# Old Earth v. Young Earth



## Puritanhead

I was watching something about dinosaurs and recollect debates when we were in college... old earth v. young earth.

What do learned scholars here-- think of the bountiful _old earth_ theories that the earth was met with some earlier cataclysm and God make things anew. For example, my Reformation Study Bible notes on Genesis 1 declare:


> Some suggest that vv. 1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time. They argue that the initial creation fell into a desolate condition (perhaps because of the fall of Satan), and that the Hebrew word here translated "was" should be rendered "became." This view is very doubtful, however, because the the description, "without form, and void" refers more naturally to a creation yet to be formed and filled, rather than to one that had fallen into disrepair.



Not sure that explains things, but I understand Unger's commentary takes such an approach. It also rolled up in the idea that the _days_ in the creative narrative are merely symbolic of periods... I believe the Hebrew is "yom."

I'm partisan to young earth idea myself.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Mike

Young earth. The whole Bible operates on the idea expressed in the first few chapters of Genesis of our first parents' being created and bringing sin into the world and the real development of the human race as described. This effects not only our views of creation, but then of original sin and the effects of sin and the curse.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

there are at least two forms of the gap theory that you mention.
The first is due to Scofield's reference Bible notes.
see the wiki for a decent introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

the second is appears to be due to Arthur Custance, this will get you into his work:
http://custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/Introduction.html

as:
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/3.1.htm
points out, Sailhamer is another recent author teaching a form of the gap theory.

i don't see it very often on the creation-evolution-design boards but when someone believes it they are often very vocal seeing it as the virtual solution to all the problems in the topic.


----------



## matthew11v25

studying Literary framework.


----------



## Puritanhead

Thank you for your responses.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

gap theory my foot. its nothing more than a compromise with the evolutionists. The creation account in Genesis is the perfect test as to how strong a person's faith it.


----------



## Scott

I am young earth. If you want to look at the various views, see the PCA Creation Study Committee Report.


----------



## BobVigneault

The framework theory is the best and here's why. The subscriber sells it as a theory that is consistent with scripture and isn't a compromise with the evolutionist. Most people wanting to appear erudite and theologically hip won't ask what the framework theory is and so you win. 

If someone does ask what the framework theory is, you reply, "well it's pretty complicated" and point them to a website. Here the seeker will find such twists and turns that they will eventually give up and decide they are going to be a framework theorist as well because it's so complicated it must be correct. This intense complexity makes it very appealing to the reformed who are accustomed to wordy labyrinths in text.

You may streamline your apologetic by saying you subscribe to the framework theory and then hand the person a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean. This will have the same effect.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> The framework theory is the best and here's why. The subscriber sells it as a theory that is consistent with scripture and isn't a compromise with the evolutionist. Most people wanting to appear erudite and theologically hip won't ask what the framework theory is and so you win.
> 
> If someone does ask what the framework theory is, you reply, "well it's pretty complicated" and point them to a website. Here the seeker will find such twists and turns that they will eventually give up and decide they are going to be a framework theorist as well because it's so complicated it must be correct. This intense complexity makes it very appealing to the reformed who are accustomed to wordy labyrinths in text.
> 
> You may streamline your apologetic by saying you subscribe to the framework theory and then hand the person a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean. This will have the same effect.



Bob,

With all due respect, that's not quite accurate or entirely fair. It's true that it's not, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it for me" but it's a little simpler than you represent.

It simply says that there are 3 sets of rulers and three sets of realms in Gen 1. God rules over them all and man rules as his vice-gerant, to use Murray's term. That's not too complicated is it? I think that's only two sentences. How many sentences do I have to use before an interpretation is deemed too complicated? On this theory whole chunks of our theology would be in jeopardy!

Strictly speaking, one can hold six days and the framework and many do. E J Young held the framework in the 1940's in his OT Introduction.

The bigger question in the whole debate is what is the _theological_ effect of the framework? So far I haven't seen any coherent answers to this question. I can't see that it affects one's doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, or last things.

Yes, I realize that hermeneutics pervade all the loci, but still I don't see any necessary effect. All the frameworkers I know are perfectly orthodox. There may be unorthodox frameworkers, but is that unorthodoxy a necessary consequence of the framework? I think not.

Finally, I know it's buried in a 1955 WTJ article, ("Because it Had Rained" -- maybe it's on the web, I haven't checked) but folk should make the effort to actually read the Kline essay and perhaps the Futato essay "Because it Had Rained" before they start bombing away.

MGK has spent more than 50 years defending the unity of the covenant of grace against the dispensationalists, and the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture against the critics. He's defended the gospel against the moralists (Shepherd) and done remarkable scholarship in the relations between the ANE culture and the Scriptures. I think he deserves a little more respect than he gets from his 6-day critics.

