# Popularity of Literal Genesis?



## Nate (Aug 30, 2015)

I am looking for information regarding the number of conservative Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

Does anyone here have a rough estimate of the percentage of members belonging to the denominations represented on this board who hold to a literal creation account? i.e., How many in the URCNA, RPCNA, PCA, OPC, etc believe this?

Thanks!


----------



## mgkortus (Aug 30, 2015)

Nate, it may be helpful to define what you mean by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I assume that you are referring to a six-day, twenty four time period in which God created the material world. Included in such a reading would be that the age of the earth is roughly 6,000 t0 10,000 years.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 30, 2015)

In our Presbytery (ARP) I am aware of only one or two ministers who hold to something other than THE 6-Day Creation position. I am not sure about the rest of the ARP.


----------



## Nate (Aug 30, 2015)

mgkortus said:


> Nate, it may be helpful to define what you mean by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I assume that you are referring to a six-day, twenty four time period in which God created the material world. Included in such a reading would be that the age of the earth is roughly 6,000 t0 10,000 years.



Yes this what I mean - thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 30, 2015)

I think a lot of Free Church of Scotland - i.e. the majority - of ministers, to a lesser extent ruling elders and members, are OECs but couldn't be specific.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## KMK (Aug 30, 2015)

If my ordination examination was any indication, I might be the only OEC in my association.


----------



## timfost (Aug 30, 2015)

Literal six-day creation is required for all RCUS ministers. I believe members as well. It's a shame when what the bible calls history we call framework or allegory.

http://www.rcus.org/days-creation/


----------



## Jake (Aug 31, 2015)

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) holds to 6 24 hour days.

There are several different views allowed in the OPC and PCA. However, many still hold to the 6/24 view. The Westminster Presbytery of the PCA (NE TN/SW VA and maybe a bit else around there) holds to 6/24 as a presbytery, requiring it of ministers.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 31, 2015)

It would seem to be predominant among pastors in my current 2.4 million denomination (not a Reformed one). Those who hold to other views are viewed as suspect. One college prof who taught a non literal interpretation of Genesis (and supported the ordination of women) became the subject of numerous districts voting to ask the denomination to try him for heresy. He recently resigned from his ordained status and joined a liberal mainline group.

My impression is that the more literal view is popular . . .
* Among many fundamentalists and conservative evangelical groups (e.g., Cedarville, Moody)
* Several (but not all) of the Reformed groups (except for those influenced by the framework view of Meredith Kline)
* Confessional Lutherans (e.g., LCMS)

There are a range of views held by conservatives. The young earth view, the old earth view, and the theistic evolutionary position all have their defenders among reasonably orthodox folks. Even those reputed to be conservative Reformed denominations have some like Keller and Waltke who support BioLogos which seems on the left end of the spectrum to me.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Aug 31, 2015)

Belief and profession of Six-Day creation is required of all ministers and elders in the RPCGA


----------



## Jack K (Aug 31, 2015)

I think it would be hard to get even a rough estimate that anyone could feel reasonably sure about in the PCA. The vast majority would be what you'd call either young-earth or old-earth creationists. I do think I may have seen a confidential survey once, but for many men their view is one they'd rather not broadcast too loudly. It's frought with misunderstanding and leads quickly to unfair accusations.

All these guys take the Bible seriously. But identify as old-earth, and someone is sure to accuse you of putting science ahead of the Bible. And identify as young-earth, and someone is sure to accuse you of reading Scripture too narrowly or through the lens of traditionalism. The dialogue is too accusatory to be of much benefit. Plus, I imagine there are many guys like me who lean one direction but aren't absolutely sure, and aren't convinced the difference between old-earth and young-earth (when both sides affirm the authority of Scripture) is of vital importance to the integrity of the gospel. In such an environment, it may seem wise to avoid talking very openly or forcefully about one's views.


----------



## Nate (Aug 31, 2015)

Thanks everyone, this is exactly the info I'm looking for!


----------



## Paul1976 (Aug 31, 2015)

I was speaking to someone well-versed in the subject who made an interesting observation. Prior to the introduction of Darwinian evolution the mid-1800's, the issue was less controversial. Since the issue was not tied to debates outside the church with materialists, the issue was less important than it is to people today. He estimated around 1/3 of theologians held a non-literal interpretation. I have no idea how he arrived at that number, and he treated it as nothing more than a rough estimate. One example he mentioned was Augustine, who did not see the creation days as literal. To Augustine, the idea it would take God a whole 6 days to accomplish something as simple as creating the universe was absurd.

Anyway, my point is that you'll not only find considerable natural variation today, but you'll find a denomination's opinions evolving over time as well. Hope that helps.


----------

