# Framework Hypothesis



## VirginiaHuguenot

This first post is a continuation of a discussion begun in another thread...



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Thanks for the links. Can you briefly in a couple of paragraphs explain why you think the FH is heresy? What cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith does it overthrow? How does it overthrow the gospel?



Briefly stated, FH overthrows the cardinal doctrines of a literal six-day creation _ex nihilo_ and, consequently, the innerancy of Scripture. It also undermines the moral law of God by attacking the basis for the Fourth Commandment (ie., if the seventh day described in Genesis 2 isn't a literal 24-hour day, why should we keep a literal 24-hour Sabbath?). It also undermines the foundation of the gospel by attacking the literal account of the fall of man and the entrance of sin and death into the world. An attack on the literal historical account of creation in Genesis is, in fact, an attack on most, if not all, of the fundamentals of the Christian faith because Biblical revelation begins with Genesis.

The articles I referenced explain these consideration in further detail:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch3_06.htm

http://capo.org/wp/declartn.htm


----------



## wsw201

I don't buy the FH either. I think its an exception to the standards and those who allow for it are trying to accommodate Kline. 

But then again if Jordan doesn't like FH, it makes me think I should be for it


----------



## JohnV

You forgot one, Andrew. It undermines the perspicuity of Scripture. What happens to the plain meaning of Scripture when you have to do all kinds of acrobatics in order to get to its meaning? And how do you equate men's theories to Biblical doctrine (which needs to be done in order to propose it)?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> But then again if Jordan doesn't like FH, it makes me think I should be for it



I know what you mean, Wayne. I cite Jordan very reluctantly, but there it is.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> You forgot one, Andrew. It undermines the perspicuity of Scripture. What happens to the plain meaning of Scripture when you have to do all kinds of acrobatics in order to get to its meaning? And how do you equate men's theories to Biblical doctrine (which needs to be done in order to propose it)?



Point well taken, John!


----------



## fredtgreco

Don't know what thread this started in, but I don't consider FH a heresy. I believe it is error, mostly because it militates against the perspecuity of Scripture (considering most PhDs can't explain it) and certainly overthrows the Biblical basis for the 4th commandment. It is no surprise that most Framework proponents deny the continuing validity of the 4th commandment.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Fred, Would you agree that creation _ex nihilo_ is a cardinal doctrine?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred, Would you agree that creation _ex nihilo_ is a cardinal doctrine?



Yes. But FH does not deny ex nihilo. It merely denies that creation _ex nihilo_ occurred in the span of 6 ordinary (i.e. 24 hour) days


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred, Would you agree that creation _ex nihilo_ is a cardinal doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But FH does not deny ex nihilo. It merely denies that creation _ex nihilo_ occurred in the span of 6 ordinary (i.e. 24 hour) days
Click to expand...


I think it does more than that. 



> The Framework Hypothesis was first proposed by Dr. Noordzij of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands in the early 1950´s. His defense of the Framework Hypothesis never became very popular. The later popularity of the view could be explained by the fact that the idea was picked up by Dr. N. H. Ridderbos, a prominent figure in the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands. He wrote a book in which he spelled out his view of the Framework Hypothesis and defended it. The title of the book is, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science? That book has been translated and is available in this country, though only as a used book. But even that book did not really make much progress within Reformed and Presbyterian circles until this same view was picked up by theologian and Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline. He has popularized the theory. He has had remarkable success in promoting it and has succeeded in gaining many to his views, especially in more conservative circles. He has put it on the agenda of the church. Collaborating with Dr. Lee Irons, he has set down his views in a book called The Genesis Debate.
> 
> If one would ask how God created all things, the answer of the Framework Hypothesis is: God created all things by "œnatural providence." Although, in the book mentioned above, little more is said about what is meant by natural providence, it becomes clear that the authors mean God´s ordinary way of working in His creation, that is, according to so-called natural laws. Hence, the creation came into being through evolutionary processes, which processes are still in operation today in the creation. Natural development over billions of years explains the origin of the creation.



