# For those who hold to the Westminster Standards: 6 Day Creation vs. _____________.



## N. Eshelman (Feb 13, 2011)

For those who hold to the Westminster Standards: 

The Standards teach that God created the world in the space of 6 days. That is not biblical language (per se), but theological language. I believe that the obvious reading of our Confession is 6 literal days. Now here's the questions:

1. If an office bearer holds to anything other than 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) should he make known his exception to the presbytery?
2. Should deviation from 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) keep one from holding office? 

I am a 6 literal day guy, but I am wondering what you all think of deviation from "in the space of 6 days?"


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 13, 2011)

1. Yes
2. Maybe

I say maybe on the second one because they may hold to a theistic evolution view which I think should bar one from office. On the other hand they may simply hold a framework view which men much greater than I have determined is within the bounds of orthodoxy and as such should not bar one from office.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 13, 2011)

1. Absolutely, every time, even if the denomination explicitly allows non-literal views. Because the standards govern, the presumption needs to be that they're 6-dayers.
2. Maybe, but I'd want an explanation of their beliefs first, especially on literal Adam, evolution, and the like.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2011)

1) Yes

2) Maybe. Ditto to Scott and Boliver.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 13, 2011)

Pretty much the same as above.

1) Yes

2) Maybe, in certain cases. For instance, Robert Peterson at Covenant Seminary, who is not a literal 6-days guys, argues that Adam must be accepted as a special creation by God (which would rule out theistic evolution). But the one holding to a contrary view would need to be able to explain himself to his presbytery. My fear is that there are some who massage the language of the WCF to the point that they can say a particular non-literal view is strictly confessional and never reveal this view to their presbytery.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 13, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> 1. If an office bearer holds to anything other than 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) should he make known his exception to the presbytery?
> 2. Should deviation from 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) keep one from holding office?



The language of the BCF on this matter is identical, so I'll chime in.

1. Yes, he should absolutely disclose his exception to the presbytery. He should disclose any and all exceptions to documents he is asked to subscribe to. 
2. It may, but not necessarily. The nature of his exception and his own personal view would need to be thoughtfully weighed and considered by the presbytery.


----------



## TimV (Feb 13, 2011)

Perhaps it shouldn't be the Presbytery's decision. Perhaps a detailed position paper or some other tool that's more binding should be employed by the denomination, since rogue Presbyteries seem to be the order of the day.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 13, 2011)

TimV said:


> Perhaps it shouldn't be the Presbytery's decision. Perhaps a detailed position paper or some other tool that's more binding should be employed by the denomination, since rogue Presbyteries seem to be the order of the day.



I'm not sure what you mean here, Tim.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 13, 2011)

I think he means that if it is written in specific and explicit language, there's no going around it by a liberal presbytery.


----------



## Edward (Feb 13, 2011)

I don't believe that 6/24 is required in the PCA. PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

So I'd say 1 Yes, 2 It depends on what other than literal days is in view.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 13, 2011)

Integrity demands an exception. It benefits no one when a denomination or presbytery becomes known for having "invisible exceptions." I am tempted to say "yes" to the second question as well, but I will stick with "probably."


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 13, 2011)

austinww said:


> Integrity demands an exception. It benefits no one when a denomination or presbytery becomes known for having "invisible exceptions."



Well said. The mainline Presbyterians tolerated "crossed fingers" for years when it came to affirming the WCF. Finally, they settled on the abysmal Confession of 1967 to soothe consciences of ministers so they wouldn't have to say they actually believed the Bible.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2011)

Well said Tim.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 13, 2011)

If anyone denies that the world was created in the space of six days, he should be approved by no presbytery for any office. Genesis states this. However, to presume that the Westminster Divines were addressing anything beyond _that_ the world was created is crossing into_ how_ the world was created, which, quite frankly, was not a major issue in the mid-1600s. Given the 150 years of pseudo (and very destructive -- think Freud and Marx) science we have seen, I believe a sensitivity has developed toward the Genesis passages that can be pushed out of place. One should not ask someone to define "day" and then judge him liberal, anti-Biblical or anything else. However, if a person starts crossing over to a evolution-as-mechanism of creation (God depends on time and chance???) or denying the historicity of Adam, then you have some real doctrinal problems clearly demonstrable by interpreting scripture with scripture.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 13, 2011)

