# R.C.Sproul Changes his Mind on the Days of Creation



## SolaGratia

I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line. 

Here is the link: article:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Any thoughts, info. etc.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well considering ole R.C. has held practically every eschatological view imaginable not too surprising. However 100,000 amens to Dr. Sproul!!!


----------



## Ivan

SolaGratia said:


> I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line.
> 
> Here is the link: article:
> Banner of Truth Trust General Articles
> 
> Any thoughts, info. etc.



That is encouraging.


----------



## SolaGratia

Below is the whole article from the BOT:

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:
For most of my teaching career, I considered the 'framework hypothesis' to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. *I now hold to a literal six-day creation*. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.
The 'framework hypothesis' was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a 'framework' into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. *Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.*

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman's guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:
According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. *One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.*

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.


----------



## Bygracealone

Very encouraging!


----------



## Scott1

Dr Sproul does a very fair and informative job of explaining four views of creation in his excellent book, _Truths We Confess_. He explains the tie-in to micro-evolution and the "crisis" that has occurred in relation to the Genesis account of creation in modern theology. On p. 120...



> This crisis has resulted in several attempts to reinterpret the Genesis account of Creation.



He goes on to say p. 127



> For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one.



He goes on to say regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith:



> The Confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world *in the space of six days.* (bold in the original)



This has been very helpful in my own understanding of the theological issues surrounding this. Thank God for the gift He has given Dr Sproul in making the complex understandable.


----------



## dannyhyde

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: _Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science._

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.


----------



## SolaGratia

Pastor Hyde,

"back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"

What do you mean by that?


----------



## panta dokimazete

It is "hedging your bet" in anticipation of potential scientific discovery to hold anything less than the literal 6 days - I have been guilty of the same. I believe there was and has been a sense of dependence on science's explanatory power on origins that has failed to truly emerge, with a deepening alliance to presuppositional apologetics that is driving the "sea change".

the grass withers, the flower fades...


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I am glad to say that I always held 6 days literal, and I saw through the farce of 6 days being an allegory and non literal as a means to merge Christian with Science so called.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Gentlemen,

I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so. 

Brian


----------



## danmpem

Usually I read about the older generation of teachers becoming more and more loose on their doctrine. It is an encouragement to see someone like Sproul keep himself under the authority of scripture throughout the entirety of his life.


----------



## Archlute

dannyhyde said:


> For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: _Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science._
> 
> As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.
> 
> Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.



Hello Danny,

I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.

So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. For what it's worth, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).


----------



## SolaGratia

So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?


----------



## dannyhyde

Hi Adam,

Interesting to say the least.

Danny



Archlute said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: _Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science._
> 
> As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.
> 
> Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Danny,
> 
> I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.
> 
> So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. For what it's worth, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).
Click to expand...


----------



## dannyhyde

SolaGratia said:


> Pastor Hyde,
> 
> "back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"
> 
> What do you mean by that?



Basically, I would say I hold to the view that God created in six days. I would agree with Bavinck, though, in saying that the first three days were anything but ordinary seeing there was no sun!


----------



## dannyhyde

SolaGratia said:


> So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?



The sem's public position may be found here: Westminster Seminary California about


----------



## Grymir

He may be admitting it now publicly, but philosophically, R.C. has held to a literalist view for years. I've heard just about every teaching he has ever done too. Why a statement like that now, I don't understand. Was it a current article? It had a date of 2006 quoting his writing in a Truth's we confess.


----------



## danmpem

Grymir said:


> Why a statement like that now, I don't understand.



Grymir,

Do you know how long it was before I figured out that your avatars were of Rush Limbaugh and not of the real Timothy Johnson? I had no idea what either of you looked like, so I naturally assumed you were in radio and really liked your cigars. When I happened to come across "your" picture online, and then realized who it was, I contemplated giving a little shout-out about the impostor on the PB. 

What I just said had everything to do with your question.


