# Reformed works on Genesis 1-3



## MSH (Dec 14, 2016)

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

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2016)

This might be of use: A Practical Guide to Primeval History


----------



## hammondjones (Dec 14, 2016)

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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

Avoid anything written by Peter Enns, or this one:
A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma.

Also, seems to be an effort to have modern Reform writers trying to accommodate evolutionary aspects into Genesis account.

Interesting link here:
http://creation.com/calvin-said-genesis-means-what-it-says


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 14, 2016)

While it is a bit dated (1970s), E.J. Young did a lot of work in those chapters of Genesis.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

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...


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 14, 2016)

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.


----------



## Nate (Dec 14, 2016)

I've found Studies in the Book of Genesis by Robert Harbach to be useful.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 14, 2016)

Genesis 1-4 by C John Collins, OT professor at Covenant.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 14, 2016)

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.


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 14, 2016)

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.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 14, 2016)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> 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.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Dec 14, 2016)

John Bunyan wrote an exposition of Gen 1-10, available in Vol. II of his 3-vol. _Works_.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

He denies the lteral reading/understanding of Genesis though, correct?


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 14, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> He denies the lteral reading/understanding of Genesis though, correct?



Who are you talking to?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2016)

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?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 14, 2016)

Some friends and I have a blog entitled Creation Without Compromise. We have lots of material on Genesis 1-3, including a couple of free e-books.


----------



## mgkortus (Dec 14, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> TheologiaCrucis said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## mgkortus (Dec 14, 2016)

Guido's Brother said:


> Some friends and I have a blog entitled Creation Without Compromise. We have lots of material on Genesis 1-3, including a couple of free e-books.




I will second Rev. Bredenhof's recommendation. Although it has been sometime since I have visited the site, there was some good material on it, especially if you are looking for theological, rather than scientific, material.


----------



## MSH (Dec 15, 2016)

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


----------



## mgkortus (Dec 15, 2016)

MSH said:


> 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.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 15, 2016)

MSH said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## MSH (Dec 15, 2016)

mgkortus said:


> MSH said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering if one had to abandon core Reformed Theology to accept his thesis.
> ...



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


----------



## MSH (Dec 15, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This might be of use: A Practical Guide to Primeval History



Looks very interesting! Thanks for the heads up! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Dec 15, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> TheologiaCrucis said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> 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.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2016)

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!


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2016)

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!


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 16, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> arapahoepark said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 1-4 by C John Collins, OT professor at Covenant.
> ...



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?


----------



## tangleword (Dec 16, 2016)

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.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2016)

tangleword said:


> 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.



Jason, and Trent, to be frank, the reformed view is determined not by "reformed" men or by what generally is considered a reformed allowable view, but by reformed creeds/confessions. So the Three Forms Of Unity and Westminster Standards to name a couple.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 16, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> tangleword said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I understand what you mean and have heard arguments against it. I would agree with you that other views are indeed faulty at least.
However, we can at least charitably say that most of those are works by those who would adhere to a confession. 
I am less charitable toward Walton who does not believe Genesis records creation ex nihilio but, that they are literal days (go figure...) and yet, denies a literal Adam. I understand Waltke has gone astray in that area as well though. I think a denial of a literal Adam is a bigger issue but, I digress before I am attacked.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2016)

The standard Reformed view would be consystent with the Days of Genesis being real 24 days /real Adam/Eve/Reall Fall, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2016)

Denying Adam as real historical person undercuts Paul and the Cross big time!


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 16, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> The standard Reformed view would be consystent with the Days of Genesis being real 24 days /real Adam/Eve/Reall Fall, correct?



Definitely a real Adam and real fall. Six days, which I agree with, is seen as a negotiable even in the WCF. The excuse being six days was affirmed as opposed to Augustine's instant view. Though, I seriously doubt others even entertained other views. 
Without Adam the covenant of works falls and so does not only Reformed theology but, the Bible's teaching on really anything.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Six days, which I agree with, is seen as a negotiable even in the WCF.



