Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 3

Amazon Link

Adam and Eve as Special Creation (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/01/adam-and-eve-as-special-creation-rjs/

by RJS

July 1, 2014

Comments

The next section in Four Views on the Historical Adam centers on the view of Adam put forth by C. John Collins. He takes an old earth special creation view, but is willing to consider a wide range of scenarios that fit within certain limits. For example, he seems fine with an evolutionary description of the appearance of animal life if this is where the evidence leads. However, he does not think humans can be fit neatly into an evolutionary picture, scientifically or theologically.

---

C. John (Jack) Collins is a Professor Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis Missouri. He has published a number of books relating to the interpretation of Genesis in general and Adam in particular: Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary, and Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. I posted previously on his article in the ASA Journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (How Much History in Gen 1-3) and a long series on his book on Adam: The Search For the Historical Adam One,Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine (Two in the series focused on the Christianity Today article on Adam which was not by Collins). His essay in this book draws heavily on these previously published materials and you can find a more detailed interaction with his ideas in the previous posts.

I will say at the outset that Jack Collins is among my favorite writers on the issues of science and faith, Adam, and the interpretation of Genesis 1-4; not because I agree with his position – there are a number of places where I take a significantly different view – but because he deals fairly with those who disagree with him and lays out his argument clearly. His aim is not to provide “right” answers, but to help Christians think through the issues critically and carefully and to explain the reasoning behind his view. This provides the opportunity to start a meaningful conversation on the issues.

History

Collins begins his essay by discussing the meaning of history and historical as this lays the necessary ground work for approaching Genesis 2-3. He makes three major points (p. 148):

• “historical” is not the same as “prose,” and certainly does not imply that our account has no figurative or imaginative elements.

• “historical is not the same as “complete in detail” or “free from ideological bias,” neither is possible or desirable anyhow.

• “historical” is not necessarily the same as “told in exact chronological sequence” unless the texts claims that for itself.

The presence of figurative and imaginative elements does not mean that there is not a historical core based on events that really happened. Clearly there are figurative and imaginative elements in Genesis 2-3; but the text can, and in Collins’s view does, relate history using these elements.

Genesis 1-11 is a unity

Genesis is an ancient Near Eastern document both similar to, and different from, the contemporary stories and writings that have been uncovered and translated. Collins notes that the overarching pattern of Mesopotamian culture and literature “provides a literary and ideological context into which Genesis 1-11 speaks, and it does so as a whole.” (p. 150)

• It doesn’t do for us to rip it apart and examine the bits and pieces separately without considering also the whole.

• It may well have been edited together from different sources, but they were edited together to make a coherent whole on a conceptual, literary and linguistic level. This isn’t an amateur patchwork quilt of texts. Each piece comes together to make the whole.

Genesis 1-11 is a front end to the rest of Genesis and indeed to the whole of scripture that aims to set the stage for the story in the right way, founded in a worldview with God and his action at the center. One key distinction from the Mesopotamian background is that humankind as a whole was created in the image of God and placed in God’s creation. This unity of humankind and the imago Dei are important for the conclusions Collins draws later.

The Biblical Story Line

Collins’s understanding of the overall story line of scripture drives his understanding of Adam and Eve. The Bible has a story line that “tells us who we are, where we came from, what is wrong, and what God is doing about it.” (p. 158) Adam and Eve are essential elements in the story line:

"The Old Testament is thus the story of the one true Creator God who called the family of Abraham to be his remedy for the defilement that came into the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. God rescues Israel from slavery in Egypt in fulfillment of this plan, and established them as a theocracy for the sake of displaying his existence and character to the rest of the world. God sent his blessings and curses upon Israel in order to pursue that purpose. God never desisted from that purpose, even in the face of the most grievous unfaithfulness of Israel."

---

"The New Testament authors … saw themselves as heirs of the older story and as authorized to describe its proper completion in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the Messianic era that this ushered in. … [T]hey saw the Old as constituting the earlier chapters of the story in which Christians are now participating." (p. 158-159)

---

The unity of humanity, the presence of Adam and Eve at the headwaters of the human line, the reality of their sin and the transmission of this sin to all of humanity is, in Collins view, an essential historical element of this story line. The estrangement from God that we experience is unnatural and out of step with how things ought to be. Sin is an alien intruder that disturbs God’s good creation order.

Revelation 22 portrays the consummation as a Eden come to fruition. The place described in Revelation (using symbolism and figurative language) is a sanctuary, a holy place, as the garden in Genesis 2-3 was a sanctuary, a holy place.

Paul places the human experience in this story line. And his comparison of Adam and Jesus depends on this narrative.

"That is, someone did something (one man trespassed, Rom 5:15), and as a result something happened (sin, death, and condemnation came into the world of human experience), then Jesus came to deal with the consequences of it all (by his obedience to make the many righteous).

"The argument gains its coherence from its sequence of events; it is drastically inadequate to say that Paul is merely making a “comparison” here. Further, consider the notion that people are “in Adam” or “in Christ”: to be in someone is to be a member of that people for whom that someone is the representative. All the evidence we have indicates that only actual persons can function as representatives." (p. 163-164)

An important consequence of this story line is that sin is not inherent in being human with a free will. It is a horrific aberration resulting from someone’s disobedience. If this is not the case it undermines the entire notion of atonement through the blood of Christ as described in scripture. According to Collins if this is not the case “[w]e must say that the Bible writers were wrong” and that “Jesus was wrong” when he described his death as a ransom for many in Mark 10:45.

Adam and Eve and the Origin of Humanity

The story line leads us to expect that humankind is all one family, that “God acted specially (“supernaturally”) to form our first parents, and our first parents at the headwaters of humanity brought sin and dysfunction into the world of human life.

Collins argues that there are factors in our make up that are universally human and uniquely human. These go beyond the powers of natural processes. Our capacity for language is one of these. The difference between human and animal language are not merely differences of degree but differences of kind, that is “human language is discontinuous with animal communication.” (p. 165) This difference is inherent in what we are – a human child is built to acquire sophisticated structured language. A chimpanzee or gorilla simply does not have the capacity to move beyond a rudimentary level. Art is another example.

