SBC Voices » Jared Moore

How NOT to Evaluate a Church or Pastor

Jared Moore — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:45:33 +0000

I am not going to reveal my source for this suggested evaluation of a pastor or church, but I feel sorry for the pastor and the church that adopts such a view. Based on this evaluation, most pastors in the world are failures, and most pastors in church history were failures as well. Even Jesus Christ did not meet the standards below (as far as we know). I have several problems with evaluations like the one presented below: 1) They are blatantly unbiblical. 2) They come from a CEO mentality. 3) They are arbitrary. 4) Such evaluations encourage pastors and churches to hide the glory of God. Pastors and churches cannot be blamed for failing in these standards unless they can be praised when they are “successful.” God alone gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7). Jesus alone builds His church (Matt. 16:18). He does not need any of us to do it; not even the so-called “best” pastors or churches or denominations on earth. If you want to know how NOT to evaluate a church or pastor, simply follow these steps:

What are your thoughts?

Fathers, Protect Your Daughters from Your “Deity”

Jared Moore — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:47:35 +0000

In a world saturated with evil, what is a father to do in order to protect his daughter? The answer seems to be: whatever he can. However, an earthly father is not sovereign; he is not in control of his daughter; he cannot fully protect her. “Whatever he can,” therefore will not be good enough. Even if I can protect my daughter from the greater evils in the world, even if I can protect her from predators that would try to hurt her, or depraved young men up to no good, I still cannot protect her fully from the evil that is me or the evil that is her (Ava). That depraved sin nature will corrupt her from within if she sits non-responsive to the preached word from a pulpit of a sinner saved by grace, who is being perfected, but is not yet perfect. I will do my best not to deserve the title of “hypocrite,” but Satan, his armies, her flesh, and my flesh are against my desire for God’s goodness.

What is a father to do?

All we can do is place our trust in the sovereign God to whom our daughters already belong. Our goal should be to present them blameless before their heavenly Father one day due to the cleansing blood of Christ having washed over them through faith in Him alone. Our goal cannot be to “win” our daughters to us, but to win them to Jesus. Thus, a father’s greatest strength is admitting his weakness while using every avenue he can to pour out the love of Christ on his daughter. Her only hope however is his only hope as well: Salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sadly, she can be “daddy’s girl,” and still go to hell. But, if she’s the daughter of our Heavenly Father, she has eternal life in Christ forevermore, and He will be there for her when we cannot be. Therefore, Fathers, protect your daughters from your “deity” by sending them running from your “deity” to Jesus alone.

May we labor continually to send our daughters running to the only Father who can save them eternally!

What are your thoughts?

Why I Am Allowing Myself to be Nominated as SBC 2nd Vice President

Jared Moore — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:14:34 +0000

Jeff Wright, pastor of Midway Baptist Church in Cookeville, TN, will nominate me for 2nd Vice President of the SBC in 2013 (Houston, TX, June 11-12). See his nomination announcement here.

If the SBC agrees, I’m happy to serve as 2nd VP of the SBC .

I want to serve because. . .

1. I want to serve Southern Baptists. I was saved at Gum Springs Baptist Church (a Southern Baptist church in Walling, TN) when I was 17 years of age. I came forward in the same church a year later, believing God had set me apart for ministry. The church agreed. After an internship and being hired at another SBC church as youth pastor, my home church ordained me to the gospel ministry. Since then, I’ve served Southern Baptists in Tennessee and Kentucky as youth pastor and senior pastor for a total of 12 years. I’m just a normal Southern Baptist pastor who wants to serve Southern Baptists.

2. I want to represent rural Southern Baptists. I was saved in a rural Southern Baptist Church, and I’ve primarily served rural Southern Baptists ever since. Where I live now, the nearest gas station is 7 miles away. My church is a small church made up of about 60 people. They’re a loving, caring, godly group of people. Some of the godliest people I’ve met in my ministry worship here. My music minister and chairman of deacons has been a Christian twice as long as I’ve been alive. He’s also served as music minister at New Salem Baptist Church for almost 60 years. At 82 years of age, he still does a great job! I want to represent Southern Baptists like the ones I serve on a daily basis who may not have the opportunity to attend the convention or serve at the convention level.

