<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>a time to tear down &#124; A Time to Build Up &#187; NT use of the OT</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peterennsonline.com/category/nt-use-of-the-ot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peterennsonline.com</link>
	<description>Dr. Peter Enns on the Bible and Contemporary Christian Faith</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:31:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Jesus and the Sea</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/07/14/jesus-and-th-sea/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/07/14/jesus-and-th-sea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week&#8217;s BioLogos post is up. Jesus calming the storm and waking on the water reflect the Old Testament theme of Yahweh taming the waters.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This week&#8217;s BioLogos <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/jesus-and-the-sea/">post</a> is up. Jesus calming the storm and waking on the water reflect the Old Testament theme of Yahweh taming the waters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/07/14/jesus-and-th-sea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gary Anderson on Augustine and the Fall</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/28/gary-anderson-on-augustine-and-the-fall/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/28/gary-anderson-on-augustine-and-the-fall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gary Anderson (if I have to explain you wouldn&#8217;t understand) has shared some thoughts on Augustine and Scripture at BioLogos.  Specifically, Anderson’s post concerns Adam and how Augustine understood him with respect to Eve’s culpability in the fall. This post does not directly affect the kinds of scientific matters that normally occupy BioLogos, but there [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gary Anderson (if I have to explain you wouldn&#8217;t understand) has shared some thoughts on Augustine and Scripture at <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/st-augustine-taking-scripture-literally/">BioLogos</a>.  Specifically, Anderson’s post concerns Adam and how Augustine understood him with respect to Eve’s culpability in the fall. This post does not directly affect the kinds of scientific matters that normally occupy BioLogos, but there is value of this post for other reasons. Anderson is reminding us that interpreting the notion of the “fall” in the Garden episode has numerous dimensions of complexity and ambiguity, and that brilliant and capable minds have been trying to get their arms around it since before the Christian era.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/28/gary-anderson-on-augustine-and-the-fall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Creating Adam</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/06/creating-adam/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/06/creating-adam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old testament history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My latest post about Adam is up at BioLogos. My point here is that any way of looking at Adam that does not accept Paul&#8217;s view of human descent from a first pair in recent history is &#8220;creating&#8221; an Adam beyond biblical parameters, and that such creative work is inevitable. My post today fits nicely [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My latest <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/creating-adam/">post</a> about Adam is up at BioLogos. My point here is that any way of looking at Adam that does not accept Paul&#8217;s view of human descent from a first pair in recent history is &#8220;creating&#8221; an Adam beyond biblical parameters, and that such creative work is inevitable. My post today fits nicely with yesterday&#8217;s <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple/">post</a> on the genetic impossibility of a first pair from which all human life descended.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/04/06/creating-adam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul’s Adam (Part 4)</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/31/pauls-adam-part-4/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/31/pauls-adam-part-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is my final post at BioLogos on issues surrounding Paul&#8217;s understanding of Adam. You might also want to look at today&#8217;s video by world-renown theologian Alister McGrath and his understanding of Adam and Eve as &#8220;stereotypical figures.&#8221; All of this follows upon Bruce Waltke&#8217;s video posted last week, challenging Evangelicals to come to terms [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-4/">Here</a> is my final post at BioLogos on issues surrounding Paul&#8217;s understanding of Adam. You might also want to look at today&#8217;s <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/what-are-we-to-make-of-adam-and-eve/">video</a> by world-renown theologian Alister McGrath and his understanding of Adam and Eve as &#8220;stereotypical figures.&#8221; All of this follows upon Bruce Waltke&#8217;s <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G7cE6UmB5k">video</a> posted last week, challenging Evangelicals to come to terms with evolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/31/pauls-adam-part-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pauls’ Adam (Part 3)</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/23/pauls-adam-part-3/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/23/pauls-adam-part-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is my third post on BioLogos concerning Paul&#8217;s use of the Adam story. It is a continuation of a list of issues I began last week. These are matters that invariably arise when trying to understand this important but involved issue. The list will conclude next week.