characters Four Views on the Historical Adam ä PDF eBook or Kindle ePUB free

Denis O. Lamoureux ☆ 5 characters

characters Four Views on the Historical Adam ä PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ↠ As a part of the Counterpoints series Four Views on the Historical Adam clearly outlines four primary views on Adam held by evangelicals featuring top notch proponents of each view presenting their positions in their own worIs your view theologically consistent and coherent than other views What are the implications of your view for the spiritual life and public witness of the church and individual believers and how is your view a healthier alternative for both Concluding reflections by pastor scholars Gregory A Boyd and Philip Graham Ryken highlight the significance of the topic in the faith of everyday believer. For the last few years the historicity of Adam has been a topic of controversy and debate within Evangelical academia It comes at no surprise that Zondervan would come out with a book in their Counterpoint series addressing this topic Four views are given a hearing in this book represented by Denis O Lamoureux Evolutionary Creation View that denies the historical Adam John Walton Archetypal Creation View C John Collins Old Earth Creation View and William D Barrick Young Earth Creation ViewNormally I’m cautious about these Four Views book either because I feel better contributors could have been selected or space limitation didn’t allow justice for the complex subject at hand With these expectations I must say I thought the book did a better job than I expected I’m happy to see some improvements over the years with this genre The four scholars selected are highly ualified representative of their respective views In previous works the format feature the chapters by each school followed by the responses by the other schools; I appreciated that this work also feature a rejoinder to the other schools’ responses a plus in my opinion in seeing what a counter rebuttal looks like I also appreciated the editors’ decision to have two pastoral reflections that discussed what the implication of the discussion of the historicity of Adam means practically for the Christian although I must say it seems Gregory Boyd’s essay ended up being on why Christians should welcome those who deny the historical Adam as brothers and sisters in the faith even in our disagreements The two contributors selected for this part were excellent Both Gregory Boyd and Philip Ryken are well known for being pastor scholars I thought the pastoral reflection also made their contribution to the discussion of which view one should take on the historical Adam uestion and these two essays must not be overlooked or dismiss because its pastoral in nature; in particular I had in mind how Ryken’s essay laid out what an historical or non historical Adam means theologically for the Christian experience and Gospel witnessI imagine not many will change their views from reading this book and yet I would say this book is still important and worth buying because it provide a concise summary of each perspective’s argument Never had I read a book in Zondervan’s Counterpoint series in which the contributors footnoted their own work as much as they did in this volume but I appreciated this as helpful for those who want to do further research One can’t really blame the contributors for footnoting themselves so much since this is a much complicated subject than most topics in this series since there is immediate uestion of Adam’s existence and also the undercurrent of one’s understanding of the role of modern scienceevolution in interpreting the Genesis 1 3 that formulate one’s conclusion to the Adam uestion Really this book had only one contributor Lamoureux who denied the historical Adam while the other three believed in a historical Adam; and yet all three who agreed on Adam didn’t arrive to their conclusion by the same method necessarily given their divergent view of the role of extra biblical data Modern cosmology science evolution Ancient Near East studies in interpreting Genesis 1 3 Dr Barrick has one of the most exegetically rich chapters in the book and readers will appreciate his grammatical and syntactical observation brought out from Genesis 1 2 The contributor with the strongest scientific background is Lamoureux but appeared to be the most exegetically weak where in the responses the other three contributors harped on him for his take on the Hebrew word Raia and his misleading translation of this term as “firmament” NOTE This book was provided to me free by Zondervan and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied

Summary ☆ PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB free ☆ Denis O. Lamoureux

