One quick love test is to put your own name into these verses from 1 Corinthians 13. Let’s see if we can plug Adam in?
The Excellence of Love
1 If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good.
4 Love (Adam) is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant.
5 (Adam) It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered,
6 (Adam) it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 (Adam) it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 (Adam) Love never fails;
Had Adam truly eaten the forbidden fruit due to a desire to rescue Eve, why wouldn’t he run to God and get help? If he saw her get tricked and wanted to reverse the damage, why didn’t he ask God for help?
Adam did what all children and all of us do when we know we are choosing to do wrong. We avoid God. When we get caught we blame someone else.
My question—was Adam’s disobedience Satan’s real goal? Was this appealing to Adam? “For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5
Adam seems to have eventually learned to love Eve, and I think they both repented. After years of suffering through seeing what his bad choice did, even his son Cain murdering his son Abel, and Cain’s children loving evil, in Genesis 4 they had Seth: 25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 and as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh.
Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.
TCC
Well-known
Really great points Hollie. "In the groove of the moment thinking." So Adam was not decieved, but just caught in the temporal moment. Ignoring greater context in reference to God: a) "I should not eat because it would sadden and anger my creator.," and b) "Eve has flipped, I'd better go to my Father and ask him what can be done here?" When presented with these considerations, granted it does make love with Adam toward Eve there tougher to defend. Bringing in 1 Cor 13 makes it almost impossible to defend biblically. For it would seem the passion of the moment ruled Adam's heart.
This is kind of why I brought in Gill with the: virgin earth/virgin birth motif. Because it would seem that in Romans 5:14 Adam being a type of Christ to come would biblically be noted in themes of ontology: Adam was created first (as the federal head), and came from virgin origin. These are ontological references (quality of being) rather than how Adam walked. His thoughts, and sentiments.
In looking at things in this way it would seem that Adam is referenced to Christ in the sense of created order and make. Which would jive with how Romans 5 approaches the comparison seamlessly throughout the analogy. In order to see Adam as sacrificial in eating the fruit per Romans, we would have need to import the sense of Christ's devoted love to the Father AND to His creation. Which I believe both can be found biblically. But the emphasis (likely due to the first commandment and its use in reference to Christ) is often mostly on His love for the Father (at least in the American Reformed circles approach).
In my interest to decouple from overreaching theological import from that camp, I tend to often find myself searching harder for Christ in His love for His creation status because of what the America Reformed position often does with Christ's love for the Father. Where the tendency is to sideswipe the 2nd commandment or downplay His love for His creation almost (to me) to the extent its like a scientific experiment where the hypothesis of "love of Father" is tested as perhaps practicality sake--and practically nullifies Christ's and the Father's love for creation (inadverently marginalizing John 3:16--and fittingly so in concert with its downplay in atonement theory as well...as in Limited Atonoment Theory). So whenever I get the chance to see the love dynamic threaded somewhere in scripture, I am pretty well drawn to that for reason.
As the dust clears though, it would seem to be that Adam loved the romance of the moment more than Eve or the Father. As much as that hurts...lol...it is what stands out as most profound...all things considered. The danger then here would be how Romans 5 category of ontological compare is likely mistaken for Christ's attitude of heart. Romans demonstrating the very ordered category of contents contiaind within creation order (when referring to the Christ/Adam comparing) more than the attributes of heart associated with being. Pretty good capture Hol
Blessings.. . . . .
Something that could be noted at this juncture is something helpful I believe to keep in mind. Something I have had to struggle with for decades in extremely serious contexts. Something I do not at all wish or desire to offload in any way on others. But having traveled the route provided, and having noticed what I would rather not, in all honesty, is the nomenclature of our day. I love reading Jack's takes because he is well known for having genuine biblical interest with pros. I like Gill for the same reason (although would be far more Leary of hermeneutics in his takes). My favored pastor is actually Andy Woods. Had I known about him 7 years ago, I would not have trended away from generic pastoral teaching.
For a time, I just stopped listening to sermons altogether. I would go to church and get that sermon because that is how the body functions. But after going through Mr. Toad's Wild Ride for years, what I noticed was something helped actually by NT Wright. On which I would state here upfront that Wright's take on Justification was obliterated by my then assistant pastor's review, Phil Johnson. Who burried Wright's Justificaition view. And rightly so. Wright's views from A New Perspective on Paul demonstrates the same kinds of problems we might run into with Michael Heiser. Who seems to be influenced by his deep doctoral research and importing the romanced view of cultural anthropology. Noticing him importing cultural views into interpreting scritpure. Granted, culture has an exegetical place. But that place is typically not at the very front of the line (although does belong somewhere in the mix). In any event, Heiser was found to upsell cultural takes that tended to override other sound attributes of exegesis at times. So with NT Wright. But what both men helped introduce into the mix was the importance of the doctrinal pursuit relevance vs. the often pastoral Masters Degree level of explaining scripture.