According to Collins:

"It is simply unreasonable to suppose that one can arrive at human capacities without some “help” from outside; that is good reasoning includes recognizing that God’s creative activity is involved." (p. 170)

Evolutionary intermediate processes may (or may not) have occurred. Collins isn’t dogmatic on this point, and he acknowledges that he isn’t conversant in the biology.

In his view animal death is not a theological problem and is not a consequence of the fall. But there must be an event of special creation in the formation of humans, an event that involves distinction from all other animal life.

He does object to some forms of theistic evolution – and Adam and Eve are at the center of this objection. As he puts it: “I find that the strongest form of theistic evolution is inadequate, both for Bible and for historical science, since it fails to account for human distinctiveness.” (p. 173)

Freedoms and Limitations

There are a range of possible interpretations of Genesis 2-3 that are consistent with the overarching story line of the Bible. Collins provides four criteria that he provide ground rules for thinking about Adam and Eve and the origin of humanity. (Quoted from pp. 171-172)

• The origin of the human race goes beyond a merely natural process. This follows from how hard it is to get a human being or, theologically, how distinctive the image of God is.

• Adam and Eve are at the headwaters of the human race. This follows from the unified experience of humankind.

• The “fall,” in whatever form it took, was both historical (it happened) and moral (it involved disobeying God), and it occurred at the beginning of the human race. Our universal sense of loss makes no sense without this. Where else could this universality have come from?

• If someone should become convinced that there were, in fact, more human beings than just Adam and Eve at the beginning of humankind, then in order to maintain good sense, he or she should envision these as a single tribe of closely related members. Adam would then be the chieftain of this tribe (produced before the others) and Eve would be his wife. This tribe “fell” under the leadership of Adam and Eve. This follows from the notion of solidarity in a representative.

Collins does agree that there is some support for the existence of a larger group of humans, more than just Adam and Eve and their children in Genesis 4. This is indicated by the concerns and actions of Cain after he kills Abel and with his legacy. And, of course, however we imagine Cain got his wife we have to go beyond the text of Genesis in our inference.

This is, as it is billed in the book, an old-earth creation view, but it is a fairly flexible view of old-earth creation.

In the next post on the book we will look at the responses offered by Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, and William Barrick as well as the rejoinder from Jack Collins and my own thoughts on the subject.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to Adam and Eve as Special Creation (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/08/responses-to-adam-and-eve-as-special-creation-rjs/

by RJS

Jul 8, 2014

Comments

In the last post on Four Views on the Historical Adam we looked at the view of Adam put forth by C. John Collins. He takes an old earth special creation view, but is willing to consider a wide range of scenarios that fit within certain limits. For example, an old earth and an evolutionary description of the diversity of animal life poses no theological problems if this is where the scientific evidence leads. However, he does not think humans can be fit neatly into an evolutionary picture, scientifically or theologically. Scientifically he feels that “it is simply unreasonable to suppose that one can arrive at human capacities without some “help” from outside” and theologically that it fails to account for human distinctiveness as the image of God.

DL's Rebuttal

Denis Lamoureux has a great deal of respect for Jack Collins as a fellow Christian but disagrees with his position on four major points.

First, he agrees with Collins on the big story of scripture, but doesn’t feel that this requires a historical Adam. Collins has asserted this as a foundation, but doesn’t really make the case in a convincing manner.

Second, Lamoureux thinks that Collins falls into the trap of scientific concordism. Although Collins is willing to consider figurative and imaginative elements in the text, he feels that the text must relate an account of human origins that is in agreement with the historical events. In Lamoureux’s view this amounts to scientific concordism.

Third, Collins wanders into God-of-the-gaps thinking when he asserts that the complexity of human uniqueness must require divine intervention. Such features as language, art, and a craving for community are not as discontinuous with the other animals as Collins supposes. There is good evidence for roots of some of these in the evolution of mammals and especially primates, and the absence of a complete picture does not mean that there is no “natural” explanation – of God, but not requiring special supernatural intervention.

Finally, Lamoureux feels that Collins is somewhat arbitrary in the passages of Genesis 1-11 that he sees as historical and those he sees as figurative or imaginative.

Walton's Rebuttal

John Walton also has a great deal of respect for Jack Collins. John and Jack are fairly close in their overall interpretation, but disagree on a few points. Walton sees the most significant disagreement as one involving the overall approach to Genesis 1-11. While Collins spends a good deal of effort focused on how people today think about history and science, etc. Walton thinks that the focus needs to be on getting inside the mind of the ancient Near Eastern author and audience. We need to think outside our 21st (…18th, 19th, 20th) century box to understand what they intended to convey in the text we have.

Walton agrees with Collins that the bible conveys a universal impact of sin, but doesn’t think that Collins made the case that this requires a unified origin of humanity descended from Adam and Eve (as unique progenitors or as chief of a smallish group). In Walton’s view Collins makes a strong case for the historicity of the fall, but not for material human origins.

Barrick's Rebuttal

William Barrick takes a young earth view of creation. He feels that Denis, John, and Jack all fail to take scripture as the authority it is meant to be. In Barrick’s view Collins is right to stress the importance of historicity, but fails to realize that accuracy in detail is an important component of this and that lack of accuracy is a weakness that invites counterattack – in the ancient Near East and today. Collins appeals to the readers intuition to distinguish between the intent of Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50. Barrick thinks that this is too subjective and “leaves the door open for too many unacceptable options.” (p. 189) He asserts that “the Hebrew's worldview does not give them the freedom to mythologize history the way the ancient Mesopotamians did” (p. 189) and that “Genesis 1-11 set out to record events exactly as they happened.” (p. 190) Barrick sees the formula phrase “and it was so” as intending to convey this precise historicity in the Genesis 1 account of creation. A “very good” creation is not, in his view, consistent with millions of years of death and disease. He concludes:

The old-earth view yields to the opinions of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth and about the process of evolution – just like the views presented by Lamoureux and Walton. It boils down to the acceptance of an authority outside the Bible – a dominantly secular authority often very antagonistic to the biblical record – to force the account in Genesis 1-11 to conform to that external authority. The young earth view does not accept reinterpreting the Scriptures to force it into an evolutionary mold. (p. 191)

Collin's Rejoinder

Jack Collins offers a rejoinder to the comments by Lamoureux, Walton, and Barrick. He feels that Lamoureux is misinterpreting him when claiming that he is guilty of scientific concordism or God-of-the-gaps reasoning from an absence of knowledge. We expect historical concordance in scripture, not scientific concordance. His view of the special creation of Adam and Eve does not rest on the expectation of scientific concordance with scripture, but on theological and philosophical grounds. He also appeals to the presence of different kinds of gaps in knowledge. As Christians we affirm that the resurrection was supernatural because of the very nature of the event. Collins feels that the path from molecule to mankind is also the kind of event that requires supernatural intervention on philosophical grounds, not on the grounds of an absence of scientific knowledge.

