Saturday Slammin

Tremper Longman III actually got it right when he called Cornelius Van Til a “philosopher.” As many of you know, Dr. Craig and Van Til’s biographer John Muether have both openly declared that “Van Til was not a philosopher,” while Dr. Anderson and John Frame of RTS have said that Van Til “is a philosopher.” I posted a video on this a number of months ago arguing in favor of the latter, and consequently agreeing with Longman.

Unfortunately, Longman seems to waver in his views of Genesis and the theistic evolution debate, saying that Adam may not have been a real historical person (vid was in 2009, mindyou):

As I said a number of weeks ago, we cannot simply dismiss the historicity of Adam without dealing with the following facts:

1. No explicit typological relationship in the New Testament has ever contained a type or anti-type that is non-literal. “Adam” in Romans 5, therefore, must and is consistently understood as being just as real and historical as “Christ.” If Adam is purely symbolical, than so is Jesus.
2. Adam is placed first in the list of the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:38 because he was the first man. Adam is “the son of God” just as much as “Jesus” is was “the son of Joseph” and “Joseph” was the son of Eli.”
3. I Corinthians 15:45 explicitly states “the first man Adam.”
4. Genesis 2-3 falls under the same internal category of “these are the generations of” as the rest of Genesis, including chapter 5. Chapter 5 is clearly written for no other purpose than for historical account – as is the other chapters under this same internal category. What basis, then, do we have for disconnecting the Garden story from the rest of Genesis which is – at least according to the original author- in some general sense, historical?

Chuck Swindoll, although dispensationalist, has been preaching the gospel without compromise on his new series on Romans. I honestly don’t know of a Baptist preacher with so large a listening audience proclaiming the truth about homosexuality and sin with accuracy:

“To view lesbianism and homosexuality as anything but sinful to is to remove any hope of the ability to recover. If it is a sickness, as we’re told in many corners of this world today, it is the only sickness that is mentioned in the Bible worthy of deserving death. Furthermore, you are left to explain what Paul meant when he said “and such were some of you, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, such were some of you, but you were washed.” You’re not washed from a sickness. What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus…Homosexual behavior is sin.” – Swindoll

Good for him! A second sermon by Eddie Exposito is the most practical and down-to-earth sermon I’ve heard on sanctification and church-discipline.