Well, I’m now a community blogger at Endued! As I read it, one of the key aims of Endued is to be a witness for the Lord Jesus to the surrounding culture. Hopefully, my musings will in some way help to advance this aim.

The context for my becoming a community blogger was my recent radio interview with Pastor Rick about my latest book, Axis of Glory. And so I thought it would be appropriate to make material in it the starting point for my initial blogs.

The book itself reflects a continuation of my thoughts connected with prior research in biblical studies I’ve done over the last few years. One area that I explore in Axis of Glory, along with The Search for Ultimate Reality, is the material in the opening chapters of Genesis, specifically chapters 1 and 2. These chapters provide a two-part look at God’s creation (first) of the universe and (second) humankind. It is an understatement to note how important this portion of Scripture is to Christian thought and life.

It just so happens that this same portion of Scripture is of keen interest to those who dialog and write about the relationship between science and Scripture. One prime example of this would be The Biologos Foundation and website (http://biologos.org/), both of which were begun by Dr. Francis Collins (among others). He wrote the best-selling book The Language of God.

It is also worthy of mention that in the upcoming spring term at Marylhurst University, I will be team-teaching an online course dealing with the interfacing of science and Scripture (my third year to do this course). The latter is also the focus of the Biologos blogs titled “Science and the Sacred”.

Recently, at Biologos, Dr. Pete Enns has posted blogs dealing with issues related to the material in the first two chapters of Genesis. He is listed as a Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for the Biologos Foundation. He is also a former tenured professor at Westminster Theology Seminary. His most recent posts have focused on the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background of the Genesis creation account, the relationship between Adam and Israel, Paul’s view of Adam, etc.

For me, this is where my own research finds a significant area of overlap. I have started to wrestle with some of the ideas being put forward by Dr. Enns and others at the Biologos Foundation. And I think my blog posts at Endued is a place where I could make some ongoing efforts in that direction. This includes my own approach to Genesis 1, the extent to which Adam (and Eve) are to be understood as literal / historical individuals, how Paul (and Jesus) understood the person of Adam, and so on. Each of these (and other areas) are worthy of individual treatment and discussion.

Well, that’s my plan, at least initially. I’m not sure where this endeavor on my part will lead or what sort of response it will get from my fellow community bloggers & readers. This will be especially so, given the exploratory, openended nature of my musings. And, concededly, there undoubtedly will be theological rough edges exposed in the process.

  1. I look forward to your thoughts on this topic. Funny thing is that I was on that site reading some stuff from Enns. I’m curious as to what your thoughts are as some of the topics touched upon have been controversial for many…namely whether Adam was a historical, created being, how to understand Genesis 1-2, etc.

    I know that Meredith Kline opened the door with his “framework” reading of Genesis, and that B.B. Warfield had some takes on creation that are akin to Francis Collins, etc. I happen to be a 6 day creationist who believes that Genesis 1-2, though employing some poetry, is still historically accurate.

  2. Dan Lioy says:

    Thanks, Rick, for your thoughts.

    I feel quite comfortable with the Framework hypothesis for understanding the Creation account in Genesis. In fact, I give it some time and attention in Search for Ultimate Reality.

    Also, I think it’s possible to hold to the Framework hypothesis (or at least some comparable variant of it) while still affirming the historicity of what is being presented in the opening chapters of God’s Word.

    As I give more thought to the issues raised at Biologos, I will want to avoid what seem to me to be two extremes: (1) viewing the Creation account is a purely mythological, devoid-of-historicity depiction; and (2) a strictly wooden, strightjacketed treatment of the same texts.

  3. Dan Lioy says:

    Well, having looked at Jordan’s missive against Kline, I find myself squarely in the camp of the latter. Specifically, I don’t agree with Jordan that the Apostle’s Creed is an inherently Gnostic-leaning text. Also, I would not embrace the author’s sentiment that the Framework hypothesis should be refuted. Moreover, I think Jordan has created a proverbial “strawman” depiction of the Framework hypothesis, especially the allegation that the latter supposedly denies the historicity of the creation account in Genesis. I think this charge is patently false. Also, the later part of the essay represents what I consider to be a rather wooden, overly straightjacketed reading of Genesis 1. But those are my general impressions of what Jordan is arguing, not a detailed, point-by-point refutation of the same.

  4. I know this is a rabbit trail, but I was seriously considering attending Westminster Escondido and visited the campus. I met Dr. Kline and got to speak to him about a few things. In the course of the conversation, he called John Piper a heretic, said that he was leading people astray. I just find it ironic that he is the brunt of similar criticism.

    BTW, he considered Piper a heretic because he thought Piper denied the active righteousness of Christ in a meritorious sense. Piper has clarified his position, much to the liking of the Westminster crowd, but Kline insisted that Piper was a heretic and I encouraged him to call Piper and clarify…don’t think he did.

    Anyhow, I also think that you could hold to certain elements of “FH” and not deny the historicity of Genesis 1-2. If I’m not mistaken, I think Dr. Bruce Waltke falls within this camp of thinkers as well.

  5. joelmartin says:

    To clarify, Jordan says the Apostle’s Creed is an ANTI Gnostic text.

    “The great anti-gnostic creed of the Christian faith is the Apostles’ Creed.”

  6. Dan Lioy says:

    Joel, thanks for clarifying the one point regarding Gnosticism. That’s what I get for purusing an essay quickly!

    Rick, as for Kline’s comment regarding Piper, wow, that’s a new insight for me! I sometimes wish the exchanges were more collegial and less pointed. Frankly, I’m not much for heated, winner-takes-all kinds of encounters. I tend to be more measured than that.

    Anyway, yes, I hold to the FH and the historicity of the creation account in Genesis. My position is that insights from the research of scholars such as John Walton, Peter Enns, et al., regarding the ANE context reflected in Genesis 1 & 2, are imperative to take into account in order to ensure an accurate, informed understanding of these central biblical texts.

  7. Scott Kistler says:

    Welcome, Dan. I’ve read “The Language of God,” and I’m looking forward to your insights.

    Scott Kistler

  8. Dan Lioy says:

    Thanks, Scott! And I welcome the conversational journey connected with being part of a community bloggers and readers here at Endued.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s