Collins doesn’t have much to say in response to Barrick or Walton. He finds the claim that his view is formed because of the acceptance of external authority (science) to be a dead end. The only way forward is to deal with the substance of arguments. He and Walton agree on most things and their disagreement on Adam and Eve has already been elaborated in each essay and in his response to Walton’s essay.

And some comments of my own. I think that Lamoureux is misinterpreting Collins when he accuses him of scientific concordism. I do think that the assumptions that Collins brings to scripture require more historical concordance than is warranted. This doesn’t come up much in the current essay, but was made more explicit in his book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The way Collins describes the need for supernatural intervention in the creation of mankind does strike me as God-of-the-gaps reasoning. This was also discussed in my recent post Fairness Tastes Like Ice Cream, where one of the commenters with more expertise than I provided links elaborating the reasons why the difference are more ones of degree than kind.

But ultimately the reasons Collins upholds some form of special creation and a historical and unique pair are more theological than scientific, or even hermeneutical (dependent on the view of scripture). This is where it is most profitable to focus the discussion.

Over the last few years I have to say that I have become less than convinced that the Bible intends, anywhere, to portray the origin of sin. We don’t know why, for example, the snake is in the garden trying to corrupt Eve and thus Adam also. Rebellion began before Adam. That sin enters the human line with an original pair simply doesn’t seem to be the point in either the Old or New Testaments. On the other hand, the Bible clearly portrays the universal impact of sin and the places the blame firmly on mankind as a species, as communities, and as individuals. Rebellion is the point. We are formed to need God, to be in fellowship with God. But this relationship, like our other relationships, is broken. Broken by us, not by God. Broken time and time again.

I am not convinced by Collins’s arguments for a unique historical Adam because I am not convinced that Adam is theologically important in the story line of Scripture.

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 2

Adam Both Archetypal and Historical (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/05/john-walton-adam-both-archetypal-and-historical-rjs/

by RJS

June 5, 2014

Comments

The second section of the new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam looks at John Walton’s view of Adam. Walton presents an archetypal view of Adam derived from Scripture and consistent with a number of scientific views of human origins. Again in this first post I will outline Walton’s view without much comment. This will be followed by a post that discusses the responses of the other three contributors and the rejoinder by original author along with some of my own observations.

Walton's Historical-Archetypal Adam

John Walton emphasizes at several points throughout the chapter that he views Adam and Eve as historical figures. He opens with this affirmation.

My view (John Walton) is that Adam and Eve were real people in a real past; they were individual persons who existed in history. The basis for this conclusion comes from the fact that in the Old Testament Adam becomes part of a genealogy and in the New Testament a real event featuring real people is the clearest reading to explain the entrance of sin and death.

Nevertheless I also believe that the biblical text is most interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes – those who represent humanity. In particular the “making” accounts in Genesis 2 reflect their roles as archetypes and therefore give us no scientific information about human origins. (p. 89-90)

In this post we will leave aside Adam and Eve as real people for the most part and look at the archetypal view Walton outlines. Walton believes that the authors of Genesis and in the New Testament were more interested in the role of Adam and Eve as archetypes than as unique individuals. “An archetype serves as a representative of all other members of the group, thus establishing an inherent relationship“ and “an archetype can be a real person with a real past, although not all archetypes are.” (p. 90)

Adam as an archetype in Genesis.

The first reason is that the man is called Adam [using the word] "a-dam" is the Hebrew word for "mankind". But the Hebrew language developed after the Exodus and the events described in the text are long before the development of Hebrew as a language. Walton concludes that it cannot be viewed as the actual name of the man. The name is archetypal and everything this man does in Genesis 2-3 is archetypal – “as a representative for all humanity or on behalf of all males.” (p. 91)

Second – the man is formed from the dust. There are issues with the material formation of man from dust:

• Dust certainly doesn’t refer to chemical composition (not much water or carbon in dust), and

• Dust cannot be sculpted the way clay can.

The text doesn’t speak to material composition or to the mechanics or process of human origins. Walton sees the importance in the man being mortal (from the dust) and designed for a role. The tree of life in the garden is the antidote for mortality – it would be unnecessary if the man was created inherently immortal.

Third – the man is taken and placed in a garden.

"I would propose that Adam, the archetypal human, is being removed from the everyday realm of human existence and placed in a specially prepared place (the mouth of the rivers) as a blessing. If other people are around, he is being elected from them to play a special role. (p. 94)"

Genesis 4 makes it reasonable to assume that other people are around.

Fourth – the man is assigned a priestly role in the garden. The words translated “work and take care of” in the NIV can be interpreted as agricultural work, although the word šamar translated “take care of” does not generally refer to such agricultural work. It is used in the Pentateuch to refer to priestly service in sacred space, guarding sacred space.

What about Eve?

Walton also sees an archetypal role for Eve. Genesis 2:21-22 doesn’t refer to the material origin of Eve, but to a vision showing Adam that he should view Eve as a part of himself. Eve is not a “reproduction partner” but “a coworker in the task of maintaining and expanding sacred space.” (p. 103)

The Theological Meaning

The archetypal role of Adam and Eve brings attention to the theological teaching of Genesis (pp. 102-103)

1. Humankind was created mortal.

2. Humankind was provisioned by God.

3. Humankind was given the role of serving in sacred space

(which implies relationship with God).

4. Humankind genders work together to fulfill their God-given role.

5. Humankind was divided into male and female so we would seek to

reconnect in a new familial relationship.

Number 4 is worth some elaboration.

Walton concludes that the countercultural gender roles in Genesis 2 makes the “Adam as Israel” interpretation of Genesis 2-3 unlikely (Peter Enns supports such a view in his book The Evolution of Adam).