Source: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html#foundationOfGospel

As I see it, the sole purpose for FH is to accommodate an evolutionary origin of life which takes time and hence must dispense with literal 24-hour days. The evolutionary process or "natural providence" means that creation itself took time and was not instantaneous. This, as I see it, denies creation _ex nihilo_.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Don't know what thread this started in, but I don't consider FH a heresy. I believe it is error, mostly because it militates against the perspecuity of Scripture (considering most PhDs can't explain it) and certainly overthrows the Biblical basis for the 4th commandment. It is no surprise that most Framework proponents deny the continuing validity of the 4th commandment.



I was going to object to the part about "overthrowing the Biblical basis for the 4th commandment", but on reconsideration, that is actually very well put. 

The FH is not itself a heresy, I agree. Its just a theory. But equating it to Biblical precept is heresy, I would suggest. As you say, Fred, it militates against the perspicuity of Scripture, and if that is exactly so, then it is heresy to do that. That is, it is 'anti-Scripture' in definition. That's what "militating against Scripture" means. And Scripture must be seen as perspicuous, or we lose a whole lot more than just a six-day creation. What keeps women from assuming office? What would keep ME from assuming office on my own? If Scripture isn't perspicuous I could add to is whatever meaning suits my fancy, by claiming sincerity to the truth personally. 

Or is this carrying it too far? What do you think?

[Edited on 21-1-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

To follow up on the link between FH and evolution, here are some comments by Joey Pipa:



> Another consequence is macro-evolution. A number of advocates like Youngblood, hold to evolution as the means by which God brought the animals into existence. Dr. Kline says it is possible.94 Not only is macro-evolution possible, according to the framework, but also there is nothing in the theory to keep one from concluding that man evolved from lower animals and that God gave a particular man, Adam, a soul at some point in the evolutionary process.
> 
> Furthermore, contrary to inference of the testimony of Scripture, some proponents, like Dr. Kline, postulate the death of animals before the fall. Weeks comments:
> 
> Of great significance for the interpretation of the creation account is the question of whether death is here understood in general, or whether it refers only to human death. If death came into the world only with Adam, then all evolutionary reconstructions of the development of animals would be excluded. Obviously without animal death there is no animal evolution. Furthermore the periods represented by fossils must occur after man's sin.
> 
> It is natural to connect Romans 5 (14) with the statement in Romans 8:20,21 about the whole creation being subjected to futility. Paul's reference here is obviously to the curse placed upon the ground in consequence of man's sin. If we add this to the statement in Genesis 1:30 that the plants are given to every animal as food, then the natural inference is that animals were originally vegetarian and that animal death was also not present before sin.95



Source: http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm


----------



## fredtgreco

Andrew,

It is true that Kline posits some very troubling thing like death before the Fall, and animal sacrifice before the Fall. But I would not say that this is accomodating evolution. I see it rather as typical Klinean penchant to find esoteric and hence "brilliant" interpretations of Scripture.

As far as I have seen, Framework is not an evolutionary issue - after all, the day/age view accomodates that rather nicely, with MUCH less exegetical gymnastics. FH simply (and wrongly in my view, but that is besides the point here) posits a lack of chronology to the Genesis days. It says nothing about the length of days, per se. In other words, the FH does not demand long days. They could be short, they could even be shorter than 24 hours.