Would you please name one divine who was opposed to the 6 literal day view where this could be seen as negotiable? David Hall has a good book on this called "Holding Fast to Creation" in it he covers the view of church history, the Patristics, Calvin and the Reformers, and especially the Divines of Westminster and those around Westminster at the time. He confirms the view over and over again that is affirmed is that of the literal view. And as such it is the reformed view (i.e. the Confessional view). It is not negotiable.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 16, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> arapahoepark said:
> 
> 
> > Six days, which I agree with, is seen as a negotiable even in the WCF.
> ...



You're apparently not keeping with arguments from R Scott Clark, Robert Letham, etc. I am just stating what I have read. I would agree with you that other views are faulty and I think are a way to be 'respectable' in academia.
Also when I say negotiable, I mean they would say they confess it but, they do not mean six literal 24 hour days. I am not defending the view, as I have made clear. I just want to grant a little charity to those with whom I disagree.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2016)

I keep up. The reformed view is determined by the Confession for us who hold to LBC or WCF, and 3 forms of Unity for the Continentals. These are the Standards by which we determine what is "reformed" or not.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 16, 2016)

Having done some of the hunting for views of Westminster divines for Dr. Hall (no one had thought to check some of the variety of works where views might be expressed and this was before EEBO or prdl or google and such resources when all there was were microfilm reels), I was not a bit pleased it didn't matter; in the end all the views got a trophy and the PCA is agnostic the issue; actually men get away with views even worse than where the PCA study committee drew the line I guess today.


Romans922 said:


> David Hall has a good book on this called "Holding Fast to Creation" in it he covers the view of church history, the Patristics, Calvin and the Reformers, and especially the Divines of Westminster and those around Westminster at the time. He confirms the view over and over again that is affirmed is that of the literal view. And as such it is the reformed view (i.e. the Confessional view). It is not negotiable.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 16, 2016)

I second the R.S. Candlish recommendation above. "Studies in Genesis"


----------



## MSH (Dec 16, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > tangleword said:
> ...



As I understand it Walton doesn't deny a literal-historical Adam. He does deny Adam as being the first human. I believe he feels that Adam and Eve were chosen from the mass of humanity to represent them in priestly service in the Temple-Garden. Now, he does state that their names weren't Adam and Eve as those words in the Hebrew language weren't around yet but they were historical people. He distinguishes between wether the text is referring to Adam the man or all of humanity based on the use of the definite article being used. 

They were to keep/guard the Temple ( he compares it to the duties of the Levitical Priesthood ). Because they, being two real historical people failed in their duties they were shut out of the Garden. Their failure blocked theirs and all humanities access to the only antidote to their mortality, the Tree of Life, thus they and all of humanity are "doomed to die." 

I am definitely not trying to defend all his claims as I am troubled and confused by more than a few of them, but he does seem to affirm an historical Adam and Eve. 

I appreciate all the discussion! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 16, 2016)

Having just read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" I'd have to say that isn't what he does at all. His major thesis is that the _text itself _ is not primarilly concerned with the material origins of the universe, but is concerned more with the question of form and order. He then turns to comparisons in Ancient Near East sources in order to show how, in addition to the argument he discerns from the text itself, how the text might have functioned and been received by its original readers. In other words, his thesis does not stand or fall on sources from the Ancient Near East--but they are evoked to bolster his argument. He is not saying that Adam and Eve are archetypes instead of historical persons... he says they are both (and the NT evokes them that way, so it's not a stretch necessarily). His "Proposition 11" in fact denies that Adam and Eve are merely archetypes and he affirms that they were historical persons. What I found most helpful about it is that he exposed how often we have imposed concerns upon the text that aren't there in our efforts to impose upon it anti-Darwinian arguments. While I do not embrace Darwinianism and, ultimately, believe that the Creation accounts inherently conflict with it... I think he is right in this respect--material origins are not a primary concern in Genesis 1-3. That said, I would disagree with him when he suggests that the text has nothing to say regarding material origins. I think it does... but we have to approach the text recognizing, when drawing such insights from it, that these are insights we are drawing by implication moreso than by explicit exegesis. 