Eve is a coworker in maintaining and expanding sacred space and Israel does not have women priests. “Genesis 1-3 shows no sign of patriarchy, and the archetypal woman is given a role as coworker in sacred space, placed in equal relationship with God.” (p. 104)

A Final Note on Walton's Interpretation of Genesis

1. Walton does not see Genesis 1 and 2 as synoptic accounts of creation with Genesis 2 providing more detail on day 6. This is a typical conservative Christian reading that is not really supported by the structure of the two passages.
2. Nor does Walton see the accounts as competing traditions that “came to be incongruently next to each other with unresolved tensions” (p. 109) as critical scholars often claim.
3. Rather he sees them as sequential. Genesis 2 is a sequel to Genesis 1. Genesis 2 recounts events that could have occurred much later.

In such a case, Adam and Eve would not necessarily be envisioned as the first human beings, but would be elect individuals drawn out of the human population and given a particular representative role in sacred space. (p. 109)

The New Testament. According Walton the New Testament authors saw Adam and Eve as real people, “but the theological use that is made of them is archetypal.”

The reference in Acts 17:26 (From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth) refers to Noah not Adam – the nations are delineated after the flood.

Romans 5:12-14 uses Adam in an archetypal manner – he is a pattern of Christ and he represents all people. Because this passage affirms an event where sin and death entered human experience Walton believes that it supports a historical Adam. However, it says nothing about the transmission of sin, biological relationships, or material discontinuity with the rest of creation.

1 Cor 15:22 (For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive) makes a comparison. This is a representative comparison not determined by biological relationship.

1 Cor 15:45 (So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.) In this passage the biblical point is to contrast and compare and to exalt Jesus – not to make claims about biology.

2 Cor 11:3 implies a historical Eve, “but it refers to her archetypally as an analogy.” (p. 107)

1 Timothy 2:13-14 “Adam and Eve are used as archetypes to make a point about all of humanity, here providing an illustration of how a deceived woman can lead a man into error.” (p. 107)

The major passages of concern are those in Romans and 1 Cor 15 where comparison is made with Christ. While Walton sees this comparison as relating to a unique individual, he does not think that the use as archetype requires biological descent from Adam or that it says anything about material origins. We are not all descended from Christ in a material sense and as the “last Adam” Jesus was neither the only or the last man in biological descent.

Closing Thoughts

Walton concludes his chapter with a hypothetical scenario looking at how all the elements that he sees in the text of Genesis and the uses of this text in the New Testament might be brought together. I am not going to summarize this in the post. The bottom line for Walton is that “the Bible is not revealing science, it is revealing God” (p. 116). This includes the material origins of humanity – this is not a subject that the ancient Israelites were concerned with and it is not a subject that the Bible speaks to directly. It is the archetypal role of Adam and Eve that takes center stage in every instance. “The theology is important, but the theology is built on the archetypal profile – we are all represented in Adam and Eve” (p. 117).

Scientific discussions of human origins can be separated from the theological message of the text. Clearly a godless [...if evolution is deemed atheistic. However its origins were expressly deistic per the era of its development. Meaning that the theory was based in a theistic premise as to how God created this universe. Hence, it was never atheistic until atheists began to use the science as a bully pulpit against Christianity. - re slater], purposeless [...not so. Contemporary views of evolution do now hold to its purposefulness within its science of teleology and origins. - re slater] view of evolution and human origins is not consistent with Scripture [a select view stated by YEC but not the view of Evolutionary Creationists - re slater], but a powerful and sovereign God can work through evolutionary process as he works through other so-called “natural” processes including weather and embryonic development.

The next post on this book will look at the responses from Denis Lamoureux, Jack Collins, and William Barrick along with some of my own reflections.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to Archetypal Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/17/responses-to-archetypal-adam-rjs/

by RJS

June 17, 2014

Comments

In the last post on the new book in the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam we looked at John Walton’s view of Adam as Both Archetypal and Historical (the original post is found at the link). In the post today I will summarize the responses offered by Denis Lamoureux, Jack Collins, and William Barrick (following the order used in the book) and offer some of my own comments as well.

DL's Rebuttal

Denis Lamoureux notes his great respect for John Walton, but also disagrees with the way he structures a significant part of his argument. He does not find Walton’s argument that Genesis refers to function rather than material creation compelling. Both Walton and Lamoureux see ancient science, especially ancient cosmology in the text, and both agree that this is “incidental” although Walton phrases it differently. The real difference seems to be in the understanding of the intent of the ancient authors.

As I (RJS) understand it:

1. Walton’s hypothesis is that the intent of the ancient author was to describe the shaping of function from chaos and that the material description, using the ancient understanding of science, is incidental to this intent. The functional message carries theological importance and is the intended message of the author (divinely inspired by God).

Lamoureux believes that the intent of the ancient author or editor was to describe creation including material origins. The author was inspired by God, but God accommodated his message to the understanding of the ancient Near Eastern audience and used their understanding of science and and of origins to carry the inspired theological message.

2. The different view that Walton and Lamoureux take toward accommodation leads to distinct differences in the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and in the approach each takes to the question of Adam. Lamoureux suggests that Walton stretches the interpretation because he views the text as free from error in the intended message of the author. Examples include Walton’s argument that dust refers to the mortality of Adam rather than the material origins of Adam, the assignment of a priestly role or function for Adam, and his suggestion that the creation of Eve refers to a vision given to Adam while in a deep sleep.

Lamoureux takes the position that the description of Adam and Eve largely reflects an ancient understanding of material origins and is incidental to the theological message. There is no reason to view Adam and Eve as historical persons or as archetypes. (Both Walton and Lamoureux seem to agree quite closely on the intended theological message of the text.)

Collin's Rebuttal

C. John (Jack) Collins also respects Walton. But he also thinks that Genesis describes material origins, and is not sure why Walton emphasizes a distinction between functional and material origins. Collins most significant disagreement however, is with the idea that Adam need not be the first human or the only human, but “a real person given a real test, as representative and archetype of all humankind.” (p. 130) In particular Collins disagrees with the idea that humans before or contemporary with Adam could have been engaging in activities which we would call sinful. In his view moral innocence – inherent in the words good and upright (Genesis 1; Eccl 7:29, 1 Tim 4:4) – preceded the first sin, and this seems contrary to Walton’s proposal.