In other words, Kline's errors (e.g. death before the Fall) do not necessarily need to be Framework's errors. One could postulate (just as wrongly) death before the Fall in a six day schema. I know and respect Joey very much (after all, I'm in the pulpit he first held), and I agree with him about FH's dangers. I also agree that the divines likely were 6 natural day men (see David Hall's work on this). But I don't want to give FH advocates leverage by creating strawmen for them to point out and avoid the real issues.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Fred, 

I agree that the FH theory starts with a flawed hermeneutic. But I do see FH as inextricably linked with evolution. There is no other basis upon which to arrive at FH. It's purpose is to account for the old earth needed by evolution. Kline's statements about death before the Fall show this. Those statements, taken apart from FH, are themselves a denial of cardinal doctrines relating to the Scriptures and the Fall. Since Kline is the chief spokesman, if you will, for FH, I see his arguments as a package deal and hence I don't see the anti-_ex nihilo_ aspect of FH as a straw man at all, but rather a necessary response to the fundamental and core _raison d'etre_ of FH. I would say the same about any non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 3.

[Edited on 21-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Really quick...

First, the history of Christianity has NOT been united on the issue of how to understand the days of creation. Thus, to make the issue a test of orthodoxy and fellowship is to draw the boundaries too rigid. 

Second, to suggest that a "non-literal" approach (that is, a non-24 hour approach) is an attack on _ex nihilo_ creation is a _non sequiter_. It just does not follow in any way shape or form that if I hold to a literary understanding of the six days that I must also believe in the eternality of matter or something similar. The FH is just another attempt to explain and understand creation _ex nihilo_.

Third, the FH and evolution do not rise and fall together. There is nothing in the FH that necessitates a belief in evolution, although I'm sure it is true that the motivation for some FH advocates is to "harmonize" science and the Bible, but let's be sure to avoid hasty generalizations. This is certainly not the motivation of Futato, Waltke, Godfrey, Horton, and others in their defense of the FH.

Andrew voices some concerns of his own:

"FH overthrows the cardinal doctrines of a literal six-day creation ex nihilo and, consequently, the innerancy of Scripture."

Again, if literal six day creation is a cardinal doctrine, then you've labeled some of our respected forefathers as heretics. Augustine, as I understand it, did not view the days literally, and I think Spurgeon held to a form of theistic evolution. Of course, I don't want to fault him too much for that, since he was a person of his time and Darwinian evolution was a new threat to the church in the 19th century. I think within the last 100 years, Reformed scholarship, particularly in the Van Tillian tradition, has done an excellent job of responding to evolution and showing how it is not compatible with a Christian worldview. Anyway, that's a rabbit trail, I suppose.

"It also undermines the moral law of God by attacking the basis for the Fourth Commandment (ie., if the seventh day described in Genesis 2 isn't a literal 24-hour day, why should we keep a literal 24-hour Sabbath?)."

I think this is a legitimate concern, though I heard Mark Futato address it quite well in a lecture he gave on the issue last summer. I'll have to do some research and look it up, but I would say that the FH can provide a basis for the fourth commandment. 

"It also undermines the foundation of the gospel by attacking the literal account of the fall of man and the entrance of sin and death into the world. An attack on the literal historical account of creation in Genesis is, in fact, an attack on most, if not all, of the fundamentals of the Christian faith because Biblical revelation begins with Genesis."

I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.

Or maybe we should all explain what we mean by heresy. I use it to describe a doctrine that one cannot believe and still be a Christian.


----------



## JohnV

Andrew:

Evolutionary theory, or trust in scientific theory? There is a difference. As I understand it, there is a perceivable accommodation, I admit, but FH does not rely on Evolutionary theory for its basics. What we have here, I suppose, is presupposition of the legitimacy of modern scientific theories as a backdrop for FH. 

The main objection I would have would be that there is absolutely no Biblical warrant for it. It relies solely on possible interpretations given the modern popular scientific interpretations of the historical record. So, given a different physical setting, we would have to interpret Scripture differently. But that different physical setting is very far from being proved. It generally pits the veracity of modern science against the veracity of the plain reading of Scripture.