In terms of Reformed exegesis -- while Scripture interprets Scripture, this is mostly a point to simply suggest that the most obscure passages ought to be understood in the light of the clearer ones. This is not a principal that stands in tension with, or exclusion to, understanding the texts also within their historical contexts. Every text has a context--we do better to understand it within the historical context in which it was written than to impose upon it, consciously or subconsciously, our own context, our own concerns, etc., that are not being addressed therein. I believe this is quite in line with Calvin's doctrine of accomodation--the Biblical texts are "accomodated" into human language, which suggests that it is steeped in the language, terms, and even some of the worldviews of the people who first received the revelation. 

In short, I think he takes some of his arguments too far and occasionaly equivocates where equivocation is unnecessary. That said, I think he does well to call us *out* of our post-Darwinian mindset wherein we too frequently read the text as if it were an anti-Evolution treatise. When we read it that way, we miss too much about what Genesis has to tell us about (1) who God is and (2) who we are as God's creatures in the world he ordered.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 16, 2016)

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-lost-world-of-adam-and-eve-a-review-essay

The one by the Lutheran:
http://lej.cuchicago.edu/book-revie...-h-walton-american-evangelicals-and-creation/


----------



## MSH (Dec 16, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-lost-world-of-adam-and-eve-a-review-essay
> 
> The one by the Lutheran:
> http://lej.cuchicago.edu/book-revie...-h-walton-american-evangelicals-and-creation/



Thanks! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Dec 16, 2016)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> Having just read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" I'd have to say that isn't what he does at all. His major thesis is that the _text itself _ is not primarilly concerned with the material origins of the universe, but is concerned more with the question of form and order. He then turns to comparisons in Ancient Near East sources in order to show how, in addition to the argument he discerns from the text itself, how the text might have functioned and been received by its original readers. In other words, his thesis does not stand or fall on sources from the Ancient Near East--but they are evoked to bolster his argument. He is not saying that Adam and Eve are archetypes instead of historical persons... he says they are both (and the NT evokes them that way, so it's not a stretch necessarily). His "Proposition 11" in fact denies that Adam and Eve are merely archetypes and he affirms that they were historical persons. What I found most helpful about it is that he exposed how often we have imposed concerns upon the text that aren't there in our efforts to impose upon it anti-Darwinian arguments. While I do not embrace Darwinianism and, ultimately, believe that the Creation accounts inherently conflict with it... I think he is right in this respect--material origins are not a primary concern in Genesis 1-3. That said, I would disagree with him when he suggests that the text has nothing to say regarding material origins. I think it does... but we have to approach the text recognizing, when drawing such insights from it, that these are insights we are drawing by implication moreso than by explicit exegesis.
> 
> In terms of Reformed exegesis -- while Scripture interprets Scripture, this is mostly a point to simply suggest that the most obscure passages ought to be understood in the light of the clearer ones. This is not a principal that stands in tension with, or exclusion to, understanding the texts also within their historical contexts. Every text has a context--we do better to understand it within the historical context in which it was written than to impose upon it, consciously or subconsciously, our own context, our own concerns, etc., that are not being addressed therein. I believe this is quite in line with Calvin's doctrine of accomodation--the Biblical texts are "accomodated" into human language, which suggests that it is steeped in the language, terms, and even some of the worldviews of the people who first received the revelation.
> 
> In short, I think he takes some of his arguments too far and occasionaly equivocates where equivocation is unnecessary. That said, I think he does well to call us *out* of our post-Darwinian mindset wherein we too frequently read the text as if it were an anti-Evolution treatise. When we read it that way, we miss too much about what Genesis has to tell us about (1) who God is and (2) who we are as God's creatures in the world he ordered.



Having recently read the book myself I agree with your summary. Although the points I made previously aren't as exhaustive as yours, the points I made I feel are an accurate assessment of some of the points he makes in the book. My main point was simply that he does In my humble opinion affirm an historical Adam. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 17, 2016)

Precisely. I think he is reacting against the way that the Genesis creation account has been hijacked from its original context in order to be a sort of "Christian alternative" to Darwin... I agree, we need to read Genesis 1-3 without forcing anti-Evolution concerns on the text and letting our reaction against Darwin control our approach to Genesis 1-3. That said, Walton does allow the pendulum to swing a bit too far in the opposite direction. Thus, while you have to employ some discernment, I still think his books on the topic have some value. We just need to pull back the reigns a bit. 