Collins also finds a representative view troublesome because it “raises serious questions about the justice of God in accounting the sin of this couple to their contemporaries, without having some kind of natural relationship between them.” (p. 130)

He concludes:

“In sum then, I do not see how Walton’s approach accounts for the unified origin of humankind, or for the foreignness of sin in God’s plan.” (p. 131)

Collins goes on to bring up the nature of humans as the image of God. The image of God is not, in his view, merely a role and function, but a material difference between humans and other creatures.

"[W]e must see the image as something that clearly distinguishes humans from every other “living creature.” Whatever distinctive functions we humans exercise, and especially “dominion” (Gen 1:26; cf. Ps 8), requires that we have the capacities that everyone recognizes as setting us apart from other animals. The “special creation” whatever material it operates on, must impose new features on both body and soul of the new creation; the body-soul unity is needed as the vehicle of this image. (p. 131)"

This criticism of Walton’s emphasis on function and role is interesting – and at odds with the argument of J. Richard Middleton and many other Old Testament scholars as well. We have capacities which set us apart from other animals, but these capacities are distinctive in quantity and aggregate, not as unique features unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom. The features are not, many agree, what define us as the image of God.

Barrick's Rebuttal

William Barrick appreciates some of the insights that Walton brings regarding the importance of function and role. He does not see that this is separate from the importance of Adam as the biological head of the human race. He also emphasizes what he sees as the importance of the seminal headship of Adam. He holds that we are endowed with a sin nature at conception transmitted from our parents and we go astray in the womb. “Only the unique conception and birth of Jesus kept him free from receiving the same sin nature.“ Thus the special creation of Adam from the dust, without sin and the virginal conception of Jesus are ideas tied together in Barrick’s view.

According to Barrick, Walton’s archetypal view of Adam and his emphasis on function rather than material origins does not do justice to a number of significant theological concepts. It does not do justice to the character of God (“wholly truthful, all-powerful, and all-wise“). It does not do justice to the nature of mankind (fallen through Adam), and thus to the necessity of Christ’s sacrificial death to restore a “fallen mankind and a sin-corrupted and Creator-cursed universe.” Functionality is part of the meaning of the text but … “The physical creation reflects the moral character of God, and his goodness cannot be limited to mere function.” (p. 138)

Walton's Rejoinder

John Walton responds to a number of the issues raised by Lamoureux, Collins and Barrick. Here I will concentrate only on the theological issues raised by Collins and Barrick. These really center on the same issues surrounding the entry of sin into the world and the propagation of this sin to all mankind. Although Collins sees this as, perhaps, a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one (he makes analogy to the passing down of citizenship), he does think that it requires a connection between Adam and Eve and all subsequent humanity. Barrick finds the direct biological relationship of importance because sin is passed down in the womb in the very nature of the incipient human.

Walton looks at the scriptures raised by Collins and argues that these passages do not require original sinlessness, only original innocence. The unified origin of humankind is addressed in Genesis 1 – in the creation of humans in the image and likeness of God, male and female. We could rip Genesis 2-3out of the Bible and still have a united humanity (Walton doesn’t put it quite like this, but the point is the same). The spread of sin is another issue – but Walton admits he doesn’t have a complete answer. Of course the inheritance model also has serious issues as Ronald Osborne points out clearly in Death Before the Fall.

Final Comments

Walton’s approach brings much important insight into the meaning and significance of Genesis 2-3. His emphasis on the archetypal importance of Adam and Eve appears well supported. I have long found his insights into the Garden of Eden enlightening and his emphasis on the priestly role of Adam helps to shape this out. I do agree with Lamoureux that he stretches some points in order to preserve a “truthfulness” in the text, but overall I find his approach more helpful than Lamoureux’s. This is not because I agree with everything Walton says (especially his discussion of the origin of Eve) but because he wrestles with the meaning of the text in the ancient context whereas Denis seems to simply brush it aside as ancient science.

Collins (and I assume Barrick) sees the new heaven and the new earth as a restoration of Eden [more of a cyclical than helical view of eschatology. Walton's is the helical view. - re slater]. Walton has what I consider a view more consistent with the whole sweep of scripture. The move from Eden to new heaven and new earth is a story of sacred space reaching its intended culmination. We are not returning to Eden but moving forward to God’s intended climax.

The view of Adam and the spread of sin is a problem that is more significant if we view Eden as God’s intended climax rather than His starting point. We don’t live in a plan gone wrong requiring an emergency patch (Christ) – although we do live in a world tainted by the inability of humans, from the beginning, to maintain God’s sacred space. A view of Adam as archetypal is more (in my opinion) consistent with the whole sweep of scripture than a view of Adam as the origin of sin (as Bouteneff put it in Beginnings – Adam is the original sinner, not the origin of sin).

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

Book Review (RJS) - Four Views on the Historical Adam, Part 1

Amazon Link

The Historical Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/15/the-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 15, 2014

Comments

One of the most contentious issues involved in the discussion of the intersection between Christian faith and evolutionary biology is the question of Adam: historical, unique, mythical, archetypal, representative, something else?

The recent clarification of the statement of faith at Bryan College is an example of the depth of feeling this issue can evoke. Lines are drawn in the sand.

According to a story at timesfreepress.comthe statement of faith reads:

"...that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death..."

There is no specified method, and this is a statement with which most of us would agree although we might differ on the idea behind “incurred physical death.” The clarification leaves less room for conversation or for agreement.

"We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms."

Many who would, without reservation, sign the statement of faith cannot in good conscience agree with the clarification. One who, for example, agrees with John Stott in his commentary The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World would be fine under the original statement, but now with the “clarification” would be unwelcome on the faculty of Bryan.

For those who are wondering, Stott has a section in his commentary on The historicity and death of Adam (p. 162-166). He finds that “the narrative itself warrants no dogmatism about the six days of creation, since its form and style suggest that it is meant as literary art, not scientific description.” He also finds it likely that the snake and trees are meant to be understood symbolically in Gen 2-3. He holds to the historicity of the original human pair 6000-10,000 years ago largely because of the genealogies (esp. Luke 3) — but not in the sense you might think. He does not deny any of our scientific findings – and will even accede to the possibility (probability) that creation from dust is a Biblical way of saying that God breathed his divine image into an already existing hominoid. But…

"The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.(p. 164)"

With respect to the intent of Paul in Romans 5: 12 – and so death spread to all men, because all sinned – Stott comments:

"There can be only one explanation. All died because all sinned in and through Adam, the representative or federal head of the human race. (p. 152)"

Adam’s “federal” headship extended outwards to his contemporaries and onwards to his descendents and this includes, according to Stott, the consequences of Adam’s original sin.