Fred mentioned the Decalogue, namely the Fourth Commandment. This is a commandment, not a piece of prose with underlying meanings. The very basic thing about a law is that it is as plain as can be, and is meant to cover as wide a spectrum of applications as possible. So it amounts to using leverage wrongfully upon the wording of the fourth commandment in order to accommodate any other view but the six-day view. In other words, not only would the six-day view come into question, but so would the Fourth Commandment. And that would bring in a whole raft of theonomic and doctrinal questions.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.



I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.
Click to expand...


The grounds would be that the FH advocate does not say that Genesis 1-3 is figurative, he would say it is a non-chronological description of a literal event. The FH does not say God does not create _ex nihilo_ - I am with Craig here. There are serious problems with the FH in my opinion, and Kline especially has many fanciful notions in general; but a denial of _ex nihilo_ is not one of them. Even Augustine, with his notions of creation (which were also quite odd), did not deny _ex nihilo_.

That is why for me FH is not heresy - even though I think you can be a heretic and still a Christian (i.e. a teacher of non damnable heresy) - I believe it is flawed, but that is it. To argue otherwise is to open oneself up to easy counterattack by the FH advocates, much the same way that the simplistic, "Roman Catholics believe in salvation by works," can get you obliterated by a savvy RC apologist.

There are other exegetical issues like:

1. If Genesis 1-2 is not narrative, but is semi-poetical (whatever that is), why is THE sign of historical narrative (the waw conversive) used in Genesis 1-2 more than in any othjer chapter of the Bible?

2. How do we apply the 4th commandment to a normal day if the analogy (God's resting) is NOT a normal day?

3. How is it that God would reveal Himself to His people in a way that even FH advocates say would not have been understood by the recipients of the revelation?

4. Why is it that the FH was completely unknown in all of Church history before the late 19th century? (Kind of makes the secret rapture a hoary old theory)

These are the issues, not exaggerations that are (relatively) easily dismissed.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Gentlemen,

From what I have read of FH, it does in fact deny creation _ex nihilo_. The sources I have cited confirm this. 

FH is based on a hermeneutic that elevates evolutionary science over the truth of God's Word. It is a re-interpretation of Scripture intended to accommodate the Bible to modern science, falsely so-called. If FH advocates want to claim they posit micro-evolution and not macro-evolution, that's fine. Either way, it's an accomodation to science over God's Word. 

Even setting aside the _ex nihilo_ question, however, the doctrine of creation is most definitely a standard of orthodoxy. It is an as important a doctrine as, say, the Resurrection. The Bible and the Confession teach a literal 24-hour six-day creation and I am quite comfortable characterizing the denial of this cardinal doctrine as heresy. 

Kline's statements about death before the Fall, etc. are, in my view, more than just "troubling." They are heretical. (See the link between death arising from Adam's fall and the gospel in Rom. 5.12.) FH and all the baggage associated with it leads to the overthrow of numerous fundamental Christian doctrines that if followed consistently can only lead to antinomianism (re: Fourth Commandment) and unbelief (re: evolution, Scriptural innerrancy, etc.).

The fact that the PCA, OPC, etc. or that some otherwise godly men have accepted, condoned or tolerated the denial of the literal 24-hour six-day creation, does not justify failing to call it what it is: unorthodox, false teaching about a cardinal doctrine: heresy.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Gentlemen,
> 
> From what I have read of FH, it does in fact deny creation _ex nihilo_. The sources I have cited confirm this.
> 
> FH is based on a hermeneutic that elevates evolutionary science over the truth of God's Word. It is a re-interpretation of Scripture intended to accommodate the Bible to modern science, falsely so-called. If FH advocates want to claim they posit micro-evolution and not macro-evolution, that's fine. Either way, it's an accomodation to science over God's Word.
> 
> Even setting aside the _ex nihilo_ question, however, the doctrine of creation is most definitely a standard of orthodoxy. It is an as important a doctrine as, say, the Resurrection. The Bible and the Confession teach a literal 24-hour six-day creation and I am quite comfortable characterizing the denial of this cardinal doctrine as heresy.
> 
> Kline's statements about death before the Fall, etc. are, in my view, more than just "troubling." They are heretical. (See the link between death arising from Adam's fall and the gospel in Rom. 5.12.) FH and all the baggage associated with it leads to the overthrow of numerous fundamental Christian doctrines that if followed consistently can only lead to antinomianism (re: Fourth Commandment) and unbelief (re: evolution, Scriptural innerrancy, etc.).
> 
> The fact that the PCA, OPC, etc. or that some otherwise godly men have accepted, condoned or tolerated the denial of the literal 24-hour six-day creation, does not justify failing to call it what it is: unorthodox, false teaching about a cardinal doctrine: heresy.