3. I want to promote unity in the SBC. I think Traditionalists, Calvinists, and everything in between in the SBC can work together. Since the founding of the Southern Baptist convention, Southern Baptists of different stripes have been able to work together. There’s no reason to divide beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. I believe we’ll accomplish far more together than we will if we’re divided. Hopefully, this year will be one of renewal as Calvinists and Traditionalists reach across the aisle for the sake of the gospel, and for the sake of the future of the SBC.

4. I want to promote the Cooperative Program. I still believe the Cooperative Program is the best way for Southern Baptists to unite to support the spread of the gospel to the ends of the Earth. My church gives 16% to the Cooperative Program, plus another 2% to the local association. Apart from cooperating with other SBC churches through the Cooperative Program, our small church could not support as many ministries on our own. I realize the Cooperative Program and the ministries it supports are not perfect, but New Salem Baptist Church believes in the Cooperative Program. I hope to encourage churches to begin, continue, or increase their support of the Cooperative Program. It’s still the best way available for supporting the equipping of Southern Baptist ministers to take the gospel locally and abroad, and to train other Southern Baptists to do the same.

What are your thoughts?

Torn to Heal by Mike Leake: Book Review

Jared Moore — Wed, 29 May 2013 19:45:44 +0000

Mike Leake in his book Torn to Heal (Published with Cruciform Press) seeks to help his readers understand “God’s good purpose in suffering.” Leake’s book is biblically accurate, an easy-read, and helpful to the local church. With a mother who is suffering with Parkinson’s disease and as a pastor of a church with an aging congregation, suffering is a daily reality where I’m challenged to think biblically as I encourage others. If one is a good minister, he will have real empathy and love for fellow believers who suffer. Leake’s book encouraged me, for it helps Christians balance God’s absolute sovereignty over all creation–including suffering–and our humble yet honest emotional plea to God for relief.

Leake’s work is timely, for Satan has deceived millions of Christians into thinking God wants every Christian to be healthy, wealthy, and “materially-blessed” in this evil, cursed world. Even a cursory glance at Scripture reveals the opposite. Leake points out the clear teaching of Scripture: if you have God through the finished work of Christ, you have Who you were created to enjoy forevermore. Our suffering is always for His glory and for our good, and eternal joy is just around the corner for those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation. Then, “death and tears and mourning and pain and sin and grief will be utterly decimated by the resurrection power of the redeeming Son of God” (83). In the midst of suffering, look to Him alone while pleading to God for relief. The wonderful reality is that relief is coming for all those who repent and believe in Christ. He has conquered, is conquering, and will conquer the results of the Fall. Rejoice friends, rejoice!

I highly recommend this book. I’m purchasing a bulk order from Cruciform Press to hand out to the church I pastor. I think this work will encourage all Christians to think biblically about God and suffering. Christian, read this work and be encouraged.

What Philippians 4:13 Really Means

Jared Moore — Tue, 28 May 2013 22:10:03 +0000

Philippians 4:13 says, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Christian athletes often quote this verse when they win a game, match, or event. Although their statements are true, Christ does strengthen believers to carry out their daily tasks, Philippians 4:13 does not mean Christ will strengthen you to carry out your daily tasks. After all, Christ strengthens unbelievers as well to carry out their daily tasks, since He’s the Creator and Sustainer of all creation (Col. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 8:6). Christians athletes would be better to quote Col. 1:16-17 when they win instead of Philippians 4:13. Philippians 4:13 means if you have Christ, you have the strength to do all things, whether you’re “brought low” or “abounding,” whether you have “plenty” or are “hungry,” whether you have “abundance” or “need” (Philippians 4:12); you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you (Philippians 4:13) because Christ is enough. The Apostle Paul wrote these words from prison. He could endure prison because being in prison with Jesus is better than being free in this world without Him. Thus, according to Philippians 4:13, Christ strengthens Christians, not so we can get what we want, but so we’ll be satisfied in Him alone.