Digging deeper once again. The question of Adam remains one worth posts and discussion. A recent book, Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), provides us an opportunity to dig into the question of Adam once again.

The contributors to the book include Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, C. John Collins, and William Barrick. The views presented range from:

• no historical Adam (Lamoureux)

• young earth creation with Adam as the unique father of the entire human race some 6000 years ago or so (Barrick)

• John Walton and Jack Collins fall between these two views, with Collins likely closest to the view of Stott described above.

In their essays the contributors were asked to respond to three questions [by the editors]:

1. What is the biblical case for your position, and how do you reconcile it with passages and potential interpretations that seem to counter it?

2. In what ways is your view more theologically consistent and coherent than any other view? In particular the contributors were asked to relate their view of Adam to their view of revelation, inerrancy, creation, and redemption in Christ.

3. What are the implications your view has for the spiritual life and public witness of the church and individual believers, and how is your view a healthier alternative for both?

Each contributor provides his own view, responds to the views of the other three, and offers a rejoinder to response of the others to his essay.

---

The final two chapters provide pastoral reflections by Greg Boyd and Philip Ryken concerning the implications of our view of Adam in the life of the church.

Over the next few months we will look in more detail at the views offered by Lamoureux, Walton, Collins, and Barrick and the objections they raise in response to the views of the others and finally the pastoral responses. If interested, pick up a copy of the book and join in the conversation.

* * * * * * * * * * *

No Historical Adam? (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/20/no-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 20, 2014

Comments

Last week I introduced a new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam. The contributors to the book include Denis Lamoureux, John Walton, C. John Collins, and William Barrick. The views presented range from no historical Adam (Lamoureux) to young earth creation with Adam as the unique father of the entire human race some 6000 years ago or so (Barrick). John Walton and Jack Collins fall between these two views.

As we work through this book I will first put up a post presenting one of the views. This will be followed by a post that discusses the responses of the other three contributors and the rejoinder by original author along with some of my own observations. The first chapter is by Denis O. Lamoureux and this is where we start.

---

Dr. Lamoureux is an Associate Professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta (UA) in Edmonton. He received his BS in 1976 from UA, a DDS from UA in 1978 and then changed directions – receiving his MDiv and Master of Christian Studies degrees from Regent College Vancouver in 1987 and his Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Theology–Science and Religion, from the University of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, in 1991.

Returning once again to science he received a Ph.D. from UA in Oral Biology–Dental Development and Evolution. Several years ago I posted on Denis Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creation (between November 2010 and January 2011). His chapter in the current book is a condensation of the much more detailed argument put forth in the larger book.

The Message-Incident Principle

Dr. Lamoureux’s position on the relationship between science and scripture centers on the Message-Incident Principle. The ancient views of science, including ancient views of origins are incidental to the theological truths conveyed in scripture. This can be expressed as accommodation – God accommodated his message to the understanding of his people. [What this means is that God] did not introduce new science in scripture only to be understood many millenia later. We do not find and, upon reflection, should not expect, concordance between our current science and cosmology and that reflected incidentally in scripture.

There are many examples that can be used to illustrate this principle. One example used by Lamoureux in this chapter is the last portion of the great Christological hymn found in Philippians 2:9-11.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

The line “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” reflects the ancient view of a three tiered universe where “under the earth” uses a word καταχθόνιος that refers to those departed souls who dwell in the world below, that is in the underworld. This verse indicates that Paul, along with his contemporaries, accepted the 3-tier universe. According to Lamoureux:

"In the case of Philippians 2:10-11, the Message of Faith reveals the lordship of Jesus over the entire creation, and the incidental ancient science is the 3-tier universe. (p. 50)"

Another example of the presence of ancient science or cosmology in scripture is found in the description of the second and fourth days of creation in Genesis 1. The firmament that God puts in place to separate the waters above from the waters below was viewed by the ancient Israelite audience in common with the other ancient Near Eastern cultures as a solid boundary structure. On day four the greater and lesser lights and the stars were placed in the firmament. The concept of the relationship between earth, sky, stars, sun, moon, was completely different from the understanding we have today.

The sun god tablet or tablet of Shamash dating from the 9th century BC
illustrates the firmament (bottom layer) with the stars, waters, and then
the throne of Shamash in the heavens.

Dr. Lamoureux points out that this structure is also reflected in Psalm 104:2-3.

The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment;

he stretches out the heavens like a tent

and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.

According to Lamoureux:

Now what are we to do with these passages in Genesis 1 about the creation of the heavens? The Message-Incident Principle allows us to appreciate that the Holy Spirit accommodated to the level of the ancient Hebrews and used the science-of-the-day in order to reveal the inerrant spiritual truth that God created the visually dominant blue “structure” overhead with the sun, moon, and stars “embedded” in it. The Message of Faith remains steadfast for us today: the Creator made the visual phenomenon of the blue sky and all the heavenly bodies. (p. 53)

These three examples (the 3-tier universe in Philippians 2; the firmament in Genesis 1; a and the upper chambers on the waters in Psalm 104) only scratch the surface. Many (many) more examples of ancient “scientific” understanding expressed in the text of Scripture could be given. Some we hardly notice, assuming them to be figurative when they are not, others are obscured by the word choice of the translators. Taken together they should help us to understand the nature and form of the text of Scripture. The ancient science, when it appears, is not an “error” but the way that God has accommodated his message to the understanding of finite human beings.

What about Adam?

Denis Lamoureux believes that the same principle of accommodation applies to the description of the origin of life and the creation of Adam. The Message of Faith in Genesis 1 is that God is the Creator of life, but the unique creation of kinds and even the words used to express this (the land produces living creatures in v. 24 as it produces vegetation in v. 11 – not exactly the way we think about the creation of animals) are incidental.

The de novo creation of Adam from the dust is another example of ancient “science of origins” in the text. The creation of humans from dust or clay is found in a number of ancient Near Eastern texts. The de novo creation of humans reflects an ancient phenomenological understanding of origins. The Message of Faith is that God formed, loves, and cares for humanity.