I don't really want to get embroiled in the creation debate again. A fellow can only carry on so many at one time, so this is an unfair hit and run post. Mea culpa.

rsc


----------



## BobVigneault

Scott, my comments were mean't to be tongue in cheek for I know very little about the hypothesis. 'Very little about the hypothesis' is coincidently the same amount the proponents whom I have met knew as well.

Thank you as always for steering me toward a couple of sources. I would like to know more. Lord willing and if I can find the time I will become familiar enough to accept or debate the theory.

For now, the stones I threw were made of foam and my comments were more for entertainment than didactic purposes. Come on, "a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean". Didn't you think that was funny? Did I get a chuckle? A smile? A nod? Man, I've got to find some new material.

Blessings brother, thanks again for the direction. You do that so well.


----------



## BobVigneault

A google search scored Kline here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

And a pdf of Futato over at thirdmill.org
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/92974~9_27_99_7-13-34_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.1.pdf.


----------



## py3ak

I thought it was a scream, Bob.


----------



## BobVigneault

Thank you for that vote of approval Ruben, my existence here is now justified. As a reward for giving me a little encouragement your post count has been increased by 1. Don't thank ME, it's the very least I could do.


----------



## py3ak

Bob,

I can barely restrain my feelings of obligation. Perhaps I could give you my firstborn son in return? Wait! Look at that, it's gone up again. I'd throw in my daughter, too, only both of them are hypothetical.


----------



## just_grace

One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?

I recently viewed a dvd called Microcosmos, afterwards, the conclusion is, God is! Thats the end of it, the author is bringing out a new one soon called 'Genesis'. You can view a trailer here...

http://www.genesis-lefilm.com/

Not sure if the guy is Christian but his films inspire my faith, this new one seems a bit Darwi but not totally.

Does it matter?


----------



## just_grace

Duplicate post?

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Scott, my comments were mean't to be tongue in cheek for I know very little about the hypothesis. 'Very little about the hypothesis' is coincidently the same amount the proponents whom I have met knew as well.
> 
> Thank you as always for steering me toward a couple of sources. I would like to know more. Lord willing and if I can find the time I will become familiar enough to accept or debate the theory.
> 
> For now, the stones I threw were made of foam and my comments were more for entertainment than didactic purposes. Come on, "a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean". Didn't you think that was funny? Did I get a chuckle? A smile? A nod? Man, I've got to find some new material.
> 
> Blessings brother, thanks again for the direction. You do that so well.



Sorry, missed the context. I did laugh at the middle korean thing.

what's the proper icon for "my stupid response" - there should be one with a smiley pointing a gun to his own head.

Mea maxima culpa.

Having been on the receving end of endless criticism on this for 20+ years I'm getting a little reactionary in my old age.

rsc


----------



## BobVigneault

One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?

Yes David it does. First, don't be tricked into thinking that using a new testament greek passage to interpret an old testament hebrew word is a good hermeneutic. It's not.

Second, why should day mean day in most of the OT passages but millions of years in Gen 1. 

Does it matter? Did Joshua march around Jericho 7 thousand times (millions even)? Was Jonah in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years? Was Jesus in the tomb for 3 thousand days?

There is absolutely no need to compromise with the evolutionists. Blessings.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> One day is the same as a thousand years ( millions even ) Does it matter?
> 
> Yes David it does. First, don't be tricked into thinking that using a new testament greek passage to interpret an old testament hebrew word is a good hermeneutic. It's not.
> 
> Second, why should day mean day in most of the OT passages but millions of years in Gen 1.
> 
> Does it matter? Did Joshua march around Jericho 7 thousand times (millions even)? Was Jonah in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years? Was Jesus in the tomb for 3 thousand days?
> 
> There is absolutely no need to compromise with the evolutionists. Blessings.



Jericho was obviously literal 24hrs = 1 day, people were there to witness it.

How you shut your eyes to the thought of God with regards to time is your business.

And yes, does it matter? How does it change the Gospel?


----------



## BobVigneault

Dr. Scott,
no culpa is necessary. Your response was given in gentleness and grace. Your 'mea maxima culpa' was equally superfluous and I wish you hadn't used it because, as you well know, there is no where to go now except to the "trinus canis culpa". Yes, let us both hope that we are never in the situation that we need to invoke the 'triple dog culpa'. Have a great day brother.


----------



## BobVigneault

"And yes, does it matter? How does it change the Gospel?"

Because our knowledge of the Gospel depends on the propositions of scripture being true and trustworthy. If the words used in Genesis are nebulous and indistinct then why should we trust the words and propositions of the Gospel narratives. Is the book of Genesis the infallible word of God or the idlings of a disgraced Egyptian who was tending sheep too long? We can't pick and choose or arbitrarily apply a changing hermeneutic to the Word.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## just_grace

It's funny, but my knowledge of God comes by being 'born again' after that I learn from the Bible, I recieved the Holy Spirit, it is He who leads me into all truth.

