Category Archives: Adam

When I posted recently about David Attenborough  I mentioned that I mistakenly thought I’d blogged about science documentaries before. But my intention, had I actually done so, would not have been to criticise their truthfulness, but to use them as an example of the inescapability of genre considerations.

Once more I’ve missed contributing to a thread on BioLogos, this time not because of technical problems but because I thought the conversation had died last week. Steve Lemke’s essay on the problem of evil in evolution gave rise to a late reply from Ted Davis, which raised once more the scientific difficulty of holding that there was no animal death before the fall, the problems that inevitably brings to theodicy, and quoting R J Russell’s suggestion of going “beyond mere kenosis” to an eschatological model of theodicy in order to mitigate this. I’ve commented on Russell’s phrase directly here, and on the historical novelty of the so-called “traditional” view … Continue reading →

I’ve written about how Creation’s prime purpose is the glory of God, and how that glory was eternally planned to come through the suffering of Christ. But there’s also a sense in which the whole of creation was made for mankind, and it’s to that unfashionable idea I turn now.

I happened to read two articles yesterday relating to ancient literary sources and their use. The first example was the essay by philosopher Robin Collins recommended by Ted Davis on his BioLogos post. This is the article suggesting a new model for understanding Adam and human sin which Collins calls the historical-ideal view. I won’t discuss the article’s arguments, though I found it unpersuasive for a number of reasons. But one of those reasons was that he follows the apparently almost universal current practice of misrepresenting historical sources.

There were a couple of recent references to Peter Enns on the usual blogs recently. Ted Davis cited him in his article on theistic evolution, and in reply to a comment added some background about his departure from Westminster Seminary, to which I’ll return. Uncommon Descent  linked to his reply to a review of his book The Evolution of Adam in Themelios, largely it would seem to discredit BioLogos by association with Enns’ views on Adam (though BioLogos‘ taking him on as their house-theologian after his removal from Westminster was surely making a statement too). That should be more than enough links for now. Neither reference was of much import … Continue reading →

There’s a series on BioLogos at the moment, by Joshua Moritz, on the real meaning of the imago dei. Moritz is a significant scholar in the science and faith field, so one detects the influence of Ted Davis in his recruitment as an author. The basic thesis is that the “image” is, on textual and ANE grounds, best seen in relational, rather than ontological terms. Man is appointed as God’s representative on earth, with a priestly function in bringing all things together in God’s presence. He is elect but not primarily for his own sake (Moritz argues a parallel with election to salvation by grace, which, he says, is also … Continue reading →