Turning to the New Testament references, Lamoureux believes that Paul, with an ancient phenomenological view of origins and immersed in the Scriptures, thought Adam was a unique individual. However, the conferment argument (that Paul’s belief in Adam confers (or requires) a historical Adam) is challenged by the 3-tier universe of Philippians 2 and by the wide-spread occurrence of ancient understandings of “science” throughout scripture. Few would argue that Paul’s understanding of cosmology or geography confers that view on the nature of reality.

The second argument that is often raised is consistency – because Paul compares Adam and Jesus consistency demands that either both, or neither are, historical individuals. The consistency argument fails to distinguish the person of Jesus witnessed by the disciples and many others from the nature of the text of Genesis 2-3 which describes events that predate the written accounts by millenia. Lamoureux also points out that it is the name of Jesus to which every knee in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld should bow. Few would think that consistency requires belief in both Jesus and a 3-tier universe.

So when it comes to Adam, Lamoureux concludes:

"The Divine Book of Words reveals that humans are the only creatures who bear the image of God, and only humans are sinful. I suspect that the manifestation of these spiritual realities coincides with the appearance of behaviorally modern humans about 50,000 years ago. (p. 64)"

…

To conclude, [says Lamoureux]: 

"I do not believe that there ever was a historical Adam. Yet he plays a pivotal role in Holy Scripture. Adam functions as the archetype of every man and woman.…"

Adam’s story is our story. … To understand who we truly are, we must place ourselves in the garden of Eden. The non-historical first Adam is you and me. But the Good News is that the historical Second Adam died for our sins and frees us from the chains of sin and death. Amen. (p. 65)

In the next post on the book we will look at the responses offered by John Walton, Jack Collins, and William Barrick to Denis Lamoureux’s view.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Responses to No Historical Adam (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/05/27/responses-to-no-historical-adam-rjs/

by RJS

May 27, 2014

Comments

Last Tuesday I put up a summary (No Historical Adam?) of Denis Lamoureux’s chapter in the new book from the Zondervan Counterpoints series: Four Views on the Historical Adam. Denis presents a view that we should recognize the Adam story as an accommodation to an ancient Near Eastern understanding of human origins.

In today’s post we will look at the responses offered by the other three contributors, John Walton, Jack Collins, and William Barrick, and at the rejoinder offered by Denis Lamoureux.

---

John Walton's Rebuttal

John Walton’s main points of disagreement come with the rather black-and-white way that Denis constructs his argument. He agrees that there is accommodation in Scripture and that “concordism is hermeneutically suspect.”

Concordism - The attempt to correlate the bible and modern science by considering

the days to be aeons of perhaps millions of years each. It does not work: Light was

created before the sun and even the earth (v 10) and the planets were created before

the sun. (Wimmer p. 68)

He has noted in the past that there is no new science in Scripture (the purpose is not to reveal science). He believes that Denis oversteps when he jumps from ancient Near Eastern ideas about the origin of life and the origin of humans to the conclusion that there was no historical Adam. [In actuality, Denis posits this based upon evolutionary evidence. His reference to the NE view was one of textual parallelism between ancient thought and ancient Hebrew thought, contra Walton's inferences. - re slater]

Because the account of the creation of Adam contains elements that come from an ancient Near Eastern understanding of origins Lamoureux states “And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it follows that Adam never existed.” On this point Walton replies:

"I disagree that his conclusion follows inevitably from his observation. It does not follow that Adam never existed; only that the forming account does not record the forming of a single unique individual.(p. 68)"

Lamoureux also argues that consistency of interpretation, recognizing ancient views of astronomy in the origin of the heavens suggests that we should recognize ancient science-of-the-day in the origin of Adam. Here Walton responds:

"Even if the “forming” narrative about Adam has some parallels in the ancient Near East, that does not prove that Adam is not a real person in a real past. At most it would indicate that the forming account may be an accommodation – that does not mean that the role of Adam is an accommodation. After all there is no one with the role of Adam in the ancient Near East. (p. 68)"

Walton also disagrees with the way Lamoureux deals with Jesus’s reference to Genesis 1-2 and to Paul’s use of Adam in the New Testament. I think the argument concerning the way Jesus references Genesis 1-2 is a dead end trail in the discussion of the historicity of Adam and I’ve written on this before (Jesus on Adam and Eve). Lamoureux could, perhaps, make the point more clearly but Walton’s criticism is off the main point as well.

Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 are more significant sticking points. Lamoureux doesn’t dig deeply into the theological significance of Adam here and Walton challenges him:

“The question is not whether Paul believed that Adam was a real person. Paul believed many things that (in our estimation) were not true about the natural world. The question is whether Paul invested theological significance in his belief.” (p. 69)

C. John Collins' Rebuttal

C. John Collins also agrees with a number of the points made by Lamoureux, but thinks he has followed a style of reasoning that is oversimplified. Lamoureux sees either-or options where Collins would prefer to explore the possibility that there are other alternatives or some middle ground. Collins doesn’t think that talk about “ancient science” is the best way to refer to the kind of language we find in Genesis 1-3 or in many other places in Scripture preferring the category “ordinary language.” He concludes:

"Actually, we cannot tell, one way or the other, simply from the words used, exactly what the writers “believed” about the world. For the most part, it doesn’t even matter: these authors successfully refer to the things they describe – and enable us to picture them – without making any kind of strong claim about the processes. As near as I can tell, the age and shape of the earth play no role in anyone’s communication in the Bible. (p. 75)"

The reason for this is that the age and shape of the earth simply were not questions they thought about at any significant level.

On a theological level, Collins doesn’t think that the truths Lamoureux sees in his application of the Message-Incident principle “do adequate justice to the overarching narrative element in the Bible.” Most importantly:

“The Bible as a whole, not just Genesis, portrays sin as something that at some point made an entrance into God’s good world, but does not belong here and will one day be eradicated.” (p. 79)

William Barrick's Rebuttal

William Barrick’s critique of Lamoureux is a little hard to deal with. He takes a young earth view and finds Lamoureux’s account troubling on many levels. He makes the argument that “Questioning the accuracy of one part of scripture always puts the whole of Scripture in doubt.” (p. 80)

He points out that Calvin and Luther held to a young earth and that modern evangelicals holding any form of an old-earth are taking a path contrary to such long-trusted commentators and theologians. He makes the point that it is inconsistent to accept some miracles but not others – for example it is inconsistent to accept water to wine at Cana but not the special creation of Adam.