1. Yes, however the man doesn't tell the presbytery/session his *exception*, he tells the presbytery/session any *differences *he has and the presbytery/session decides what is an *exception.
*2. The Presbytery decides what is and isn't an exception, and decides what is acceptable and unacceptable for holding office.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 13, 2011)

Personally while I am a young earth 6 day creationist, I think its the wrong subject to debate. The real issue is a literal first Adam and Eve and a real fall. Some of the old earthers do hold to a literal Adam and a fall in Eden, so despite our disagreement, they are not flushing what Paul said down the toilet. As for the rest....as in millions of years of hairy primates all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive?...I don't think that works so well....


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2011)

1. Yes. Be forthright about your differences.

2. Not necessarily. And if presbyteries do make this an automatic exclusion from office, one effect is to discourage forthrightness when it comes to #1.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 13, 2011)

1) Yes. 

Very likely, this will come out in the thorough examination of a teaching elder, and be dealt with right there. Any difference from the "literal" view is to be evaluated by the presbytery as request for an exception. Anecdotal only, some presbyteries will not allow any difference, but many, if not most, would look at the substance of the difference around the term "days," perhaps looking at the Study Report that analyzed three other views on that substance.

In any case, any difference ought request an exception, even if that difference is only "semantic." 



> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> RULES OF ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS
> ...



In the PCA, the examination, while rigorous and thorough for ruling and elders, is geared more toward their calling (not primarily as teachers, nor as ministers of the Word and sacrament), so it is not as likely to come up there.

In any event, an officer who does not believe the literal, "classical" view needs to submit his views as an exception. This includes anyone who changes to, or later becomes convinced of another view.

2) Yes, sometimes.

Once we acknowledge the classical view, clearly in the Westminster Standards, only then can we consider any difference from it.

Having always assumed the "literal" view, yet acknowledging that a "day" might not have been the same time at creation as it is today (not saying it was, but allowing for the possibility) does not seem to compromise something vital. Not in itself, that's why the person's views need to be carefully examined.

If the substance of God creating (and governing and sustaining) (and not chance natural forces) is preserved, and understood by the officer, the officer might be qualified to serve as an officer. (I say so, even reluctantly, but charitably).


----------



## Kevin (Feb 13, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> 1. Yes, however the man doesn't tell the presbytery/session his *exception*, he tells the presbytery/session any *differences *he has and the presbytery/session decides what is an *exception.
> *2. The Presbytery decides what is and isn't an exception, and decides what is acceptable and unacceptable for holding office.


 
Ditto.

---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 AM ----------

but to reply to the intent of the op,

1) yes
2) depends on what he believes the 6 days mean.


----------



## ADKing (Feb 14, 2011)

Nathan,
I'll try to be a bit more black and white 

1. yes
2. yes (no maybe, in some circumstances etc etc)

How's that?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 14, 2011)

> 1. If an office bearer holds to anything other than 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) should he make known his exception to the presbytery?
> 2. Should deviation from 6 literal days (in the space of 6 days) keep one from holding office?



1.Yes

2.Maybe. But his views on micro and macro evolution, theistic evolution, and Adam are even more important.

I'm highly sceptical of attempts to make the Six Days metaphorical, yet I don't see the Universe and Earth themselves being stated to be made on any of the Six Days, and there is the possibility of a gap in time between 1:2 and 1:3. Therefore some people might believe that the Heavens and the Earth were formed and filled in Six Days, while they believe that the Bible may allow for the Heavens and Earth themselves being created much earlier.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 14, 2011)

> there is the possibility of a gap in time between 1:2 and 1:3. Therefore some people might believe that the Heavens and the Earth were formed and filled in Six Days, while they believe that the Bible may allow for the Heavens and Earth themselves being created much earlier.



