Reformed works on Genesis 1-3

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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.

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
 
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 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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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!
 
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!
 
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.
 
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...
 
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
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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

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.
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)
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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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?
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top