----------



## rmdmphilosopher

It's interesting--just today I was reading _God, Heaven and Har Magedon_ by Kline (I just got it as a birthday present) and even before reading this thread, I was having certain suspicions regarding his reasons for holding to the Framework view of creation... Just subtle things, like the way his diction is often reminiscent of a certain sort of seeking-to-impress jargon I find in a lot of suspect modern scholarship... The idea that he may be one of those who value the temporary (and, shall we say with Kuhn, constantly subject to the potential of revolution) conclusions of current scientific dogma is something I'll take with me back to my armchair... It's always a little sad to have my initial admiration for a man (like my admiration for Kline after reading some of his book this afternoon) tinctured with suspicion of his motives. Dang it. But thanks anyway for the heads up...


----------



## AV1611

dannyhyde said:


> For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: _Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science._



Absolutely, there are sound exegetical reasons for the Framework Hypothesis.


----------



## Grace Alone

Grymir said:


> He may be admitting it now publicly, but philosophically, R.C. has held to a literalist view for years. I've heard just about every teaching he has ever done too. Why a statement like that now, I don't understand. Was it a current article? It had a date of 2006 quoting his writing in a Truth's we confess.



I think it is old news. I remember hearing that announcement quite awhile ago.


----------



## shackleton

This is good because I was starting to wonder if the Framework Hypothesis might be plausible. Partly to mix all the "evidence" of an old earth with what the bible says and partly thinking that maybe we were reading it to literally and not taking into account type of Hebrew literature that had been long dead for thousands of years. But the other part of me still thought that Moses was probably not trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making us believe that God created everything in six days when he really meant millions of years and then fooling them again in the Ten Commandments be telling them to keep the Sabbath holy because God worked _six_ days and rested on the seventh. 

It seems like the popular thing to do nowadays with all the works intended to be evidential apologetics to try to mix science with the bible, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross to name a couple. I guess if it comes down to what man says in science and what the bible says we have to choose who we are going to believe.


----------



## Zenas

I never knew Sproul held to framework. Frankly, that saddens me a little. I'm glad to hear he changed, but to change to the Biblical and Confessional view only recently? Saddening. 

Well, at least he's on "our" side now.


----------



## Poimen

shackleton said:


> This is good because I was starting to wonder if the Framework Hypothesis might be plausible. Partly to mix all the "evidence" of an old earth with what the bible says and partly thinking that maybe we were reading it to literally and not taking into account type of Hebrew literature that had been long dead for thousands of years. But the other part of me still thought that Moses was probably not trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making us believe that God created everything in six days when he really meant millions of years and then fooling them again in the Ten Commandments be telling them to keep the Sabbath holy because God worked _six_ days and rested on the seventh.



Erick: 

FYI, the framework hypothesis does not determine nor posit an age for the earth but looks at the Genesis account through a literary structure that rather determines the meaning and importance of creation. I have never heard Kline or any other framework hypothesis proponent argue for an old or young earth, nor say that their exegetical conclusions were based upon scientific evidence/arguments. The latter is largely if not wholly excluded from the theory.


----------



## Archlute

AV1611 said:


> Absolutely, there are sound exegetical reasons for the Framework Hypothesis.




There may be an exegetical approach used, but "sound exegetical reasons" stretches it a bit far for me.

I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."


----------



## AV1611

Archlute said:


> I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."



Indeed but, last time I checked, the Framework Hypothesis does not teach that the genre of Gen 1:1-2:3 is poetry.


----------



## DMcFadden

Care must be taken. Sproul articulates in a lecture that we must show respect for those who reach different conclusions based on a faithful application of hermeneutics and their conclusions about the genre. I was in the Ross camp for years, believing it to be harmonious with a right reading of Genesis. We ought to be reticent to judge motives.

But, as one who moved to the 24 hr. position, I now believe that it is amazing that I ever actually accepted an harmonizing exegesis. A few articles by Answers in Genesis, arguments by Mohler, Sproul (yes, his shift is several years old), and my own exegetical re-emination led me to wonder at my former view.