Andrew,

With all due respect, you have read wrong. If any man gave any accomodation for macro evolution (i.e. Darwinian evolution) he would never be permitted to minister in the PCA or OPC. The PCA and OPC creation reports both state this categorically. The FH could be _used_ by an evolutionist, but FH proponents are not evolutionists. You're just wrong here. I've studied the issue in the context of both Presbytery examinations (I am chairman of our Candidates Committee) and whether a non-6 normal day view of Creation is an exception to the Standards (as a co-author of a minority report to GA claiming that); I am also no fan of Kline. But the FH as espoused by godly (but wrong, in my opinion) men in the PCA/OPC is not evolutionary.

The FH does NOT espouse a non- ex nihilo position. Creation Ex Nihilo is a _sina qua non_ for Reformed Christianity. The FH states that God created the world ex nihilo, and fashioned the various parts of the world *without suspending *ordinary providence. That does not mean evolution. It means that light requires a sun - but that sun according to the FH is created ex nihilo by God.

Also, the death that is described by Kline et al., while wrong, is not death of humans (the result of sin), but rather animal death. This is wrong and potentially dangerous, but it is _possible_ to make a Biblical case to separate animal death from sin.

Again, the FH is wrong, in my opinion. I can't believe that I am defending it on this board. Many friends of mine would laugh if they knew this. But we need to attack the strong case, not the weak.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Fred,

Have you read the Jordan and Hanko articles that I cited? Their analysis of FH differs with yours. 

I don't want to misrepresent FH, but even accepting all of your points for the sake of argument, FH is still heresy in my book for denying the literal days of creation.

[Edited on 22-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> 
> Have you read the Jordan and Hanko articles that I cited? Their analysis of FH differs with yours.



Ok,

At the risk of being offensive to some, let me cut to the chase:

1. Jordan is a nut, and heretical himself at many points. He is also a professional bomb thrower.

2. Hanko is a KJV only hyperCalivinist.

Would it surprise anyone if they over-reacted?

Joey Pipa's article is much better: critical, but not over the top.

[Edited on 1/22/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I don't think you are really defending FH so much as trying to set the record straight, which I can appreciate even if our views diverge. 

Having said that, how serious an error do you consider FH to be?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> I don't want to misrepresent FH, but even accepting all of your points for the sake of argument, FH is still heresy in my book for denying the literal days of creation.



But the problem with that is that there are many others who go down the tubes with that: Augustine, Hodge, Warfield, etc. Anybody who is day-age or analogical days, etc.

At the height of the Creation Days controversy in the PCA, no one (by that I mean Ligon Duncan, David Hall, Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, etc) was saying that FH or day-age was _heresy_, we were saying that it was an _exception_ (and a permissible one at that) to the Standards. So while I am critical of FH, you'll pardon me if I side with Joey, Morton and Ligon on this and not Jordan and Hanko.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I agree with Fred, Andrew, having dealt with this issue in my own church and following the OPC debate as closely as I can. FH is simply unbiblical. But in and of itself, it does not compromise the gospel, though certainly if the hermenuetic were carried out to its logical conclusion, it would end up with liberalism and a denial of the Gospel. I'm sticking strictly with Klines argument since I'm not familiar with the others. 