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-3/">Here</a> is my third post on BioLogos concerning Paul&#8217;s use of the Adam story. It is a continuation of a list of issues I began last week. These are matters that invariably arise when trying to understand this important but involved issue. The list will conclude next week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/23/pauls-adam-part-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul’s Adam (part 2)</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/16/pauls-adam-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/16/pauls-adam-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am still at it over on BioLogos. This week I am beginning to list some of the issues that invariably arise when we try to understand how Paul was using Adam. The purpose of these posts is to lay issues out on the table for further reflection.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am still at it over on <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-2/">BioLogos</a>. This week I am beginning to list some of the issues that invariably arise when we try to understand how Paul was using Adam. The purpose of these posts is to lay issues out on the table for further reflection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/16/pauls-adam-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul’s Adam (part 1)</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/09/pauls-adam-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/09/pauls-adam-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My next post at BioLogos is about Paul&#8217;s Adam. The issue of the historical Adam is a very difficult one for many Christians. Scientific and archaeological evidence make a strictly literal/historical reading of the Adam story impossible. Many Christians realize this and so give considerable thought to what the significance of the Adam story is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My next post at BioLogos is about<a href="http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/"> Paul&#8217;s Adam.</a> The issue of the historical Adam is a very difficult one for many Christians. Scientific and archaeological evidence make a strictly literal/historical reading of the Adam story impossible. Many Christians realize this and so give considerable thought to what the significance of the Adam story is in the Old Testament.</p>
<p>At some point, however, Paul&#8217;s understanding of Adam comes front and center. Paul certainly seems to assume, as anyone living at that time did, that Adam was the very first human ever created a few thousand years earlier. For some, this settles the question of the historical Adam: &#8220;what Paul believes about human origins, I am bound to believe as well.&#8221;</p>
<p>This first post outlines the nature of the problem and the second part (next week) will focus more specifically on Paul. There I will outline several factors to be kept in mind when looking at what Paul said about Adam and why he said it.</p>
<p>There is no simple solution to this, but it is a topic worthy of considerable hermeneutical and theological attention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/03/09/pauls-adam-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Review of Beale’s Erosion of Inerrancy</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/01/15/my-review-of-beales-erosion-of-inerrancy/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/01/15/my-review-of-beales-erosion-of-inerrancy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[I&I]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inerrancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old testament history]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With my permission as well as that of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, Art Boulet has posted my published response to Greg Beale&#8217;s The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With my permission as well as that of the <em><a href="http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBR_BBR.aspx">Bulletin for Biblical Research</a>, </em>Art Boulet has posted my <a href="http://aboulet.com/2010/01/14/enns-reviews-beales-erosion-of-inerrancy-in-evangelicalism/">published response</a> to Greg Beale&#8217;s <em>The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2010/01/15/my-review-of-beales-erosion-of-inerrancy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review: Inerrant Wisdom by Paul Seely</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/05/04/review-inerrant-wisdom-by-paul-seely/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/05/04/review-inerrant-wisdom-by-paul-seely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 04:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inerrancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nature of scripture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve just posted a new book review: Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Persective]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve just posted a new book review: <a href="http://peterennsonline.com/book-reviews/review-inerrant-wisdom-by-paul-seely/"><em>Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Persective</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/05/04/review-inerrant-wisdom-by-paul-seely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interview with Ken Schenck: Part 6</title>
		<link>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/03/10/interview-with-ken-schenck-part-6/</link>
		<comments>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/03/10/interview-with-ken-schenck-part-6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pete Enns</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[I&I]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NT use of the OT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biblical studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contemporary christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hermeneutics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peterennsonline.com/?p=367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I continue my responses to Ken Schenck&#8217;s review of Inspiration and Incarnation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2009/03/peter-enns-question-6-our-review-of-i-i.html">I continue my responses</a> to Ken Schenck&#8217;s review of <em>Inspiration and Incarnation.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://peterennsonline.com/2009/03/10/interview-with-ken-schenck-part-6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