Yes, I claim that many of us (I certainly did), wanted a way to avoid the shame of an unpopular view. The traditional view is a better fit (in my opinion) with a Christian worldview and* can *be reconciled with the facts of science. AiG has done the Christian world a great service by their fine written materials and audio visuals. Looking back on it, I would say that embarrassment over holding a view so ridiculed by the secular world contributed to many people I know holding to a harmonizing (I would now say "compromising") exegesis. Still, we ought not to assume that others came to their positions for the same unworthy reasons that we may have done the same.


----------



## Grace Alone

I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing. 

It is always puzzling to me how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.


----------



## AV1611

Grace Alone said:


> I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing.
> 
> It is always puzzling to be how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.



If someone was to deny that Genesis 1:1-2:3 resembles Ancient Near East creation "myths" then they are either ignorant or burying their head in the sand and being intellectually dishonest. For example, try “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”. Also try Gordon Wenham's Commentary on Genesis.

The question is now what do we do with Genesis 1:1-2:3 now we know this. 

For what it's worth, I think that Enn's solution is wrong. There is just as strong a case, if not a stronger one, to argue that the ANE myths stems from a perversion of the Israelite 'myth' rather than the Israelites borrowing from the ANE myths.


----------



## jogri17

What do you all think of the Gap theory?


----------



## AV1611

jogri17 said:


> What do you all think of the Gap theory?



Nonsense


----------



## DMcFadden

jogri17 said:


> What do you all think of the Gap theory?



Nonsense. Grammatically, theologically, scientifically.

Chalmers brought it forth for reasons of accommodating the Bible with the uniformitarian geology that was beginning to rise in the early 19th century. 

The Framework Theory has the benefit of exegetical plausibility over the Gap Theory. I would still contend that reading Genesis in such a way sets us up for some terrible consequences when we come to other issues in the NT. The way we deal with homosexuality and male/female roles both trace to the how we handle the seedbed of those issues in Genesis. 

It has been often said that Germany lost WWII the day the Allies invaded Normandy on D-Day. I am convinced that broad evangelicalism lost the wars of feminism and homosexual acceptance when evangelical colleges and seminaries began to promulgate Day Age and Framework views as the norm. Evangelicalism may last for a few years, a number of decades, or the indefinite future. But, it will (barring an intervention by our Sovereign God) be crippled for the duration by that fateful acceptance.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

DMcFadden said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been often said that Germany lost WWII the day the Allies invaded Normandy on D-Day. I am convinced that broad evangelicalism lost the wars of feminism and homosexual acceptance when evangelical colleges and seminaries began to promulgate Day Age and Framework views as the norm. Evangelicalism may last for a few years, a number of decades, or the indefinite future. But, it will (barring an intervention by our Sovereign God) be crippled for the duration by that fateful acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on this point. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested to read exactly why you believe this...
Click to expand...


----------



## JBaldwin

DMcFadden said:


> It has been often said that Germany lost WWII the day the Allies invaded Normandy on D-Day. I am convinced that broad evangelicalism lost the wars of feminism and homosexual acceptance when evangelical colleges and seminaries began to promulgate Day Age and Framework views as the norm. Evangelicalism may last for a few years, a number of decades, or the indefinite future. But, it will (barring an intervention by our Sovereign God) be crippled for the duration by that fateful acceptance.



I think you make a good point here. Everything else we believe, even the sovereignty and character of God, is wrapped up in the creation. These other ideas take away from God's power, weaken His character, and leave us with the idea that God has a more "hands off" approach to creation than a "hands on" approach. That has a great impact even on how we trust God for our day to day living.


----------



## TimV

I agree with the point also, but as to the analogy, just remember that as Churchill said, D-day worked because the Red Army had already ripped the guts out of the _Wehrmacht _.