I do hail the attempt, however, to exegete the text without allowing anti-Darwinism to drive one's exegesis. I've sat through too many lectures/Bible studies on this text where the bulk of the discussion (75-95%) was focused on Darwinism, and the text itself was rushed through... When we allow that to happen, we are honestly allowing Darwinism to control our theology more than we would like to admit. At the very lest, it is obscuring what is otherwise a very important text for understanding God, and particularly for understanding our place in the world in relationship to both God and the rest of creation. The Genesis 1-3 narrative is not FIRST a revelation about Creation, it is first a revelation about the Creator. Creatio ex nihilo is not primarily a theological statement about the creation, but about the soverignty of the Creator and the freedom with which He creates. Genesis 1-3 is more concerned with the right order or relationships by which God designed the world, particularly the relationship between man and God and, in turn, man and the world... than the text is concerned to answer anyone's curiosity about where the material world came from.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2016)

The historal fall and person of Adam/Eve are essential, as to try to see that as a Myth or a Metaphor cuts out the Gospel according to Paul ...
many still want to have evolution and Bible co exist, but just not able to dothat and be truthful to the scriptures...


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2016)

The problem though is that too many are filtering Genesis throuhg the lens of Evolution, and so would be not seeing it in a literal sense as intended, and so end up with no historial Adam or Fall, no universdal Flood, no supernatural elements...

As they seek to make theOld Testament historically on a par with other near/far east accounts of the time, and deny a special inspiration to OT texts!


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2016)

Does he then uphold the OT as being inspirsed and infallible written account of what happened by God unto us?..

And we do not to make sure the Bible is allowed to speak on its own authority, and not seek to accommodate "scientifictrth" assumed such as evolution!


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 17, 2016)

Here is the most full collection of reformed commentaries on Genesis on the net. Hope it is of help:

Commentaries on Genesis at ReformedBooksOnline


----------



## TheologiaCrucis (Dec 17, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Does he then uphold the OT as being inspirsed and infallible written account of what happened by God unto us?..
> 
> And we do not to make sure the Bible is allowed to speak on its own authority, and not seek to accommodate "scientifictrth" assumed such as evolution!



Yes. He does affirm that. You reflect a valid concern--we don't want to "filter" our exegesis of Genesis 1-3 through the lens of evolution. That said, we want to make sure we aren't "filtering" our exegesis of Genesis 1-3 through the lens of an anti-evolution read. Yes, the text is ultimately incompatable with Darwinism. That said, we do the text a disservice when we try to read it merely as a polemic against Darwin. There are more fundamental and, I believe, more important things we need to discern from the text other than using it as a refutation of evolutionary theory. We allow Darwinism to hi-jack the text when we EITHER try to adapt the text to fit it, OR when we try to read into the text a polemic against it. 

That's why, I think reading insights from pre-Darwinian exegesis--i.e. the Reformers--is sometimes the most helpful. Both Calvin and Luther's work on Genesis is exceptional in this respect. The first 8 volumes of Luther's Works, for example, is just his commentary on Genesis (Luther, after all, both began and ended his career at the University of Wittenberg by lecturing on Genesis... he was called there to lecture primarily on the Old Testament). I'm not quite as familiar with Calvin's work on Genesis (my education was mostly through a Lutheran seminary), but what I have read is fantastic also.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2016)

I have read through those who do not agree with a literal view on Genesis, and my big concern is that they , perhaps in a zeal to have "science and faith" not conflict with each other, have come to a view on the Bible that denies historical truths of the text itself...


----------



## MSH (Dec 18, 2016)

It was after watching some of Walton's lectures, reading two of his books, and a small bit of correspondence with him that prompted me to start this thread seeking Reformed work on this subject. 

I have found most of his ideas very persuasive. I am aware however that due to any real depth on this subject that my ignorance has given me many blind spots no doubt. So, I feel that going a little deeper in a survey of Reformed thought on the subject may give me sight where I have none. 