Good Free Churchman following brother Chalmers!


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 14, 2011)

Some PCA Presbyteries do not require a stated difference to the standards if a candidate believes the days in the Creation account are non literal. I believe this was discussed on another thread about the Westminster Standards and it was put forth in that thread that the PCA (after the study committee report on Creation) leaves it up to the Presbyteries to determine what the Standards actually mean by "day."


----------



## sastark (Feb 14, 2011)

1. Yes
2. Yes (and, noting Andrew's careful wording above, I would add that Presbyteries/Sessions are made up of individual men who have opinions as to whether or not non-confessional beliefs are to be allowed by office bearers.)


----------



## SRoper (Feb 14, 2011)

1. Yes, although I see the language as echoing Ex. 20:11--that is the confession's language is biblical and not theological, contra the OP.
2. Depends on which view the candidate holds.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 14, 2011)

Coming from the Continental Reformed tradition, the same debate has been going

over the Creation Days in the Reformed Camp(s) in the States, Canada or in Holland.

That’s right, unlike the Westminster Standards, in the 3FU there is

no mention of the 6 days of creation.

Yet, that doesn’t make it less Confessionally Binding if we approach it from the side

of the Doctrine of Scripture. That In my humble opinion may nails the matter!

For instance Rev. Mark Zykstra writes


"Some believe that: since the Three Forms of Unity do not specifically address the matter of the "days" of creation, that therefore the "framework" view should receive equal credibility as does the "strict literalist" view. They argue that neither view is spelled out in the confessions and therefore both views are equally valid and should both be accepted in the churches. (…)

I am convinced that the interpretation of the creation account known as the "framework hypothesis" lacks substantial exegetical foundation. There are no Scriptural (internal) indicators to suggest that Genesis 1 is anything other than ordinary prose giving us a sequence of historical facts of a creation, ex-nihilo by God in a time of six ordinary days in a chronological order. There is no grammatical warrant for any other argument and the approach used by those who support or embrace the framework hypothesis insufficiently apply the grammatical historical approach to the text and introduce us to another method of interpretation. The deficient hermeneutic used not only fails to do full justice to the grammatical/historical rule, it also undermines our confession with regards to the perspicuity of Scripture and there are no clear limits to that hermeneutic."

No latitude given here by the Divines at Westminster

or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 14, 2011)

SRoper said:


> 1. Yes, although I see the language as echoing Ex. 20:11--that is the confession's language is biblical and not theological, contra the OP.



The word "space" is not in Exodus 20:11, or in the Genesis account of the creation. The word is taking a theological stand on creation. I believe "space of 6 days" is to differentiate between views (ie, the Augustinian view is being written against).


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 14, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> ie, the Augustinian view is being written against



Excellent distinction; thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 14, 2011)

brianeschen said:


> Some PCA Presbyteries do not require a stated difference to the standards if a candidate believes the days in the Creation account are non literal. I believe this was discussed on another thread about the Westminster Standards and it was put forth in that thread that the PCA (after the study committee report on Creation) leaves it up to the Presbyteries to determine what the Standards actually mean by "day."


 
Can you clarify this?

Is this saying the candidate, on their own, determines whether they hold an acceptable non-literal view (of the days of creation)

or 

is it saying the candidate has a duty to know the classical view, and the Presbytery a duty to inquire into differences from it, but can accept a non-literal view if it believes that view does not "strike at the vitals of religion," or "the system of doctrine contained?"

Any idea how the Study Committee left this- or did it unclear?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 14, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> > there is the possibility of a gap in time between 1:2 and 1:3. Therefore some people might believe that the Heavens and the Earth were formed and filled in Six Days, while they believe that the Bible may allow for the Heavens and Earth themselves being created much earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Good Free Churchman following brother Chalmers!


 
I haven't read Chalmers on this, but I think he held to a ruin/reconstruction theory.