----------



## Christusregnat

Janis,

Being conservative and reformed has NOTHING to do with the name of the Seminary (e.g. "Reformed" or "Westminster" or "Calvin" of whatever). If someone teaches at Westminster, it does not mean that they are conservative or reformed. If they are faithful to the reformed system, and operate by conservatives principals of interpretation, then (and only then) should they be labeled with such adjectives.

It has to do with keeping the faithful doctrine as it has been delivered to us. To do otherwise means that we are liberals and heretics, regardless of the name of our institution, church, etc. 

People in the 19th Century might have associated Princeton with "conservative" and "reformed", but once the faculty began to turn aside from the faithful word, and accept humanism, people should have recognized the hypocrisy. The didn't, and we have seen where that leads: an atheistic university.

Cheers,

Adam



Grace Alone said:


> I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing.
> 
> It is always puzzling to me how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.


----------



## MW

In "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," Meredith Kline states in a footnote, " 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."


----------



## Archlute

AV1611 said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed but, last time I checked, the Framework Hypothesis does not teach that the genre of Gen 1:1-2:3 is poetry.
Click to expand...



That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.


----------



## AV1611

Archlute said:


> That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.



Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".

Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his _An Old Testament Theology_.


----------



## etexas

danmpem said:


> Usually I read about the older generation of teachers becoming more and more loose on their doctrine. It is an encouragement to see someone like Sproul keep himself under the authority of scripture throughout the entirety of his life.


Well stated, Sproul has indeed been very orthodox in his later years, and is unwavering in his defense of the Reformed Faith. RC is not perfect, and does not claim to be, the thing that angers me when I hear people (in our own "camp") take shots at him, is this simple fact, more than anyone, he has made the Reformed Truth understandable at a popular level, he has never ignored the grassroots.


----------



## Stephen

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
> 
> Brian




Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.


----------



## Stephen

dannyhyde said:


> For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: _Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science._
> 
> As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.
> 
> Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.



Which, Sproul. Not Sproul, Sr.


----------



## Stephen

jogri17 said:


> What do you all think of the Gap theory?


----------



## Archlute

AV1611 said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".
> 
> Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his _An Old Testament Theology_.
Click to expand...


It is not poetry. Even calling it "elevated prose" does not make it anywhere close to Hebrew poetry. There is much assertion/speculation in by the scholars cited above with very little to back up what they are saying. Whoever said that the syntax is "distinctively different" from narrative prose (Wenham? I can't tell since there is an ellipsis in the quote) is smoking crack. If you want to see a difference between the syntax of narrative and poetry read a book like the Song of Solomon. First year students of Hebrew will not be able to make heads or tails of it, however, they will be able to translate Genesis 1 without a hitch. 

I do not find a great deal of use from observations of critical scholarship in this discussion to begin with. Why would I take with any seriousness the conclusions of men who would waste time with unbelief , e.g. the Documentary hypothesis ("pure priestly theology"), asserting the possibility of "poetic fragments" and "earlier creation accounts"? That is all scholarly code for "We do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a whole, nor that God spoke to him and gave him insight on the subject, nor that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in any way, rather the Pentateuch was pieced together over hundreds (thousands?) of years by multiple hands using passed on material and editorial liberties". That is the kind of garbage that you will even find "Reformed" professors of the OT handing out to their students.

While I'm on this kick, let me bring up the problem of unbelief in the classroom again. Back to a discussion of my Pentateuch course at WSC. The prof involved was asserting this same type of drivel, that the Levitical codes were not written strictly by Moses, but were editorially inserted as "can be most certainly seen by the parallels between the law code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Leviticus" (which really is not all that clear anyway when you actually compare the two). So I raise my hand (once again) and the prof tries to ignore me (once again). Finally I interject and ask, "You are saying that this stuff was all later editorial patchwork inserted from the law codes of pagan societies, but at the head of almost every chapter in Leviticus it reads that 'the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying such and such' - so what do we make of that?" The answer that I received from a supposedly Reformed prof teaching at a Reformed seminary was astounding. He said, "Well, some of these things are difficult, and don't have easy solutions." Allowing that kind of thinking into a Reformed seminary (which is exactly what you will get from taking your PhD at a higher-critical Roman Catholic institution, and being actively involved in SBL) is why conservative Reformed denominations are getting sloppy with their theology. Students are given the speculative and the novel, and they have no firm foundation set from which they can progress (apart from what they learned at their "fundamentalist" churches - God help them).

