Reformed works on Genesis 1-3

Status
Not open for further replies.

MSH

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm looking for some solid Reformed resources on Genesis 1-3, any recommendations?

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As a survey of literature, you might read both:

Because It Had Not Rained
Because It Had Rained

They are both available online as PDFs for free.
 
Though he was not reformed as far as I know, DR Henry Morris was the premier Christian writer in this issue...

His study bible goldmine for Creation science/biblical view on Origins/Gemesis...
 
E.J. Young was Reformed. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for years... I think he started there in the 1930s. That said, some of his work was published posthumously. He died in 1968, apparently.

Walter Brueggemann's Genesis commentary in the "Interpretation" series is quite helpful, also. Not "Reformed" per se in the traditional sense, but I believe he is a Convenantal theologian.
 
Last edited:
Here are some resources with commentary on each.

1. John Currid, commentary in the EP Study commentary series. This is one of the very best commentaries on Genesis available.

2. Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account, this is a one-stop shop for all questions related to science and Genesis 1-11.

3. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: while being a Framework Advocate (not something I share), his theological insight is penetrating.

4. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: while he is not entirely Reformed, it is a very solid commentary on Genesis.

5. C. John Collins, Commentary on Genesis 1-4: not as good as I had hoped. I believe he holds to an Analogical Day view.

6. Douglas Kelly, Creation and Change: this is simply fabulous.

7. Pipa, et al, Did God Create in Six Days?; an excellent resource arguing for the literal view.

8. Calvin, Henry, and Keil and Delitzsch are particularly important on these passages, and are all available online.

9. Robert Candlish, Studies in Genesis: lots of wonderful quotables in this volume.

10. Bruce Waltke, Commentary on Genesis: again, not a literal 6-day 24 hour proponent, but lots of literary sense.
 
While controversial, John Walton from Wheaton College has some interesting insights that sort of "transcend" some of the other debates surrounding these texts over the last century or so. His "Lost World of Adam and Eve" and "Lost World of Genesis 1" is thought provoking, to say the least. It isn't Reformed, per se, but nothing there is necessarily at direct odds with Reformed thought even if his exegetical approach is a bit non-traditional.
 
While controversial, John Walton from Wheaton College has some interesting insights that sort of "transcend" some of the other debates surrounding these texts over the last century or so. His "Lost World of Adam and Eve" and "Lost World of Genesis 1" is thought provoking, to say the least. It isn't Reformed, per se, but nothing there is necessarily at direct odds with Reformed thought even if his exegetical approach is a bit non-traditional.

The best critique of those was by a Lutheran professor. I'll see if I can dig it up.

I must disagree with you. I would advise against reading these as it is against reformed theology. I will admit he makes some good points and is thought provoking but, overall his thesis fails. There are better works from 60 years ago by Alexander Heidel.

And Lo and behold Walton gets NT Wright to talk about Paul's view of Adam....I suppose that speaks for itself.
 
John calvin also is good to read on this issue...

Bascally, easy way to discern of the author is solid biblically is do they see Genesis as being literal truth, or some type of Myth, or metaphor?
 
While controversial, John Walton from Wheaton College has some interesting insights that sort of "transcend" some of the other debates surrounding these texts over the last century or so. His "Lost World of Adam and Eve" and "Lost World of Genesis 1" is thought provoking, to say the least. It isn't Reformed, per se, but nothing there is necessarily at direct odds with Reformed thought even if his exegetical approach is a bit non-traditional.

The best critique of those was by a Lutheran professor. I'll see if I can dig it up.

I must disagree with you. I would advise against reading these as it is against reformed theology. I will admit he makes some good points and is thought provoking but, overall his thesis fails. There are better works from 60 years ago by Alexander Heidel.

And Lo and behold Walton gets NT Wright to talk about Paul's view of Adam....I suppose that speaks for itself.

I agree with Trent. John Walton's hermeneutical approach is fundamentally flawed. He aims to understand Scripture through the lens of what has been learned recently about Ancient Near Eastern culture. His two books on Genesis 1-3 are NOT Reformed.

I recommend looking elsewhere.
 
Thanks to all for the recommendation s! It is funny that John Walton was mentioned. It is after reading two of his "Lost World" books that prompted me to post this thread.

Some of the things he mentions sound good. The idea of understanding the culture in which the text was given seems like logical idea. I was more comfortable with his ideas from Genesis 1 than 2-3. I was wondering if one had to abandon core Reformed Theology to accept his thesis. It may be my limited understanding but I don't see a way around it. I'm open to fresh eyes looking at old ideas but I found myself uncomfortable in much of his theories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I was wondering if one had to abandon core Reformed Theology to accept his thesis.