He is also concerned with the difficulty of establishing “the sinfulness of all mankind without exception” if Adam and Eve are not the unique historical parents of the human race.

These are not surprising points. We must deal with the nature of scripture as trustworthy and “able to make [us] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and with the long history of biblical interpretation that accepted a young earth.

How Barrick elaborates his concerns is somewhat befuddling to me. I’ll give only a couple of examples here:

Barrick objects to Lamoureux’s use of Psalm 139:13-14 (For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made) as an example that there is no necessary distinction between “natural” processes that take time and the handiwork of God.

According to Barrick:

"Such procreative processes, however, do not appear to offer an equivalent parallel. According to Scripture, God did not form Adam in a preexisting mother’s womb. Genesis depicts an instantaneous special creation of one individual, Adam, from the dust of the earth. God made Eve by an equally instantaneous and special creation."

"I argue that Adam bears no resemblance to the legend of Rip van Winkle, who slept for years and awoke to find a world changed by the passing of time. For Eve to have evolved out of Adam would have taken millions of years. Adam could not have slept for eons of time while God made the woman. It would require the multiplication of many miracles to keep Adam from aging while we waited for a wife to evolve. (p. 81)"

I (RJS) have not got a clue where this last paragraph comes from. It is, quite frankly, incoherent and seems lacking in logical structure unless I am missing something not stated. The male and the female cannot evolve separately.

In his chapter Lamoureux pointed out that Jesus told the parable of the mustard seed calling it the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31), used an illustration of the death of a seed before germination (John 12:23-24), and describes stars falling from the sky (Matthew 24:27, 29). All of these represent ancient misunderstandings of science in some fashion – but Jesus’s point wasn’t to teach science and the illustrations make his point to his hearers quite beautifully. Barrick jumps on this:

"The parables that Jesus used in teaching the multitudes and his disciples could be his own observations of real-life people and their experiences. Lamoureux assumes that they are made up or are like old wives’ tales passed on from ancient times. It is as though Jesus could not observe and think for himself, but merely parroted traditional stories and axioms. In other words, Jesus did not raise the standard of theological consideration, but rather adopted the lower standards of the pagan world around him. (p. 83)"

I (RJS) don’t see how Barrick gets this from Lamoureux’s chapter at all. Lamoureux certainly does think that Jesus could observe and think for himself and that Jesus did raise the standard of theological consideration. The critique simply misses the point and uses what appears to be intentionally inflammatory language without really addressing the issue at hand.

I could pick up a couple of other examples – but this probably gives the picture well enough. Barrick appears convinced that all who hold to evolutionary creation (with or without a historical Adam) base their “conclusions on a full, unquestioning faith in secular evolutionary theory” (p. 84) and are leading young people astray.

DL' s Rejoinder

Denis Lamoureux responds briefly to the points raised by Walton and Collins in his rejoinder to finish this first section of the book. He points out that he and both Walton and Collins have many points of agreement. He finds the questions that Walton raises concerning Jesus’s reference to Adam and marriage somewhat inconsistent and has no objection to the terminology of “ordinary language” that Collins prefers. He is disappointed by Barrick’s response – as, quite frankly, am I.

In Summary

I (RJS) agree with John Walton and Jack Collins that Denis makes the alternatives too stark an "either-or" and that his logic is not always as conclusive as he makes it appear. His position is one valid alternative, but it may or may not be the best alternative.

My current thinking on the question of Adam is closer to the position that Denis describes than to any of the others in the book. However, I think we need to put on the table some of the positions Denis dismisses: "positions that accept evolutionary creation and include a historical Adam of one sort or another."

This whole question needs more hard work in conversation between Christian scholars and thinkers. Although I find much that I agree with in Denis’s discussion of the presence of ancient “science” in the text, I don’t think he has (yet) dealt adequately with the theological questions raised in Paul.

I also think that Denis might push the idea of accommodation a bit too hard and that Jack’s suggestion of “ordinary language” nuances the idea in a useful direction.

continue to -

Part 1 - Denis O. Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creationism

Part 2 - John H. Walton: YEC but Ancient Cosmology

Part 3 - C. John Collins: Modified YEC

Part 4 - William D. Barrick: YEC

Common Questions and Misunderstandings about Classical Arminianism, Part 2

Arminianism FAQ 2 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…)

link to article

by Roger Olson

July 7, 2014

Comments

FAQ: What’s the difference between Arminianism and Wesleyanism?

Answer (A): Not all Arminians are Wesleyans. Certainly Arminius wasn’t! He lived a century before Wesley. 

Free Will Baptists, many Pentecostals (e.g., Assemblies of God), and Restorationists (e.g., Churches of Christ/Independent Christians) are Arminians without being Wesleyans.

But all Wesleyans (that I know) are Arminians (although not all like that label).

Wesleyans ADD to Arminianism the idea of “Christian Perfection” (which different Wesleyans define differently). Non-Wesleyan Arminians do not believe in “entire sanctification.” (Although, interestingly, my own study of Arminius has led me to think he MAY have agreed with Wesley and Wesleyans about that.)

FAQ: Does Arminianism include belief in absolute free will? If so, how could God have inspired the authors of Scripture?

A: No, Arminianism does not (and never has) included belief in “absolute free will.” Not even God has absolute free will: "God’s will is governed by his character."

Arminianism focuses on sin and salvation. It says (with regard to free will) that the sinner’s will is bound to sin until freed by God’s prevenient grace (thus, “freed will,” not “free will!”).

Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.

FAQ: Doesn’t Arminianism rob God of his sovereignty?

A: No, not at all. It only says God is sovereign over his sovereignty. In other words, God can (and apparently does) limit his power to permit humans to oppose his will–up to a point. Everything that happens (Arminianism says) falls within the sovereign will of God–either God’s antecedent will or God’s consequent will: God’s antecedent will is that all be saved; God’s consequent will (consequent to the fall) is that all who believe be saved.

continue to -

Arminianism FAQ: Part 1

Arminianism FAQ: Part 2

Arminianism FAQ: Part 3

Arminianism FAQ: Part 4

Arminianism FAQ: Part 5