I was thinking more of a (possible according to the text) period of time when the Earth and Heavens were created but unformed and unfilled and when the wicked angels rebelled and fell.


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 14, 2011)

Nathan,
That is a sticky one for me. Obviously yes on #1, but I think yes on #2 as well. I believe any plain reading of the confession makes it obvious that the confession is speaking of literal days. I for one believe that if you don't hold to literal days then you should take an exception. The problem is that in my opinion, Presbyterians, namely Southern Presbyterians, (PCA) especially, have been fairly generous in this regard. There has been much liberty granted on this issue in the PCA. Some presbyteries may not, but on the whole, much liberty is given it seems to me. The other area of liberty is views on the Sabbath....but that's another can of worms.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 14, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Some PCA Presbyteries do not require a stated difference to the standards if a candidate believes the days in the Creation account are non literal. I believe this was discussed on another thread about the Westminster Standards and it was put forth in that thread that the PCA (after the study committee report on Creation) leaves it up to the Presbyteries to determine what the Standards actually mean by "day."
> ...


What I meant to say is that it is not even considered a difference that needs to be stated. The Westminster Standards leave room for ordinary and non ordinary days, therefore those who hold to framework, etc. can hold to "in the space of six days" as meaning non ordinary days. There would not even be an exception noted in the minutes for candidates on this issue.

Chris seemed to indicate that this shift took place after the GA study committee on Creation (http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/nature-westminster-standards-65873/#post846646). Apparently it is acceptable in the PCA for Presbyteries to judge that believing in non ordinary days is in line with what the Standards teach and therefore no difference stated . . . no exception granted.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 14, 2011)

[/QUOTE]

I was thinking more of a (possible according to the text) period of time when the Earth and Heavens were created but unformed and unfilled and when the wicked angels rebelled and fell.[/QUOTE]

Same thing, I think.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Feb 14, 2011)

1. Yes
2. Yes


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 14, 2011)

> PCA
> Report of the Creation Study Committee
> 
> PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000
> ...



It would seem the Study, to be given "due and serious consideration," but not strictly binding on a court (Session or Presbytery) suggests one of two approaches:

1) Require exceptions because the classical view is the intention of the Framers
2) Do not require exceptions because the length of the days can be understood in four(?) different ways within the intention of the Framers

This suggests, in accordance with the Study committee advice, that a court would need to make general inquiry, at least, into the affirmations (bold) as a basis for either approach. 

So it would seem.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 15, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> It would seem the Study, to be given "due and serious consideration," but not strictly binding on a court (Session or Presbytery) suggests one of two approaches:
> 
> 1) Require exceptions because the classical view is the intention of the Framers
> 2) Do not require exceptions because the length of the days can be understood in four(?) different ways within the intention of the Framers
> ...



That is a fair summary. And yes, general inquiry is made into Creation views.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 15, 2011)

I see all these “yes” responses to the first question. But six-day creationism is QIRC according to those in the process of recovering our confessions. How can you tell an elder they must take an exception to a view that is inherently uncertain if not irrational?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2011)

*Quote from Nathan*



> *Richard*
> 
> 
> > I was thinking more of a (possible according to the text) period of time when the Earth and Heavens were created but unformed and unfilled and when the wicked angels rebelled and fell.
> ...


 
Not quite. I think Chalmers may have stuck the dinosaurs etc in his gap.


----------



## sastark (Feb 15, 2011)

tcalbrecht said:


> I see all these “yes” responses to the first question. But six-day creationism is QIRC according to those in the process of recovering our confessions. How can you tell an elder they must take an exception to a view that is inherently uncertain if not irrational?


 
Not "recovering our confession*s*" but recovering "*the* reformed confession".


----------



## SRoper (Feb 16, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Yes, although I see the language as echoing Ex. 20:11--that is the confession's language is biblical and not theological, contra the OP.
> ...



That's true. I suppose space does make it a theological statement, although it seems to be a lot of weight on a single word. We're pretty close to the territory covered by scruples over language.


----------

