This Week in Word from the Bird
Christmongers. Jesus is Lord is bad news? Calvin on real presence in the Lord's Supper. Live Stream. Latest ANTWA episode.
Monday: Be Not a Christmonger! (Free Sign-Ups)
Ancient advice for the Didache about being a Christmonger, trading on the name of Christ for personal gain.
Tuesday: How Can "Jesus is Lord" Be Bad News? (Aviary Members)
One thing I’ve found very strange in the Reformed circles is the notion that “Jesus is Lord” cannot be the gospel, or even part of the gospel, because the lordship of Jesus is bad news for sinners.
Hey, consider becoming a member of the Aviary, get early access, exclusive material, and premium content!
Wednesday: Calvin on the Lord's Supper (Free Sign-Ups)
Calvin said: “to deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless—an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to.”
Thursday: Live Stream (Aviary Members)
On Thursday 3 July at 0830 a.m. (Melbourne time), I am going to do a live stream talking about my Theological Anthropology Confession and will answer any questions or comments you have. If you want to rush me questions, put them below in the comments section.
Friday: Latest ANTWA Episode (Free Sign-Ups)
The latest episode of Ask N.T. Wright Anything plus a new video!
Great topics for this week, M.B. Some questions for Theo-Anthro Confession in consideration of Walton's archtypical Adam, Peter Enns' non-traditional historical Adam, and the old human view of William Lane Craig contrasted with the geneological Adam & Eve of S. Joshua Swamidass:
1. Does faithful Biblical exegesis and early creedal orthodoxy demand the Adam & Eve of the Edenic garden be the first human couple and genetic progenerater of all humanity?
2. Given that he second & last Adam is humanities' Federal Head & representative, not a biological or historical statement, could the concept of the first adam also be referring to Adam as humanities' Federal Head & representative, a theological idea, rather than an historical and biological descriptor?
3. Is it unorthodox to believe the description of Adam & Eve's creation is pictorial and theological (or even visionary re: Adam's halving to form Eve), rather than normal biological evolutionary development & natural birth?
4. Given that in Gen5.3: Adam fathers Seth "in his own likeness, after his image" (not said of Cain & Abel), and that Gen9.6 highlight's the image of God as a divine-human role of judicial judgment on murder, is the imago Dei not more a creation mandate, or functional statement of human destiny/purpose/character and role rather than a description of physical human nature or ontology?
5. If the role and character of humanity is to be the image of God in creation, does that not necessitate union, participation & fellowship with God for its meaning & fulfillment, and conversely, that the nature and depravity of original sin primarily & initially consists in the breaking of that union and the progress of antagonism to it in the whole human entity & personality?
[6. Personal: Would you accept the above questions as the basis of a M.Th. thesis proposal on the Imago Dei?]
Can Christians affirm monogamous, covenantal, non-celibate same-sex relationships while continuing to affirm the authority of Scripture and practice orthodox Christian faith? If so, how? If not, why not?