Dr. Belcher Replies to Dr. Collins

Last week, Dr. Belcher, RTS-Charlotte, wrote a review of Dr. Collins’ book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? over at Reformation 21. Earlier this week, Dr. Collins responded to the review also over at Reformation 21. Yesterday, Dr. Belcher replied to Dr. Collins response. I thought Dr. Belcher’s final word really got to the heart of the discussion:

I thank Dr. Collins for his response to my “review” of his book. My response will be limited to what I see as the main issues arising from the substance of his book. I understand Genesis 1-11 to be historical narrative like the rest of the book of Genesis. Historical narrative can use figurative and symbolic language, but I believe Dr. Collins goes beyond that when he advocates for the advantages of a pictorial approach to the Bible (p. 20). After stating that the Mesopotamian origin and flood stories provide the context in which Genesis 1-11 are to be set in order to provide clues on how to read the literature, he states that there are reasons to accept an historical core to the story in Genesis (pp. 35, 66).

It is problematic to take our cue from the Mesopotamian stories on how to read Genesis and to argue that Genesis 1-11 has only an historical core. I do believe that Genesis 2:7 demands (his words) the view that God took soil from the dust and made Adam the first man by breathing into his nostril the breath of life. Only by taking “dust” in a figurative or pictorial way can it be interpreted as other than soil. Dr. Collins in his response acknowledges that “dust” may have gone through a few intermediate (genetic) steps and that the words of Genesis 2:7 do not actually rule out every kind of “genetic process.” If genetic process is not ruled out in Genesis 2:7, then the door is open for allowing other scenarios of how God made Adam into a living creature. Although Dr. Collins does reject some of these scenarios, he is willing to accept the possibility that there were more human beings than just Adam and Eve at the beginning of mankind, who existed as a tribe, with Adam being the chieftain of the tribe (pp. 121, 125). At one point in the past the OPC has rejected similar views (see New Horizons, August, 1996), and so has the PCA in its declaration “That God made Adam immediately from the dust of the ground and not from a lower animal form and that God’s in-breathing constituted man a living soul” (see the minutes of the General Assembly, June 1999).

2 thoughts on “Dr. Belcher Replies to Dr. Collins

  1. sedgegrass says:

    Thanks for posting. I read Dr. Collins’ reply on the Reformation 21 blog yesterday. I am interested in Dr. Belcher’s reference to the ’96 OPC and ’99 PCA responses. I noted that Dr. Collins referred a few times to the Chicago Inerrancy statement, something I am not familiar with. Do you know much about it’s history or circumstances?

    One of the comments made by a friend regarding Dr. Collins’ comments about Warfield and Schaeffer possibly being unwelcome in the Church due to their thoughts on Genesis, was that it seemed a misrepresentation of Schaeffer in particular in that he led the charge for inerrancy, especially in defense of the first 11 chapters of Genesis and it’s historicity.

    Since Dr. Collins teaches for the PCA seminary (Covenant), I would think the PCA position statements more relevant than the Chicago Inerrancy statements as an benchmark of doctrinal orthodoxy.

    • Rachel Miller says:

      Sorry to be so long replying. You can read a little about the Chicago Inerrancy statement here. I believe that Dr. Schaeffer was part of the conference that produced the statement in 1978.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s