Comments on: Accommodating Accommodation http://becomingcreation.org/2009/09/accommodating-accommodation/ Exploring and promoting the scientific, theological and personal meaning of creation. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:35:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Douglas http://becomingcreation.org/2009/09/accommodating-accommodation/comment-page-1/#comment-185 Douglas Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:50:29 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=144#comment-185 David, Thanks for reading and commenting about this post. Indeed, the NT interprets the OT, but it does so for the NT audience (according to the culture and worldview of the NT writer). Two thousand years later, we have no choice but to interpret the NT (even its view of the OT) for our culture and worldview. That is precisely Lamoureux's point in saying that Paul may have believed that Adam was an actual person, but that does not compell us to do so. Depending on your approach to inerrancy and inspiration, this may seem dangerous. In my own mind, however, it does not lead to any sort of slippery slope, such as doubting the physical resurrection of Jesus. I suggest that you read Pete Enns' book Inspiration and Incarnation. And, with regard to a historical Adam, there are a variety of plausible and defensible positions between Adam as the biological ancestor of all humans and Adam as a theological representation of the human condition. I won't stake my faith on any particular view. See my post <a href="http://becomingcreation.org/2009/08/adam-and-the-shack/" rel="nofollow">Adam and the Shack.</a> David,
Thanks for reading and commenting about this post. Indeed, the NT interprets the OT, but it does so for the NT audience (according to the culture and worldview of the NT writer). Two thousand years later, we have no choice but to interpret the NT (even its view of the OT) for our culture and worldview. That is precisely Lamoureux’s point in saying that Paul may have believed that Adam was an actual person, but that does not compell us to do so.
Depending on your approach to inerrancy and inspiration, this may seem dangerous. In my own mind, however, it does not lead to any sort of slippery slope, such as doubting the physical resurrection of Jesus. I suggest that you read Pete Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation. And, with regard to a historical Adam, there are a variety of plausible and defensible positions between Adam as the biological ancestor of all humans and Adam as a theological representation of the human condition. I won’t stake my faith on any particular view. See my post Adam and the Shack.

]]> By: David Blank http://becomingcreation.org/2009/09/accommodating-accommodation/comment-page-1/#comment-183 David Blank Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:14:22 +0000 http://becomingcreation.org/?p=144#comment-183 I am a pediatrician and am enjoying your website. As a fellow member of the AMA I like your approach. I do think it dangerous for us however to view Adam as someone whom Paul believed in but may in fact be unreal. The promise of the Abrahamic covenant begins in Genesis. The reformed view of scripture is that the New Testament interprets the Old. Jesus and the apostles practiced this hermanuetic. We need to keep Adam in the picture because the revelation of the gospel in the NT does so. Am interested in your thoughts. God Bless I am a pediatrician and am enjoying your website. As a fellow member of the AMA I like your approach. I do think it dangerous for us however to view Adam as someone whom Paul believed in but may in fact be unreal. The promise of the Abrahamic covenant begins in Genesis. The reformed view of scripture is that the New Testament interprets the Old. Jesus and the apostles practiced this hermanuetic. We need to keep Adam in the picture because the revelation of the gospel in the NT does so.

Am interested in your thoughts.

God Bless

]]>