Tag: debate

Vern Poythress, John Walton & “The Lost World of Genesis One”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

IVP recently published John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton brings ancient near-Eastern (ANE) cultural and linguistic parallels to bear on the text of Genesis chapter 1. I found the book both fascinating and challenging. His method of developing his argument proposition by proposition, kept the argument clear, comprehensible and concise. Ultimately, I found it quite convincing. I will be reviewing that book on my site in the near future.

Of course, a big sacred cow has been tipped in this book. Against the very real attacks by atheistic evolutionists, Christians in general have united around a Creationist perspective that upholds a literal, six-day, young earth, non-evolutionary model of the origins of the earth and all life. Over the last few decades, a steady stream of scientific analyses of Scripture have hit the shelves of Christian bookstores. If you stop to think about this from a wider perspective, you would have to think that many church leaders of old would be amazed at the degree of scientific specificity that modern creationists find in the pages of Scripture. It should be obvious that Scripture wasn’t written to answer every question in our science books.

I am currently exploring this issue in more depth and looking to Scripture for what perspective to have on this issue. John Piper’s thoughts on the matter are similar to mine at present. In a recent online Ask Pastor John event, (the answer is not yet posted on their site), Piper says he leans toward Sailhammer’s view (as explained in the above link).    After reading Walton (as well as G.K. Beale), I agree. I don’t think the issue has to be as divisive as some make it out to be.

Everyone doesn’t agree that such matters should be open to such variation, however. Vern Poythress, who I highly respect, recently offered a decidedly negative assessment to Walton’s book in World magazine. His review, obviously bound by space constraints, did not adequately explain Walton’s position. It misrepresented the book. Now, John Walton has responded to that review. Both Poythress’ assessment of the book, and Walton’s rejoinder are short reads and will provide a peek into the nature of the debate (and of course, the book). I encourage you to take the time to read both articles, and let me know what your thoughts are.

Vern Poythress: Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation…. In short, Walton’s book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. (read the entire review)

John Walton: I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion. (read the entire response)

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this in the comments below!

You can purchase the book at Amazon.com or Westminster Bookstore, or direct from IVP. Westminster Bookstore has a .PDF excerpt available as well on the book page.

Wine and the Christian

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Tim Archer just finished up a good series on wine and the Christian. He tries his best to present the entire teaching of Scripture on the topic as he reviews all the pertinent Scriptural passages briefly.   His series in effect, presents a bird’s eye view of the issue, in a non-combative, irenic way. I encourage you to check it out.

He does quote one of my posts, in the series, and he also links to a few of my previous posts on this thorny issue. So of course this bodes well for his series!

Check out his twelfth post, which includes links to all the previous ones. You can click here to see some helpful links on the subject too. Feel free to peruse my previous posts on this issue as well.

“The More I Read the Bible the Less Dispensational I Become”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

These words were posted in an article written by John Davis (B.A. , M.Div., Th.M., D.Min.) for Sharper Iron, describing his journey out of dispensationalism. His description of becoming less and less dispensational, fits my story. I’ve taken a similar journey out of dispensationalism.

His article is a good read, and the discussion to follow may well prove quite lively. Here’s another excerpt, and an encouragement to follow the discussion at Sharper Iron. For my take on dispensationalism, check out posts in that category, or my “Understanding the Land Promise” series.

Take, for example, the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the relationship of the law to saving faith, in Galatians 3. He introduces Abraham as a paradigm of saving faith and of inclusion in the promises of God. In the course of his discussion, the apostle makes interpretive statements based on his understanding of the Genesis passages. These reflect on the Abrahamic covenant. These statements are as follows:

  1. “Those who believe are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
  2. “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you'” (Gal. 3:8).
  3. “Those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham” (Gal. 3:9).
  4. “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:14).
  5. “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “˜and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but “˜and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
  6. “But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22).

…Relationship with Christ, established by emulating the faith of Abraham, guarantees one’s participation in the promises of the covenant. It is not the keeping of the law or physical descent from Abraham that constitutes one as a child of Abraham, but rather faith in Jesus Christ.

These verses sanction the redemptive nature of the Abrahamic covenant. They confirm that covenant as the unifying factor between Jews and Gentiles, and they substantiate the view that there is one people of God of all ages that share the covenants of Scripture which find their consummation in Christ.

To Drink, Or Not to Drink

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I was swept away (again), into a fundamentalist feud over alcoholic drink. My ears perked up when I came across a humorous post on teetotaling. I figured that the issue was a current hot button topic at Sharper Iron, and so I went digging.

Turns out, Shelton Smith (The Sword of The Lord) and Robert Sumner (The Biblical Evangelist) rival editors of influential fundamentalist periodicals, have both recently decried a new book from BJU press on the alcohol question. I haven’t read Randy Jaeggli’s book The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective (he’s a prof at BJU), but from what I am reading at Sharper Iron, he defends an abstentionist position in a biblically defensible way. He is careful with the text and so believes Jesus actually drank alcoholic wine, albeit perhaps with less punch then is available today.

His honest treatment of Scripture is too much for the hard line fndamentalists to swallow. They view his book as only doing lip service to a temperance policy. The alarm must be sounded.

So I’ve had my nose in a few threads over at Sharper Iron, discussing this hot issue. I’m not so much discussing the book, as the merits of a moderationist position. You can find my position outlined in this forum post. And I detail the different discussion thread links, in a forum post over at our own Transformed by Grace forum site.

I’ve had quite a few interesting posts concerning wine on my blog in years past.   Click on the wine cateogory for the full list, but here are a few of my favorites:

Unity and the End Times

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

Should one’s end times’ views limit their unity with other Christian believers? Should churches and denominations spell out their particular end times’ theology, as a matter of their statement of faith? Should adherence to premillennialism, for instance, be considered a hallmark of the faith, a non-negotiable test of one’s submission to Christ?

Mark Dever doesn’t think so. In a recent sermon on Revelation, he commented:

I am suggesting that what you believe about the Millennium””how you interpret these thousand years””is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order for us to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course, all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.

Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians, whether nearly (in a congregation) or more at length (in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up in the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ, for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ””to divide the body that he prayed would be united.

Therefore, for us to conclude that we must agree on a certain view of alcohol or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the Millennium, in order to have fellowship with one another is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore unwarranted and, therefore, condemned by Scripture.

So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

I tend to agree with Dever’s assessment. I think a church could explain their preference, but to demand an end-times’ belief of any who would join with the church, seems too much. Of course there are Christian end times’ beliefs that are universally agreed upon. But I’m talking about your particular thoughts on when the rapture, or if a “rapture” will occur, and what kind of millennialism you hold to.

This is akin to baptism, but on that point Dever does draw the line of church fellowship tight. So would it would be reasonable for a church to draw their own lines on both baptism and eschatology, and yet admit they will fellowship in the gospel with all who carefully differ with them on these matters? Should baptism be more consequential than millennialist views? Which is more clear in Scripture?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here. Any thoughts? Others are hashing out these questions in the comments on the links below.

(HT: Justin Taylor, Ben Wright & Caleb Kolstad)