Here's Kline's argument:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html

To me the most revealing motive behind the whole argument is the last few lines in his conclusion and his last footnote:


> Our conclusion is then that the more traditional interpretations of the creation account are guilty not only of creating a conflict between the Bible and science but, in effect, of pitting Scripture against Scripture. The true harmony of Genesis 1 and Gen. 2:5 appears, however, and the false conflict between the Bible and science disappears, when we recognize that the creation "week is a lower register metaphor for God's upper register creation-time and that the sequence of the "days is ordered not chronologically but thematically.
> 
> 47 In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).



His whole objective is to allow the "current scientific views" some legitimacy wihout conflicting with Scripture. He doesn't even question the false presuppositions of these "current" scientific views which to me is the most troubling. He's making the same mistake as Hodge and Warfeild in bowing down to the unproven assertions of unbelieving scientists. But he still doesn't argue for evolution. It is better to deal with the argument on it's own merits rather than possible consequences. Otherwise you miss the real debate, which is the proper hermenuetic for interpreting Scripture, and you may lose some credibility because you aren't dealing with what the author really believes. 

I do agree with you though, it is not a Confessional doctrine. The WCF clearly forbids it.

[Edited on 22-1-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> I don't want to misrepresent FH, but even accepting all of your points for the sake of argument, FH is still heresy in my book for denying the literal days of creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem with that is that there are many others who go down the tubes with that: Augustine, Hodge, Warfield, etc. Anybody who is day-age or analogical days, etc.
> 
> At the height of the Creation Days controversy in the PCA, no one (by that I mean Ligon Duncan, David Hall, Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, etc) was saying that FH or day-age was _heresy_, we were saying that it was an _exception_ (and a permissible one at that) to the Standards. So while I am critical of FH, you'll pardon me if I side with Joey, Morton and Ligon on this and not Jordan and Hanko.
Click to expand...


I have said previously that whether some famous otherwise orthodox person in history holds to a non-literal six 24-day creation does not justify the heresy of denying the true creation account. 

Augstine did indeed hold to an errant view of days with respect to creation. Likewise, Martin Luther, as noted in another thread earlier today, denied the canonicity of certain books in the NT. Both errors are major. I have not assumed though that someone who holds to such a heretical view whether on creation or the Biblical canon is not saved. I think you said earlier, and I agree, that one may hold to or teach a heresy which is not necessarily damnable to that person's soul. However, their salvation would be _despite_ the heresy and not warrant to perpetuate the heresy. I hope this makes sense. I am attempting to emphatically condemn a major error without going so far as to say that one cannot be saved if they hold to such an error. 

Here's an article on Augustine and orthodoxy with respect to creation for consideration: http://capo.org/cpc/lavallee.htm


----------



## fredtgreco

Andrew,

The problem is that heresy is a strong word. And Louis Lavalle does not come to the same conclusion of heresy that you do (for what it is worth, I personally know Louis - he serves as a ruling elder at the church my family attends). Neither does the editor of the Presbyterian Witness - the home of the article originally. How do I know this? Byron Snapp is also a friend, and he served on the Bills & Overture Committee in which I co-authored the Creation Minority Report. He was a signer of the Minority Report. The Report said that the non-normal 6 days views were unconfessional not heretical. In fact, we went out of our way to say that they were not heretical.

So again, I think you are reading too much into this. Not to be crass, but I think you are going to lose here, at least with respect to citation of other sources. I know and have talked with just about everyone in the PCA/OPC circles about this who holds to the 6 normal calendar day view (as I do). Unless you get way out there (e.g. Jordan, Hanko), you are *not* going to find someone out there saying it is heresy.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andrew,
> 
> The problem is that heresy is a strong word. And Louis Lavalle does not come to the same conclusion of heresy that you do (for what it is worth, I personally know Louis - he serves as a ruling elder at the church my family attends). Neither does the editor of the Presbyterian Witness - the home of the article originally. How do I know this? Byron Snapp is also a friend, and he served on the Bills & Overture Committee in which I co-authored the Creation Minority Report. He was a signer of the Minority Report. The Report said that the non-normal 6 days views were unconfessional not heretical. In fact, we went out of our way to say that they were not heretical.
> 
> So again, I think you are reading too much into this. Not to be crass, but I think you are going to lose here, at least with respect to citation of other sources. I know and have talked with just about everyone in the PCA/OPC circles about this who holds to the 6 normal calendar day view (as I do). Unless you get way out there (e.g. Jordan, Hanko), you are *not* going to find someone out there saying it is heresy.