As a part of the Counterpoints series Four Views on the Historical Adam clearly outlines four primary views on Adam held by evangelicals featuring top notch proponents of each view presenting their positions in their own words and critiuing the positions with which they disagree You will come away with a better understanding of the key biblical and theological issues at stake and of the implic. Lamoureux’s argues that Genesis 1 11 is essentially a myth and not to be taken as anything than an ancient explanation of origins It is a manifestation of God stooping down to the scientific level of his audience in a way that means little to us today as we have advanced scientifically and these first eleven chapters of Genesis will mislead than they will informIt is not that God lies for Lamoureux repeatedly affirms that God does not nor cannot lie His explanation instead is that God’s stooping to his audience has left an artifact that has little significance for the modern reader of the Bible Yet he argues that the rest of the Bible is true—except the other parts of the Bible that refer to an historical Adam Jesus stooped to his audience too but poor Paul was just naively assuming Genesis 1 11 is to be taken literallySo how does Lamoureux come to this unusual interpretation He believes that we can see evidence of ancient man’s limited and mistaken view of the world in several places in Scripture One of the first place we see this scientific limitation manifested itself according to Lamoureux is with the creation of the “firmament” or “expanse” or “vault” as other translations put it He writes that it is natural and understanding that the ancients would view the heavens as water because they are blue So he assumes the text is holding up their unsophisticated science as the way in which the text ought to be interpreted rather than believe there are other interpretive possibilities and that God is unable to communicate truth in a timeless fashion Is this not eisegesis that he’s already cautioned againstLamoureux also reaches into the New Testament to show how the Bible has an unsophisticated and thus mistaken view of the world He argues that Paul in Philippians 2 has an ancient tri partite cosmology of heaven earth and underworld Rather than assume the text means exactly what it says he pursues eisegesis—using the interpretive grid of the “ignorant ancients” to tell us what they really meant and how it is an artifact of ignorance and shouldn’t be understood for what it saysHe argues that it would be eisegesis for us moderns to cast our figurative interpretation upon the ancients Well Perhaps there is another explanation Perhaps Paul is referring to something entirely different than what Lamoureux would have us think Perhaps Paul isn’t referring to the material cosmology at all—but the metaphysical cosmology that he wants to ignore Are there not three worlds in the Bible Aren’t Heaven SheolHades and earth the three metaphysical domains of Scripture Isn’t this Paul’s point—that Jesus is Lord of All and all will bend the knee to Christ John Walton’s essay on origins and Adam is both incredibly insightful and frustrating in his commitment to archetypal interpretation and his tendency to understand Genesis through the lens of ancient near east literature This dual commitment lends some insight but it mostly seems to confuse matters and lead Walton’s exegesis away from the text’s authority There are many things that are very helpful but every time he makes an insightful point he overshoots the mark and ends up in what seems a very fanciful and unlikely interpretation of the text While he believes in the historical Adam his entire view seems to not reuire his historicity and opens the door wide to all sorts of fantastical interpretationsCollins’ essay has its strengths but his exegesis seems driven by a commitment to an old earth rather than being led there by the text It is mostly solid but I view the old earth theory to be a capitulation to scientism rather than the biblical textBarrick’s essay is strong but reuires a thorough going commitment to the supremacy of Scripture—even against the discoveries of modern science Without a strong presuppositional approach to the Bible readers of Barrick’s essay will be unconvinced This is what the book is really about—presuppositional commitments If the Bible is supreme the young earth model and an historical Adam are there and assumed as the Bible is very clear on this Even Lamoureux lambasts Collins for his arbitrary reading of “day” as an “age”The origins debate and the historicity of Adam are the material for the larger battle over the authority of Scripture Much ink has been spilled over this topic as we all know and I don’t presume to think I will add anything original or persuasive But my perspective on these matters was cemented as I read Greg Boyd’s pastoral response Boyd very articulately passionately personally and persuasively argues that though he is “inclined” to believe Adam was an historical figure his historicity is not reuired to be orthodoxHere one may anticipate I’ve accepted Boyd’s position but on the contrary I reject it His argument is essentially the same as the liberals of J Gresham Machen’s day—which are the same as today The message is one of inclusion rather than exclusion The message is for understanding and a “broad tent” The message is for compassion and understanding—for liberty of conscience and so on The rhetoric is not gospel rhetoric—for doctrinal clarity but for doctrinal confusion and confessional anarchy I won’t go so far as to call those who reject the historical Adam as apostate or unbelievers but I do believe they are heterodox and they teach outside of accepted and established Christian doctrine Sure the liberals can argue that the historic Adam has never been a reuirement in orthodoxy but orthodoxy is a definition that has developed progressively in the face of heretical conniving’s The faithful must defend orthodoxy and those who would test its bounds in each new generation May this generation draw yet another line in the confessional sand and stand for the historicity of AdamI feel bound to note that I am the son of one of the editors of this volume and received the book as a gift from him My views and conclusions are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my father

review Four Views on the Historical Adam

Four Views on the Historical AdamAtions of Adam for contemporary Christian witness and church life Contributors include Denis O Lamoureux John H Walton C John Collins and William Barrick Each focuses his essay on answering the following uestions What is the biblical case for your viewpoint and how do you reconcile it both with modern science and with passages and potential interpretations that seem to counter it In what ways. This is one of the better views books I've read 3 of the 4 authors the exception being the Young Earth Creation View by William Barrick are well argued thoughtful interact well with each other's perspectives and offer helpful critiues of the others' viewpoints