The Psalmist made a similar statement in Psalms 63:3:

If you have God’s love, you can do all things, for you have no other need. Even if you’re suffering with cancer, sorrow, pain, suffering, etc., if you have the love of God, you need nothing else, for His love is better than this life. If you’re satisfied in Christ alone, you can do all things, for whether you live or die, you still have Christ, and you’ll enjoy Him forevermore!

To conclude, consider these words of Paul in Philippians 3:8,

Friends, rest in the One who will never leave you nor forsake you (Heb. 13:5-10). As you rest in Him, He will strengthen you to endure all things, whether sorrow or joy, poverty or wealth, suffering or health; you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you.

What are your thoughts?

John Calvin Vs. Martin Luther: Similarities and Differences

Jared Moore — Sun, 26 May 2013 13:30:48 +0000

Introduction

Timothy George seeks to detail the lives and beliefs of the Reformers in his book Theology of the Reformers. Two of the Reformers he examines are John Calvin and Martin Luther. This article will seek to critique and examine the clear similarities and differences between John Calvin vs. Martin Luther specifically mentioned by George. According to George’s distinctions between these two men concerning the essentials of the Reformation, their similarities in life and theology far outweighed their differences.

Similarities in Life and Theology

Unlike Luther, Calvin was born into the church. His father was an administrative assistant for the Bishop of Noyon. His mother also was considered a very pious woman (168). Both these men however studied law, with Calvin graduating, and Luther foregoing finishing law school to become a monk, and eventually a Doctor of Theology. Calvin, however, was not a novice in the biblical languages, but was not formally theologically trained like Luther.

Although their upbringing and education were similar, their personalities were different. Calvin was shy to the point of being unsociable. Luther however was a man of action, and is described by George as having a “volcano of a personality” (175). In spite of these differences in personality, both Calvin and Luther were reluctant to fight the opposition, but Calvin was more reluctant than Luther. Both men, however, were brought into the fight by the encouragement of those who surrounded them.

With their understanding of the biblical languages came an emphasis upon the authority of the Scriptures. George indicates that Luther and Calvin both affirmed that the church was born from the womb of the Scriptures, instead of the Scriptures being produced by the church (197). This is one of the main “flags” of the Reformation. The Scriptures alone are authoritative. This emphasis on the Scriptures alone was direct rebellion against the current thought and government of the day. It was a capital offense to usurp the absolute authority of the Catholic Church and the pope. Calvin and Luther, however, sought to please God rather than men.

Seeking to please God rather than men led Luther and Calvin to submit to and emphasize the sovereignty of God. George revealed that these men agreed that God’s will, although singular, carries a multiple meaning (208). George showed this similarity through emphasizing Luther’s writing on God’s revealed will and concealed will. God’s revealed will is that part of His will which He has revealed in His Word. His concealed will is that aspect of His will that He has withheld from the understanding of His people. Neither Calvin nor Luther believed God to be the author of sin; this also means that they argued that even evil was willed by God indirectly to accomplish His will. Even the Devil is used by God to accomplish His will, even though every decision he makes is his decision alone (209). God’s overarching will was determined by Him before the foundation of the world.

In line with God’s providence is God’s sovereign foreordination of Christ as the foundation for all of life, whether spiritual or physical. George argues that both Luther’s and Calvin’s theologies were completely Christ-centered (216). They emphasized salvation existing in Christ alone. This theology was another flag of the Reformation. They both believed in the imputed righteousness of Christ being credited through sinners being justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Sinners are saved by Christ’s righteousness and obedience credited to them; instead of being saved through their own obedience. To these men, righteousness was declarative instead of infused–as the Catholics believed. Due to man’s total depravity, he cannot save himself. Thus, this imputed righteousness being found objectively in Christ alone was good news indeed.

