As iron sharpens iron,
one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
Editor at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: “When we talk about female identity and vocation—in marriage, at home, and in the church—we need women to shape the conversation alongside men. My male colleagues think so, too.” CT
From Dispensational Publishing House; used by permission. Read the series so far.
While it is true that “literal interpretation” is not the private property of dispensationalism, the claim is actually the consistent use thereof. A case can still be made that traditional dispensationalism can make good on this claim.
There is no lock-step consensus on what “literal interpretation” really is. In the 19th century, E. R. Craven, the American editor of Lange’s Commentary, with unusual clarity made the point that literal interpretation is better termed “normal” since both literal and figurative interpretation can be comprehended in the term.1 More recently, Roy Zuck differentiated, correctly, literal interpretation into “ordinary-literal” and “figurative-literal.”2 It is not the intent here to define precisely what “literal interpretation” really is, but rather to suggest four rubrics or principles that must be entertained in understanding literal interpretation. These must be held in relationship to other factors of good hermeneutics such as context, literary genre and the like. There may be other such fundamental underpinnings, but at least these must be comprehended in a proper approach to Scripture. The first two of these principles will be our focus in this installment.
FBFI National Meeting workshop presented by Matt Recker June 14-16, 2016, with permission from Proclaim & Defend. Read Part 1.
In Part 1, we defined Timothy Keller’s view of theistic evolution and offered his rationale for holding his position.
The following quote from his book, The Reason for God, highlights some deep flaws in Keller’s thinking. In the quote, Keller replies to the concerns of a young intellectual who is terribly bothered by the “unscientific mind-set” of the Biblical teaching that God directly created the world by His wisdom and power in six days. Keller responds to this struggling young person with these words:
FBFI National Meeting workshop presented by Matt Recker June 14-16, 2016, with permission from Proclaim & Defend.
Tim Keller is the highly influential founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. My first introduction to Dr. Keller’s evolutionary position was in a New York Times article, January 25, 1998, which quotes him saying:
On Creationism: ‘‘I don’t think Genesis teaches that the world was created in six 24-hour days. Evolution is neither ruled in or ruled out at Redeemer.”1
At the time I read the article, I was not sure why he took that view. My goal today is to explain what he meant by it, and why I believe he is in error. In taking on this task my goal is to fairly and respectfully define his theistic evolutionary view, give his reasons, show errors in this position, and finally attempt to provide an answer to his views.
Read the series so far.
In the next section (2:15-17) we read of God giving the man a straightforward command:
Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an actual tree. It is not called a symbol and need not be seen as one. I agree with Merrill that we should not think of “good and evil” in this place as contrasting values so much as an idiom for comprehensive knowledge.1 Certainly, ethical knowledge would be included, since all knowledge bears an ethical stamp, but the innocence of our first parents does not at all lead us to think they were ignorant of the meanings of the terms “good” and “evil.” God is communicating meaningfully to Adam, not speaking over his head. Every word which God speaks to Adam presupposes his ability to receive and comprehend it. Thus, the expression “to freely eat” was just as well understood as the designation “every tree of the garden.” Again the warning “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” was God speaking to a comprehending and responsive creature. He was not speaking into the air.2
Discussion