Fred,

I respect your views greatly, but appealing to the PCA/OPC "consensus" on creation views means little to me. I used to be in the PCA and frankly I have a low opinion of the denomination's tolerance for error, idolatry and heresy. 

Perhaps it would be helpful to define heresy. I define it as the denial of a cardinal doctrine, which includes the Biblical account of creation, among other fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. 

If you have a different definition of heresy or if you could expand on how serious an "error" you think FH is, then perhaps we can refine our area of agreement/disagreement better.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Fred, 

What is your view of the Westminster PCA presbytery? Their statement on creation calls FH "heresy."

http://capo.org/wp/declartn.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I agree with Fred, Andrew, having dealt with this issue in my own church and following the OPC debate as closely as I can. FH is simply unbiblical. But in and of itself, it does not compromise the gospel, though certainly if the hermenuetic were carried out to its logical conclusion, it would end up with liberalism and a denial of the Gospel. I'm sticking strictly with Klines argument since I'm not familiar with the others.
> 
> Here's Kline's argument:
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html
> 
> To me the most revealing motive behind the whole argument is the last few lines in his conclusion and his last footnote:
> 
> 
> 
> Our conclusion is then that the more traditional interpretations of the creation account are guilty not only of creating a conflict between the Bible and science but, in effect, of pitting Scripture against Scripture. The true harmony of Genesis 1 and Gen. 2:5 appears, however, and the false conflict between the Bible and science disappears, when we recognize that the creation "week is a lower register metaphor for God's upper register creation-time and that the sequence of the "days is ordered not chronologically but thematically.
> 
> 47 In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His whole objective is to allow the "current scientific views" some legitimacy wihout conflicting with Scripture. He doesn't even question the false presuppositions of these "current" scientific views which to me is the most troubling. He's making the same mistake as Hodge and Warfeild in bowing down to the unproven assertions of unbelieving scientists. But he still doesn't argue for evolution. It is better to deal with the argument on it's own merits rather than possible consequences. Otherwise you miss the real debate, which is the proper hermenuetic for interpreting Scripture, and you may lose some credibility because you aren't dealing with what the author really believes.
> 
> I do agree with you though, it is not a Confessional doctrine. The WCF clearly forbids it.
> 
> [Edited on 22-1-2005 by puritansailor]
Click to expand...


Patrick,

I appreciate the link. The comments you cited are indeed telling. I also appreciate your comments. I am not trying to condemn a straw man. I do believe, however, that denial of the Biblical account of creation is flatly heretical. As you note, and as I have noted previously, the hermeneutic advocated by FH (accomodation of Scripture to modern science) will -- if followed consistently -- lead down the path to unbelief.


----------



## luvroftheWord

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.
Click to expand...


Patrick,

Your point here is my biggest rub with the FH. I don't necessarily object to the idea that the creation days are literary devices and not literal 24 hour days. But it just seems to me that they are guilty of arbitrary exegesis when they move from Genesis 1 to 2. I'd like to read up more on the FH, but this is a big sticking point for me.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Your point here is my biggest rub with the FH. I don't necessarily object to the idea that the creation days are literary devices and not literal 24 hour days. But it just seems to me that they are guilty of arbitrary exegesis when they move from Genesis 1 to 2. I'd like to read up more on the FH, but this is a big sticking point for me.
Click to expand...