At the core of Reformed Theology is a right view of Scripture. This includes the most basic hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. Walton violates this principle. He uses Ancient Near Eastern culture to interpret Scripture. This is different than the historical aspect of interpretation that requires us to understand the Bible in its historical context.
 
Thanks to all for the recommendation s! It is funny that John Walton was mentioned. It is after reading two of his "Lost World" books that prompted me to post this thread.

Some of the things he mentions sound good. The idea of understanding the culture in which the text was given seems like logical idea. I was more comfortable with his ideas from Genesis 1 than 2-3. I was wondering if one had to abandon core Reformed Theology to accept his thesis. It may be my limited understanding but I don't see a way around it. I'm open to fresh eyes looking at old ideas but I found myself uncomfortable in much of his theories.
I do agree with Matt though. I am getting sick of the scholarly literature any more. I used to just love it now of you'd believe them we need a new priesthood of scholars and take the Bible out of the hand of those in the pew.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Walton wants an archetypal Adam. Not necessarily a historical Adam. I've heard him viciliate on both sides but he tends to go with Biologos. There goes the covenant of works.
I do not disagree with seeing how the ANE people thought but he really tends to draw dichotomies that others, including top notch ANE scholars who are not Christian do not find particularly in the BIBLE if studied as that.

I agree with Matt though. Any more scholarly literature gets me. There is nothing wrong with interpreting properly but, but tends to go beyond that. Now its like there's priesthood of scholars who want to take the Bible out of the normal pew sitting person.
 
I was wondering if one had to abandon core Reformed Theology to accept his thesis.

At the core of Reformed Theology is a right view of Scripture. This includes the most basic hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. Walton violates this principle. He uses Ancient Near Eastern culture to interpret Scripture. This is different than the historical aspect of interpretation that requires us to understand the Bible in its historical context.

Ahhh! That makes very good sense to me. I like how you put this. It cleared up some confusion for me. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
While controversial, John Walton from Wheaton College has some interesting insights that sort of "transcend" some of the other debates surrounding these texts over the last century or so. His "Lost World of Adam and Eve" and "Lost World of Genesis 1" is thought provoking, to say the least. It isn't Reformed, per se, but nothing there is necessarily at direct odds with Reformed thought even if his exegetical approach is a bit non-traditional.

The best critique of those was by a Lutheran professor. I'll see if I can dig it up.

I must disagree with you. I would advise against reading these as it is against reformed theology. I will admit he makes some good points and is thought provoking but, overall his thesis fails. There are better works from 60 years ago by Alexander Heidel.

And Lo and behold Walton gets NT Wright to talk about Paul's view of Adam....I suppose that speaks for itself.

I'd really like to see this critique of Walton's work by this Lutheran professor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Genesis 1-4 by C John Collins, OT professor at Covenant.

Uh, no. This is not reformed. He doesn't hold to the reformed view at all. It's funny. The OP asks for Solid Reformed Sources.

And we get lots of NON-reformed resources.... Jack Collins, Meridith Kline (who also doesn't hold a reformed view - That was post #2), Henri Blocher (Post #10), Allen Ross (#10), Jack Collins again (#10), Waltke (#10), and John Walton (#11). All of these people are not reformed or don't hold to the reformed view.
 
Many times the attempt to use the other cuture/texts account inthe region are a way to discredit the reliability of the Genesis account, to make it seem tobe same as other sources, and not infallible inspired word of God!
 
Answer in Genesis good website for this type of information from an evangelical chrsitian perspective. Biologos basically wants to keepevolution as "truth", and try to bend the scriptures to accomodaye that, and end of with no lietral Adam/Eve, no real Fall, and no real bible!
 
Genesis 1-4 by C John Collins, OT professor at Covenant.

Uh, no. This is not reformed. He doesn't hold to the reformed view at all. It's funny. The OP asks for Solid Reformed Sources.

And we get lots of NON-reformed resources.... Jack Collins, Meridith Kline (who also doesn't hold a reformed view - That was post #2), Henri Blocher (Post #10), Allen Ross (#10), Jack Collins again (#10), Waltke (#10), and John Walton (#11). All of these people are not reformed or don't hold to the reformed view.

How? I'm a six dayer yet, nothing has struck me as anti Reformed unless you define it all as six literal days being the only reformed position regardless of what view they hold from chapters 2-3.
I know Ross isn't reformed and neither is Walton but, the others? Really?
 
To clarify Elder Barnes, your view is that the framework view is not reformed. Whether or not we believe in it, the proponents of it would say that it is one of the three reformed views, and many (most?) reformed Presbyterian denominations count it as one in some degree. Whether I agree with Kline's view or not, it is generally considered a reformed view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top