Concerning this good news and man’s assurance of salvation, George argues that Luther was preoccupied with guilt, and Calvin struggled with the meaninglessness of existence. They both were assured of their salvation, and yet admitted the doubt that existed because the flesh was still present with the believer (pg. 204). This continual depravity of the flesh furthermore means that not only is salvation a gift at the beginning and end, but faith and repentance are gifts continually as well. Furthermore, where repentance is present, faith is present as well; for one cannot exist without the other.

On top of the necessity of Christ alone and the depravity of man, these two Reformers also emphasized the importance of faith alone. George points to the type of faith these men believed individuals must possess in order to be saved (224-225). Sinners had to trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation; for acknowledging the historicity of Christ was not enough. Even the demons were capable of acknowledging the historical existence of Christ. To Luther and Calvin, this historical acknowledgment alone was not saving faith. In order to be saved from the wrath of God, sinners must not only believe the historical work of Christ, but also repent and trust in Him for their salvation.

Due to God’s providence in saving through Christ alone by faith alone, Calvin and Luther were naturally led to affirm the perseverance of the saints (226). George purports that Calvin however emphasized the necessity of continual repentance, and the gradual growth in Christ through sanctification. Although Christians pursue perfection, it always escapes them. Thus, Christians are always in need of repentance and the continual application of the blood of Christ to their lives. Their good works then, although empowered by Christ, must be cleansed by Christ’s blood as well before they are acceptable to God. Christians therefore live by faith, not by sight, according to the theology of these two men.

Differences in Life and Theology

Although Luther’s and Calvin’s lives and theology were mostly similar in the essentials, there were differences between the two men. Calvin, although younger than Luther, knew him and his work. He sang Luther’s praises in restoring the gospel in their historical time period. Some even thought of Calvin as Luther’s greatest disciple. George argues that where Calvin surpassed Luther was in his ability to communicate the great insights of the reformation (God’s grace alone, faith alone, and the Scriptures alone), and in his systematic application of these insights to the civic life of Geneva. Luther and Zwingli did not do this (166). Calvin set himself apart from Luther is his ability to communicate and apply difficult truths. George argues that from this theocracy in Geneva, the solas of the Reformation traveled internationally, taking on a life of their own as various Christians fleshed them out in many cultural and civic settings (166).

George writes that one of these difficult truths Calvin helped to communicate, that was doctrinally minor, was his belief that every time a baby was created at conception, God created its soul out of nothing. Calvin emphasized God’s direct involvement in the world, and this belief led him to favor God’s direct involvement in procreation. This caused him to reject the traducianist theory, which Luther held. George shows that in this view, the soul is transferred from generation to generation through procreation (206-207). This view naturally follows then that humans are involved in the creation of babies apart from God’s extra intervention. In other areas, Calvin did scripturally deduce that God allowed indirect individuals and circumstances to accomplish His will. Creating however must have been too holy a thing for humanity to solely participate. Calvin obviously saw this creating act as flowing from God’s nature. This creating act of the soul must then be “good” for only goodness can come from God, and thus, the depravity of humanity would not allow them to participate in this divine act.

Part of God’s goodness furthermore is exhibited in His church. George details how these men did not believe the church was a building or simply those who claim the title. To Luther and Calvin, the church was the local body of believers, as well as, the universal church or invisible church. Furthermore, for Calvin the marks of a church actually formed a church; this surpassed Luther’s use of these marks. The two marks they used were the Word rightly preached and the sacraments correctly administered (235). There were other Reformers who added church discipline to these marks, but Calvin and Luther did not go this far. Calvin however viewed discipline as part of the constitution and organization of a congregation, instead of as part of the definition of a true congregation (235-236).