One thing that has bothered me when it comes to the little bit of interaction with Walton's ideas is that there is a lot I feel of people having a reactionary response to what he is presenting without first understanding what he is saying. Many often will claim he believes things that he does not, e.g., no historical Adam. It reminds me of the same reactions I get from my Arminian brothers when the topic of predestination comes up. They are so busy telling me what I believe that they don't even listen to what I believe! They can't get past their talking points on the subject and truly listen to another perspective. We can all be more than a little reactionary in protecting our traditions no matter what they are. 

There are things that Walton teaches that I'm uncomfortable with to be sure. Am I uncomfortable because I know it to be wrong or because it goes against all I was ever taught ( I can't count how many times I've heard this from my Arminian brothers when it comes to Election!)? Though I love Calvin and Luther they were wrong about Copernicus and geocentricity. I feel like if Calvin and Luther had some of the ANE documents that we have today they would have incorporated them into their studies. Would it have changed any of their exegesis, I don't know? 

I would like to see more in-depth textual interaction with Walton's ideas and less reactionary inaccurate summations. I've heard some reject his book just because Wright has a chapter. Though I feel Wright is wrong on Paul it doesn't mean he's the Boogey man, though I will admit his inclusion in the book did make me tread more carefully. Also, the fact that some of this teaching appears to be new automatically makes it wrong, suspect maybe but not necessarily wrong. I'd imagine most of Christendom felt the same way about this new strange teaching from the Reformers that were busting out on the scene during the Reformation. 

I appreciate all the opinions and references to further study. I simply want to have the correct understanding of the text. 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Dec 18, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I have read through those who do not agree with a literal view on Genesis, and my big concern is that they , perhaps in a zeal to have "science and faith" not conflict with each other, have come to a view on the Bible that denies historical truths of the text itself...



From what I have watched and read one thing that comes off to me is that Walton is passionate about the text and is trying to understand it on its own terms and not through modern science. Now, this doesn't mean he is correct in his conclusions of course but I don't feel that his motivation is to make the Bible agree with science. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 18, 2016)

MSH said:


> It was after watching some of Walton's lectures, reading two of his books, and a small bit of correspondence with him that prompted me to start this thread seeking Reformed work on this subject.
> 
> I have found most of his ideas very persuasive. I am aware however that due to any real depth on this subject that my ignorance has given me many blind spots no doubt. So, I feel that going a little deeper in a survey of Reformed thought on the subject may give me sight where I have none.
> 
> ...



I have read and corresponded with Walton as well. I disagree with him. Not even secular ANE scholars accept his thesis because the first chapters of Genesis are to be read at face value. ANE texts may add a few drops of light into an already illuminated room (Rev. Buchanan's analogy). He makes good points, sure. Greg Beale already teased them out. I don't think I can add a whole lot to the review by the Lutheran professor. And like I said read Alexander Heidel on the creation story. Why can't the texts speak for themselves? Walton makes a huge false dichotomy. Unless he changed his views, Genesis 1 is not about creation ex niliho. Rather it existed probably billions of years earlier and then in a six day week God just said a bunch of stuff and voila, it has been christened like a ship!
As for Calvin and Luther, they are fallible humans and going with the science of the day that was being challenged already at the time. It was a nearly uncritical acceptance of Aristotle by the Catholic church that led to some conclusions. Scripture is infallible and there are certain interpretations that are fallible upon its reading and I think Walton is one.
Walton tends to see far more continuity with ANE thought than discontinuity. While not bad, I have noticed it tends toward apologizing for the views that were formerly held since of course we know more. (Sarcasm) It really seems that they try to play both sides rather than for what the actual Biblical text says, they try to skirt it.
As for Wright, its like whatever. I have learned what is good and what is wrong with him. His 'critical realism' causes him to view the writings in that time period in categories he made and interpret them through that lens, not the lens that was actually there. I think it odd how he was chosen when he was so controversial but, he espouses TE so it probably was made to sell books.


----------



## MSH (Dec 18, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> MSH said:
> 
> 
> > It was after watching some of Walton's lectures, reading two of his books, and a small bit of correspondence with him that prompted me to start this thread seeking Reformed work on this subject.
> ...