I mention all the above, because I do not take issues like Framework, etc. as something to be tossed about in a playful manner. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset behind much of the scholarship, and especially as the ideas of critical OT scholarship has had an influence on some significant Reformed scholars (anybody been keeping up on Pete Enns lately?...). This is a battle that also affects the students who would like to minister later in denominations where these scholars reside. 

Case in point, the OT prof to whom I have been referring made quite clear to me in private conversation that he would do his best to see that I would never be ordained in his presbytery with my "fundamentalist" views of Scripture and my failure to hold a "sufficiently robust position of common grace". This is sinister stuff. To have Christ-loving, Gospel-centered men actively weeded out by denominational academics who want to see their agenda advanced at the expense of young ministers who may find the foundations of their scholarship to be lacking is something very serious, and something that will eventually undermine the work of any denomination.


----------



## shackleton

Here are some lectures I found by Ken Gentry where he refutes the "Framework Hypothesis."

SermonAudio.com - Creational Preparation
SermonAudio.com - Six-Day Opposition
SermonAudio.com - Six-Day Creation


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Archlute said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".
> 
> Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his _An Old Testament Theology_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not poetry. Even calling it "elevated prose" does not make it anywhere close to Hebrew poetry. There is much assertion/speculation in by the scholars cited above with very little to back up what they are saying. Whoever said that the syntax is "distinctively different" from narrative prose (Wenham? I can't tell since there is an ellipsis in the quote) is smoking crack. If you want to see a difference between the syntax of narrative and poetry read a book like the Song of Solomon. First year students of Hebrew will not be able to make heads or tails of it, however, they will be able to translate Genesis 1 without a hitch.
> 
> I do not find a great deal of use from observations of critical scholarship in this discussion to begin with. Why would I take with any seriousness the conclusions of men who would waste time with unbelief , e.g. the Documentary hypothesis ("pure priestly theology"), asserting the possibility of "poetic fragments" and "earlier creation accounts"? That is all scholarly code for "We do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a whole, nor that God spoke to him and gave him insight on the subject, nor that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in any way, rather the Pentateuch was pieced together over hundreds (thousands?) of years by multiple hands using passed on material and editorial liberties". That is the kind of garbage that you will even find "Reformed" professors of the OT handing out to their students.
> 
> While I'm on this kick, let me bring up the problem of unbelief in the classroom again. Back to a discussion of my Pentateuch course at WSC. The prof involved was asserting this same type of drivel, that the Levitical codes were not written strictly by Moses, but were editorially inserted as "can be most certainly seen by the parallels between the law code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Leviticus" (which really is not all that clear anyway when you actually compare the two). So I raise my hand (once again) and the prof tries to ignore me (once again). Finally I interject and ask, "You are saying that this stuff was all later editorial patchwork inserted from the law codes of pagan societies, but at the head of almost every chapter in Leviticus it reads that 'the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying such and such' - so what do we make of that?" The answer that I received from a supposedly Reformed prof teaching at a Reformed seminary was astounding. He said, "Well, some of these things are difficult, and don't have easy solutions." Allowing that kind of thinking into a Reformed seminary (which is exactly what you will get from taking your PhD at a higher-critical Roman Catholic institution, and being actively involved in SBL) is why conservative Reformed denominations are getting sloppy with their theology. Students are given the speculative and the novel, and they have no firm foundation set from which they can progress (apart from what they learned at their "fundamentalist" churches - God help them).
> 
> I mention all the above, because I do not take issues like Framework, etc. as something to be tossed about in a playful manner. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset behind much of the scholarship, and especially as the ideas of critical OT scholarship has had an influence on some significant Reformed scholars (anybody been keeping up on Pete Enns lately?...). This is a battle that also affects the students who would like to minister later in denominations where these scholars reside.
> 
> Case in point, the OT prof to whom I have been referring made quite clear to me in private conversation that he would do his best to see that I would never be ordained in his presbytery with my "fundamentalist" views of Scripture and my failure to hold a "sufficiently robust position of common grace". This is sinister stuff. To have Christ-loving, Gospel-centered men actively weeded out by denominational academics who want to see their agenda advanced at the expense of young ministers who may find the foundations of their scholarship to be lacking is something very serious, and something that will eventually undermine the work of any denomination.
Click to expand...