Conclusion

In conclusion, with brevity, George succeeds in detailing the similarities and differences between the lives and theologies of Luther and Calvin. As shown above, George believes their similarities in the Reformation essentials are greater than their differences. He argues that Calvin received the Reforming baton from Luther, and fleshed out Reformation theology more than his predecessor (166). Calvin however built upon a foundation laid by Luther. According to George, both of these men were used by God to restore the gospel to His church (166).

Jesus Wants to Save Your Soul, Not Make Your Life More Worldly

Jared Moore — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:51:54 +0000

A Better Title for this picture would be “Believe in ~~Miracles~~ Jesus.”

There’s no denying that Jesus Christ did many wonderful miracles and works during His earthly ministry. Christians often argue that we need to emulate Christ’s ministry. I agree. Thus, we must understand that Christ’s healing miracles and other miraculous works were secondarily for the people and primarily for communicating truth about Himself. Christ did not always feed the hungry, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. There are several clear examples in Scripture where Christ picked one out of a multitude to heal, leaving the others in physical misery (John 5:2-12). His primary motivation therefore must be something other than liberating society, providing for the poor, etc. Christ is conquering these results of the Fall, but they will not be conquered fully until the end. Thus, Christ’s miraculous works primarily communicated the truth that the results of the Fall had no hold on Him. Although He was born under the curse, and crushed under the curse, the curse could not hold Him; this is the emphasis of His physical resurrection. As a result, incarnationally, if I am viewing Christ as a model for missions, then I must point to the fact that in Him sinners have conquered the results of the Fall spiritually, and they will conquer physically as well when He returns.

Therefore, whether I follow Christ or Paul, the emphasis is the same: 1) Sinners receive the abundant life spiritually in Christ the moment they first believe, 2) Sinners receive the abundant life in Christ physically the moment they first believe as well, but this is not fully realized until they receive a new body. Whether I follow Christ’s or Paul’s example, the spiritual redemption of man is still the primary emphasis. I do believe the church is to continue the ministry of Christ on earth for we are called “the body of Christ,” but this ministry is primarily spiritual and secondarily physical. Because of these truths, my primary goal in missions is the salvation of souls with the secondary goal being to meet the temporary physical needs of sinners.

For a more detailed argument of my above points, see David Hesselgrave’s book Paradigms in Conflict.

What are your thoughts?

What is the Purpose of Missions?

Jared Moore — Wed, 22 May 2013 13:28:30 +0000

Dr. David Hesselgrave begins his book Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today by examining God’s sovereignty versus man’s free will. He details varying views from deterministic Calvinism to Open Theism and arguably everything in between. I found it very interesting as Hesselgrave detailed Ralph Winter’s praise of Gregory Boyd’s argument that “all disease is the work of the Devil and not the will of God (33).” I agree in a sense and disagree in another sense. The obvious reason why humans are susceptible to illness and disease is because we are not in the Garden of Eden anymore. Sin is thus the cause of sickness, for we are all under the curse. However, one cannot say disease is not part of God’s will without diminishing His sovereignty. God could heal everyone right now at this moment, but at the end of the day, the only truth we are left with is that God is in control of all things. He knows what He is doing and why He indirectly allows evil to exist.

In missions, I agree that Christians should seek to eradicate all disease and seek to help all men, women, and children temporarily conquer the results of the Fall. This temporal conquering, however, is not the ultimate purpose of missions. Just as Andreas Kostenberger argues in the “Foreword” in agreement with Hesselgrave concerning the purpose of missions, the Great Commission is ultimately a spiritual commission. Thus, although I will seek the physical well-being of sinners, the ultimate purpose of missions is to give them the saving gospel of Christ. I want them to experience the abundant life on earth, not because Christ died to give them a celebrity-like lifestyle, but because Christ died to reconcile them to His Father. Through this transcending eternal life, although they may be ugly, poor, unhealthy, persecuted, etc. on Earth, they are beautiful, rich, healthy, and safe in Christ; and living with Him forever, fully realizing the abundant life in heaven, is just around the corner.

What are your thoughts?

How Much Money Should an SBC Entity President Make?