Thank you for this reply. I have much to learn to be sure! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 18, 2016)

TheologiaCrucis said:


> Precisely. I think he is reacting against the way that the Genesis creation account has been hijacked from its original context in order to be a sort of "Christian alternative" to Darwin... I agree, we need to read Genesis 1-3 without forcing anti-Evolution concerns on the text and letting our reaction against Darwin control our approach to Genesis 1-3. That said, Walton does allow the pendulum to swing a bit too far in the opposite direction. Thus, while you have to employ some discernment, I still think his books on the topic have some value. We just need to pull back the reigns a bit.
> 
> I do hail the attempt, however, to exegete the text without allowing anti-Darwinism to drive one's exegesis. I've sat through too many lectures/Bible studies on this text where the bulk of the discussion (75-95%) was focused on Darwinism, and the text itself was rushed through... When we allow that to happen, we are honestly allowing Darwinism to control our theology more than we would like to admit. At the very lest, it is obscuring what is otherwise a very important text for understanding God, and particularly for understanding our place in the world in relationship to both God and the rest of creation. The Genesis 1-3 narrative is not FIRST a revelation about Creation, it is first a revelation about the Creator. Creatio ex nihilo is not primarily a theological statement about the creation, but about the soverignty of the Creator and the freedom with which He creates. Genesis 1-3 is more concerned with the right order or relationships by which God designed the world, particularly the relationship between man and God and, in turn, man and the world... than the text is concerned to answer anyone's curiosity about where the material world came from.



While I would agree with you and even Walton in many places, it still seems as if his attempt it toward uncritical acceptance of what is believed to be science.
Was Genesis written by its human author as a bulwark against evolution consciously? Probably not. What about its divine author? Are these not words for us, the church, Israel today?


----------



## MSH (Dec 18, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> While I would agree with you and even Walton in many places, it still seems as if his attempt it toward uncritical acceptance of what is believed to be science.
> Was Genesis written by its human author as a bulwark against evolution consciously? Probably not. What about its divine author? Are these not words for us, the church, Israel today?



I've heard Walton say something that I've heard many Reformed theologians say in one form or another, " The Bible isn't written to us but it is written for us."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 18, 2016)

MSH said:


> I've heard Walton say something that I've heard many Reformed theologians say in one form or another, " The Bible isn't written to us but it is written for us."


I have heard that but, it premises a dichotomy that we cannot understand the scripture unless interpreted by him.


----------



## MSH (Dec 18, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> I have heard that but, it premises a dichotomy that we cannot understand the scripture unless interpreted by him.



While he may very well be wrong in his thesis, it doesn't come across to me that he feels that way at all, that is that he alone holds the key to a correct interpretation of the Bible. But, I may very well be misunderstanding him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gkterry (Dec 20, 2016)

I have this one on my list to read and I am confident it is solidly Reformed: The Quest for the Historical Adam: Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins by William VanDoodewaard of PRTS. While it may not strictly be a commentary per se, it would undoubtedly be edifying.

http://www.heritagebooks.org/produc...meneutics-and-human-origins-vandoodeward.html


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 20, 2016)

Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 20, 2016)

The question is really are the scriptures infallible to us from God, and to be taken at " face value", or must we accept that so called scientific facts such as extreme age/evolution are somehow supported by them?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 20, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...


Who exactly is the "he" you are referring to? VanDoodewaard? Walton?


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 20, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...
> ...



Walton no doubt.

Also just for a good measure I think the majority of us here were advocating caution with certain books. We tended to disagree on how much error to imbibe and how much meat vs. bone was in particular books. The more bone the less useful hence, my problem woth Walton. Then,of course, Romans 922 disagreed with my touting of Jack Collins.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 21, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Then,of course, Romans 922 disagreed with my touting of Jack Collins.



Of course, because he espouses a non-reformed view, like many others who have been recommend here. It isn't about how much or little error to imbibe. It is about the OP looking for "solid Reformed resources" not solid "reformed" authors.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Who exactly is the "he" you are referring to? VanDoodewaard? Walton?


Walton, but that seems to be what many have taken in regards to the Genesis account.....


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2016)

I also have read differing points of view, and there is something to be gleaned from other authors, but just think some have tilted too far towards trying to accommodate evolutionary theory into Genesis account...


----------