To be clear, I believe no degree is needed to see how the word of God works. And can be taught. And can be used to edify. The spirit will use a pastor how He sees fitting in the body, amen. But what I am highlighting is where my journey took me. And I got to a point where it just seemed like a bunch of opinions from varying camp perspectives. Causing me to wonder how much overlay we have placed upon the word. And by virtue of that, how far adrift have we possibly gotten. This alarmed me to such extent around 2004 that I spent a year online researching how we know the bible is true. And found some real gems for sure. But at one point I was just about to make a phone call to Christians Annynamous (not kidding). Because I so wanted to empty what of the word I understand by then was cultural riff raff. Thinking to use Christian's Annyomous as perhaps a way to disinfect. For it effected me far more than theory. But then I read on their website that what I would get is thinking the theory of evolution was real. So that ended that...lol.
But what did become of more interest to me would be to research the doctoral stuff. But wow, I mean if studying the word meant going through the whole body of work in all the doctoral disciplines: cultural, linguistics, historical, rhetorical theory, idioms etc...this could take forever...lol. I even enrolled in a Masters level philospy tract at my local University for a year and a half to get traction. And I think I freaked them out...lol. So that wasn't going too well. But all that to say I did stray for some years to stop listening to sermons and have a greater interest in the much meatier deeper studies in the doctorates field because everything else just seemed to be opinion. And of course even at the doctoral levels there are camps and different views. For instance even with Andy Woods, I love much of his research. I even love his research on The Kingdom. But his view of the mustard seed parable was like splashing cold water in my face. Perhaps even more so because of Andy not really engaging with the harsher weather considerations of how he ended up with what he did for and with the mustard seed parable.
So yes, we are all falliable. And we know God uses pastors and teachers in the church for edification per His own word affirming He will do that. And use men in this way, amen. So I strive to look for that. And in all of our flaws, its there in spades. Amen. Even in camps I trust less, like the America Reformed camp. God even uses them in some ways. And yes, I do have a problem with that. lol. But its for kings to search out a matter. And not that I am one, but if it works for kings, its probably good for us. So when I see our forum open to these varying views and what saints bring to the table in heart, it is a tremdous blessing to me. Amen. And THANK YOU CCF
. . . . .
Sorry for the long post, but this is really important at this juncture in where we came with this thread and where we are on God's timeline. Our tendency today in generic evangelicalism from what I have found over the years trends to largely be opinion based. And I think that is helpful to notice. Not for the purpose to criticize. Which I don't see as the diverenge of this thread being about. But just realizing what America and other parts of the world are waking up to. We are waking up to a whole lotta opinion galore. And in as much as this stimulates the body in deeper edification in this waking up way, amen. Now when I drive I listen to Christian radio and some sermons because I am looking for the edifying nugget God's hand would have upon His church regardless of where we may be on or off. What has been helpful in this to me is not so much who to listen to more (even though my go to would still be Andy Woods in bulk). But that I find that a trend of straying from bad teachers to good teachers is healthy of course. But I used to think to stay with the solid teachers and ousting the bad ones = being closer to God. But since this journey I think what that more looks like is: As I get closer to God, I can find His gems sometimes in both. And that all pastors somewhere may not have a take or even an approach exactly right. And that pretty much describes, from what I have seen, in general in evangelical America. This awareness strays from the ways I was taught to see a deeper trust in men in the church via the American Reformed perspective. And caused me to almost see pastors as mini-pope like....lol. I knew that could not be right. But the sound stage theater approaches in those camps do not mind at all to assist congregants to mistake that if they might. Even to the tune of Macarhtur once saying (in his more closet continueist mode: "I fell as if God told me, you be to the church what I am to the church"). And one time to at a Calvary Chapel sermon the pastor noted that pastors are in the place of Moses...as an "example." Which I thought was cool to note. But later reealized there can be a thin line (very thin) between "example" and esteemed authority placed by God. And in all that, there went to drama and struggle for appropriate in my heart the biblical role for teachers in the congregant life.
Rather than what that might have brought me to in being shocking or to a dispairaging of sorts, it is actually a comforting outcome in ways. Because coming to that place is likely because of the 1 John 2:27 organic principle to believers. And as we tap into that among the body, wow, that is an awesome thing. So for me its not so much the correct view as it is the living approach in His Spirit that edifies most. Sure we are in a world that is top heavy in opinion. Even the Christian world. Maybe, especially the Christian world. But being able to glean from those God has provided the body with as lightening rods by which to cluster grow around (even though their teachings or approaches that might not be "exactly" due North), the place opinion might have in the body today is not so much to uncover truth as it might have import and proving out and strengthening He who lives with in us truest discerment access within our souls. So more like a dynamic exercise, If all that hot mess might might sense...lol. Blessings.
Hol
Well-known
Amen brother, it can be a painful lesson to recognize that flaw many, or most of our leaders share. Last year the Lord used a tendinitis\bursitis in one leg that stopped me from my routine devotion of time to my local church. (My physical therapist called it a perfect storm of compounding physical mechanics that inflamed and stressed half of my body.)
What lessons I learned! The Lord used that month of isolation to show me how important it is to stop trusting my church leadership ahead of Him. I stopped putting them on a pedestal. I’m back to lots of involvement, but with less entanglement.
I used to attend a Calvary Chapel, and still love many of their teachers, but have learned to be cautious of their tendencies to stand in the place of Moses.
We are blessed to have quality leadership here at CCF. Our pastor @mattfivefour isn’t asking to be on a pedestal.
Similar threads