Jared Moore — Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:24 +0000

(Keep in mind that this article comes from a Southern Baptist senior pastor who makes around $40,000 a year including benefits. Yet, my church gives 16% to the Cooperative Program, and an additional 2% to the local association. We believe in what the cooperative program supports, including the salaries of SBC entity Presidents.)

Over the years, I’ve heard several complain (early in my ministry, I complained as well) about how much money entity heads at SBTS, SEBTS, MBTS, NOBTS, GGBTS, SWBTS, NAMB, IMB, SBC, and ERLC make (I didn’t include Lifeway or Guidestone because they do not receive Cooperative Program dollars). Southern Baptist State colleges could be mentioned as well. (For Cooperative Program Statistics, click here).

I, however, don’t think Southern Baptists should complain about how much money various entity heads make. The Bible provides no qualifications or financial standards for entity heads of parachurch organizations. Yet, the Bible does argue that a man is worthy of his wages (1 Tim. 5:18). All workers are worthy of their wages, including the Presidents of our entities.

Some Southern Baptists think SBC entity heads should make as much money as the average pastor in the SBC, and others think entity heads should make as much money as Presidents at comparable secular entities. Based on rumors alone (since the salaries of our entity Presidents are not public knowledge), it seems Southern Baptist trustees have decided to go the middle route. Our entity heads make more money than the average pastor, but they make less money than the average entity President in the secular world (Not in all cases, but in most cases).

To those who think entity heads should make what the average pastor in the SBC makes, I simply ask, “Are you an entity head?” What if I told you that the average Senior Pastor in the SBC should make what the average Youth Pastor in the SBC makes? What would you say? My point is that an entity head is not a senior pastor, but an entity head.

To those who think entity heads should make as much money as the average entity President in the secular world, I disagree. I believe leading a ministry is different than leading a for-profit, worldly institution. Furthermore, those who give to the Cooperative Program are not giving to primarily pay the salary of entity heads. We’re giving so that the gospel can spread to the ends of the Earth. I, however, understand that an entity head is worthy of his wages.

Thus, I think the middle-ground option is best. I don’t think our current entity-heads can be easily replaced. Quite frankly, there’s only one Paige Patterson in the SBC, and there’s only one Al Mohler in the SBC. The other entity heads may prove to be equally irreplaceable as well.

What are your thoughts?

If We Reject Paul’s Adam, Why Not Reject His Christ? A Response to Daniel Kirk

Jared Moore — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:43:46 +0000

Introduction

Daniel Kirk, associate professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, recently wrote an article titled, “Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?” (It Would be helpful if you followed the link and read the entire article). To date, the article has been shared over 1700 times through social media. Kirk is coming against the notion that a person must affirm a historical Adam before he can affirm 1) the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture, 2) a good world gone wrong, 3) the sinfulness of all humanity, and 4) a historical Christ. Kirk agrees that the Apostle Paul assumed there was a historical Adam (In Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15), but he argues that the Apostle was reimagining the Genesis creation account in light of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

Kirk argues, “the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ.” Kirk believes Paul’s account in Romans 5 leaves room, “for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience.” Make no mistake, Kirk affirms Paul’s main point in Romans 5, “that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ.” Yet, he rejects the assumptions with which Paul “illustrated these things to be true” [a historical Adam]. Paul’s emphasis is that God has one worldwide people in Christ. Thus, according to Kirk, Paul does not ask or answer the question of whether an evolutionary account of human origins might stand within the story of God’s new creation work in Christ.

I Disagree with Kirk’s Conclusions for Several Reasons:

1. If we cannot trust what the Apostle Paul said about Adam, why should we trust what he said about Christ? What consistent hermeneutic can be applied to Scripture if we pick and choose which texts we’ll believe and which ones we’ll reject? Kirk encourages Christians to abandon Paul’s assumptions about a historical Adam while simultaneously encouraging Christians to embrace Paul’s assumptions about a historical Christ. Moreover, Kirk encourages his readers to embrace Scientific theories over the historicity of Genesis 1-3, and Paul’s interpretation of these chapters, while also encouraging his readers to reject Scientific eschatological assumptions in favor of Paul’s eschatological assumptions concerning Christ.