 &


----------



## PaulB

dannyhyde said:


> To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.



Danny,

Like you and others here, I am a 6 24 hour day guy. However, I did appreciate the fact that at least the framework hypothesis was an attempt to deal with the text of Genesis (ala Dr. Kline) unlike the Gap theory and day age approaches which seemed to just want to find ways to accommodate Darwinian theories.


----------



## DMcFadden

Stephen said:


> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.
Click to expand...


No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul *Sr.* He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.

Actually, listening to R.C. was one of the turning points for me. Hearing him speak so candidly of his own change of mind a few years ago, I started reading YEC material over on the Answers in Genesis site and became convinced for the same reasons R.C. indicated. 

So, no, the references have NOTHING to do with Jr. and I frankly have no idea what he thinks about creation.


----------



## shackleton

Is it safe to say the earth has the appearance of being old because of it being under water for about a year? Plus I am sure it is a lot older that Ussher's 6-7000 years. Within the genealogies throughout the bible I am sure they did not list everyone that had ever lived but only mentioned the important ones. 

There are plenty of cases of rivers subsiding after a flood where it has wrecked great devastation in just a few weeks.


----------



## Stephen

DMcFadden said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul *Sr.* He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.
> 
> Actually, listening to R.C. was one of the turning points for me. Hearing him speak so candidly of his own change of mind a few years ago, I started reading YEC material over on the Answers in Genesis site and became convinced for the same reasons R.C. indicated.
> 
> So, no, the references have NOTHING to do with Jr. and I frankly have no idea what he thinks about creation.
Click to expand...




This is why we have to be careful with anything on the internet. We do not know the origin of these sources, how old they are, or if they are accurate. Obvioiusly this is old news, because Sproul, Sr. does hold to a 6-day creation. I found it interesting that the article was written by someone who would not give their name. That makes me suspious.


----------



## Scott1

> DMcFadden
> McFadderator Minimizing
> 
> No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.



Having read this section of "Truths we Confess" by Dr Sproul and not having had background on the "four views," it seems to me he approached this in this way:

1) States that the historical view is the view of the Westminster Confession (an "article of faith")
2) Gave background for a "crisis" in Genesis theory created by micro-evolution which affected theology
3) Linked the "crisis" to development of several theories in contrast to the historical (literal) view
4) Respectfully and fairly explains three alternate views that have sprung up within evangelical Christianity, how they got started and who started them
5) Anecdotally relates that he was "open" to one view for much of his teaching career but has now changed his mind
6) Persuasively argues for the historical, confessional, literal view

I don't find anything logically or pramatically "fluid" in this- I find intellectual honesty and a very well thought out position. I find this refreshing.

Praise God for that.


----------



## DMcFadden

Scott,

I'm not dissing the doc. He is one of my true theological heroes. My point was about his narrative on the CD as to his change of mind. That was the "fluidity" I was speaking about in my comment. Sproul has been candid, in a couple of places, in describing changes of mind that he has had on issues. In another place he describes his waffling on supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. He practically says, "if this is Tuesday, then I believe x, and if it is Wednesday I probably believe y." These are not criticisms. I find him refreshing as well. My point in response to the brother who suggested that the article was probably referencing R.C. Sproul Jr., was that it was Sr. that was under discussion. My details were intended to substantiate that fact.


----------