If you haven't already, read Klines article linked above then read Pipa's critique and refutation here. 
http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

I think you will get a good feel for the problems. You're right. It is an arbitrary exegesis, and one that presupposes the truthfulness of modern "scientific views." I would think this fact alone would have the Van Tillians in an uproar.


----------



## Ianterrell

Didn't Augustine have a proto-FH?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> Your point here is my biggest rub with the FH. I don't necessarily object to the idea that the creation days are literary devices and not literal 24 hour days. But it just seems to me that they are guilty of arbitrary exegesis when they move from Genesis 1 to 2. I'd like to read up more on the FH, but this is a big sticking point for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you haven't already, read Klines article linked above then read Pipa's critique and refutation here.
> http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm
> 
> I think you will get a good feel for the problems. You're right. It is an arbitrary exegesis, and one that presupposes the truthfulness of modern "scientific views." I would think this fact alone would have the Van Tillians in an uproar.
Click to expand...


It does have quite a few Van Tillians in an uproar.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Perhaps it would be helpful to define heresy. I define it as the denial of a cardinal doctrine, which includes the Biblical account of creation, among other fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.
> 
> If you have a different definition of heresy or if you could expand on how serious an "error" you think FH is, then perhaps we can refine our area of agreement/disagreement better.



I would like to see definitions of heresy as well. I want to agree with Andrew here.

CT


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Didn't Augustine have a proto-FH?



I'll have to read that part of the City of God again. But I've usually taken any comparison of modern theories with him as anachronisms. Its been a while since I read it, but as I recall, Augustine was not espousing any one view of the creation as much as trying to ascertain limits of the freedoms which the texts allows, based on the text alone. His intent, I thought, was to cut off certain ideas which were making the rounds back in his day. But I may be mistaken. That was one part that I read several times, each time without much profit from it at the time.

[edit mode]
Or was it the Confessions? Wow, it's time to read them again.

[Edited on 23-1-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Perhaps it would be helpful to define heresy. I define it as the denial of a cardinal doctrine, which includes the Biblical account of creation, among other fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.
> 
> If you have a different definition of heresy or if you could expand on how serious an "error" you think FH is, then perhaps we can refine our area of agreement/disagreement better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see definitions of heresy as well. I want to agree with Andrew here.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I think the Cambridge dictionary is a good place to start:

"a belief opposed to the official belief of a church and that is considered wrong, or the condition of having such beliefs "

That is why there can be (in my opinion) damnable and non-damnable heresies.


----------



## JohnV

Fred:

Would a damnable heresy, then, be one which opposes universally understood Biblical teaching, while a non-damnable one would be one that opposes one that not universally held? 

In Galations we are told that preaching another gospel is a damnable heresy. But clearly, Paul is not talking about Gnositicism, but against those who have mixed Judaistic teachings in with the gospel. In the rest of the gospel he speaks about the proper use and understanding of the law. So one would suppose that he's talking here about those who mix in OT legalism and ceremonialism in with the gospel, and calls that another gospel. The point being, I would suppose, that the gospel is a gospel of grace, not ritual observance; and he calls this latter a damnable heresy. 

Now perhaps I understand Galations wrongly, but however one understands it, Paul is condemning the admixture of other teachings into the once-delivered gospel, and not just another religion. Perverting the gospel is a damnable heresy, it seems. 

Now, this goes back to Andrew's point. If there was some Biblical legitimacy to the FH, that it found support in the Word, instead of being "fit" into the text through gymnastic exegesis, it would be clear of being considered a damnable heresy. But it is a theory that is not found anywhere in Scripture. Nor does it have a well-founded scientific basis. In short, all it does is call the Biblical view in the decalogue into question. 

I would say I have to agree with Andrew on this one about _ex nahilo_. It is not, though, as if they make a claim to it, but I think it is an eventual necessity of their logic.


----------