My question for Kirk is, “If We can reimagine Paul’s assumptions about anything, why can’t we reimagine Paul’s assumptions about everything? If we can reimagine Paul’s words concerning a historical Adam, why can’t we also reimagine Paul’s words concerning a historical Christ?” After all, Scientifically speaking, humans do not stay dead for three days, then physically rise from the dead. Yet, Jesus did!

2. Even if we grant Kirk’s hermeneutic, he is not doing what he claims Paul did. Kirk argues,

Paul, according to Kirk, read the Adam story based on what God did at a later point in history (Christ’s death and resurrection). I’m curious what has happened in recent history that justifies Kirk’s reimagining of the Genesis story. If we grant that Moses (a prophet) wrote the story of Adam with the later story of Israel in mind, and Paul (an apostle) reimagined the Genesis story in light of Christ’s death and resurrection, what has God done in recent history that justifies Kirk’s reimagining of the Genesis story in the likeness of Paul? Kirk is neither a prophet nor an apostle. His writings are not on the same level as Moses or Paul from an inerrantist or even an infallibilist point of view. Furthermore, Paul’s reimagining was due to his understanding of a later story that was essential to redemptive history. What does Kirk think God has done in recent history that justifies his reimagining of the Creation story in a different way than Moses and Paul? Scientific discovery? If that’s the case, then why not reimagine the resurrection of Christ as well. . . if scientific discovery has historic-redemptive significance?

3. Kirk ignores the reality of progressive revelation. He agrees with Sanders and Ridderbos that Paul’s “given” is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” Kirk writes, “The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.” The reality, however, is that Paul wasn’t merely “assuming” a historical Adam, he was affirming a historical Adam and further revealing various truths about Adam. Kirk lists these truths (Rom. 5):

Paul is not reimagining here. He’s further revealing the condition of all humanity due to Adam’s sin. This is progressive revelation, not “reimagining.” After all, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet. 1:21).

4. Kirk is unwilling to treat all events in Scripture as equally susceptible to reimagining. Readers must wonder why Kirk is willing to reimagine the Genesis story and Paul’s understanding of this story in light of science, but is unwilling to reimagine the historical life, death, resurrection, and future reign of Christ in light of science as well. Kirk is listening to science arbitrarily. He writes,

My question is if Kirk is ready to reimagine the creation account due to science, is he willing to reimagine the resurrection of Christ in light of science as well? Kirk answers with a stern NO:

To Kirk, the beginning is not important; only the ending. This begs the question concerning why Kirk will listen to science arbitrarily. The only testimonies we have in Scripture are from those who have the same authority as Moses and the Apostle Paul. There’s nothing written by Christ’s own hand in Scripture. Thus, if we can reimagine the previous writings of the prophets and apostles, why can’t we also reimagine the words of Christ they recorded? In other words, I believe Kirk undercuts his own theology by arbitrarily arguing we should reimagine the words of Scripture writers in light of science, for science also says, “Those who are dead three days do not rise from the dead.”

5. Kirk is not abandoning the Christian faith, but if he applies his hermeneutic consistently, he will. To conclude his article, Kirk writes,

Where does divine inspiration factor into Kirk’s understanding of Paul’s writings? Notice that Kirk believes Paul had a limited understanding of science and history. Kirk believes we should listen to science instead of Paul concerning a historic Adam. Yet, when it comes to the historic Christ, Kirk tells us to listen to Paul, not science. My question is, “Why only listen to Paul half the time.” After all, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Moreover, the Apostle Peter called Paul’s writings “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question for evangelicals is if you will listen to the Apostle Paul or Daniel Kirk concerning the historical Adam. The Apostle Paul believed in a historical Adam and a historical Christ. I choose to merely agree with Paul consistently. Will you?