I knew nothing of the OT when I got saved! My knowledge of Christianity does not rest on the OT but in God and Christ. And most importantly 'Grace'.

Thanks

David


----------



## BobVigneault

I am pleased to hear that David, but I will take the liberty to qualify your statement that what you mean is you believe in the God of the OT and NT and in Jesus Christ as revealed in both testaments. If you don't qualify this then I have to ask, which Christ have you placed your faith in. You can't separate the truth of God from his revelation. The Holy Spirit may give you a certain intangible unction but it is the truth of the written Word that He leads you into.

Grace to you friend.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## just_grace

Yes, I think is the answer, sorry I am on my laptop washing dishes  in the kitchen so I am a bit distracted.

In former times.....

But now.....

Let me ask you a question! Can we know and experience God more through the OT or the NT and what did the writer of Hebrews mean by 'a new and LIVING Way'

Answer this.

I have to go out for a bit soon.

Thanks

David


----------



## BobVigneault

My David, it does sound like you have your hands full. I hope your laptop is water proof and not plugged into the wall. You should get hazardous duty pay for using a laptop while washing dishes.

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 

We now have access to God in a new way as opposed to the old way, the covenant of works. It is a living way in that the covenant of works leads to death. 

This passage refers to the new covenant of grace and in no way changes how God reveals his truth to us. In fact, the only way to understand the idioms of the book of Hebrews is to be familiar with the rituals listed in Leviticus. All of scripture is a unity, one Christ-centered history of redemption. We let scripture interpret scripture. Christ did not put an end to the Law and the Prophets but he fulfilled these writings.

We can experience God in His Word and without Genesis 1 through 11 we would lose the foundations for the bulk of our Christian doctrines. 

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## just_grace

I am not always washing dishes lol!

Nice one, not convinced about your interpretation on Christianity being 'Living' though.

1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?

Thanks

David

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yeah, you go, Bob!





(okay for anyone who doesn't know...that WAS a really cool dancing m&m)

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## just_grace

?


----------



## BobVigneault

"1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"

David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> "1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"
> 
> David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.



I thought it was quite clear.


----------



## just_grace

Gird up the loins of your mind? Put Peters names to that, the Apostle.

A better man than J Gill ever was!


----------



## just_grace

Sometimes I think the reformers clan would put the reformers before the Apostles. How dare anyone interfere with our doctrine lol!


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> "1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"
> 
> David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was quite clear.
Click to expand...


To be honest, if you said 'no' then in my eyes you would be a 'heretic'.

Thoughts please...


----------



## kceaster

Moses wrote that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, and he also wrote that God told Abraham his family would be enslaved for 400 years.

Neither of these things did Moses witness.

How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?

Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?

I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## raderag

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> gap theory my foot. its nothing more than a compromise with the evolutionists. The creation account in Genesis is the perfect test as to how strong a person's faith it.



How so?


----------



## just_grace

Ok, but how does one thought or the other effect the Gospel?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL????????????

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## BobVigneault

"Gird up the loins of your mind? Put Peters names to that, the Apostle.

A better man than J Gill ever was! 

To be honest, if you said 'no' then in my eyes you would be a 'heretic'.

Thoughts please... "

Hmmmmm, I think you need a beer my friend. Let's go to the pub. I'm buying. No more Red Bulls for you.


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Moses wrote that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, and he also wrote that God told Abraham his family would be enslaved for 400 years.
> 
> Neither of these things did Moses witness.
> 
> How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?
> 
> Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?
> 
> I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Ok, but how does any of this theology change Christian teaching?

I am not Darwi btw. How can I be?

David


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Moses wrote that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, and he also wrote that God told Abraham his family would be enslaved for 400 years.
> 
> Neither of these things did Moses witness.
> 
> How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?
> 
> Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?
> 
> I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



The question is not what God could do, but what he revealed to us in Genesis and what he intends us to think on the basis of that revelation.

Those whom I know who doubt the 6/24 reading of Gen 1 do not question ex nihilo creation or fiat creation or any other essential Christian truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I am a 6-day Creationist because I haven't been convinced to believe otherwise. I have an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering and understand radioactive dating methods. I also know a bit about the tautology between geology and the "fossil record" with respect to the dating of fossil finds. There are a number of issues that, scientifically, militate against a really old universe.

That said, I was listening to R.C. Sproul recently when he was talking about General Revelation. He asked the question: "Is General Revelation infallible?" He concluded that because, in fact, General Revelation is God's revelation it is infallible. I agree. What is fallible, of course, is our interpretation of that revelation given our sinful condition.

Nevertheless, as an example, he brought up Galileo.  Even the Reformers (Calvin and Luther) needed to be "reformed" in their dogmatic view of geocentricity. They condemned the notion of a heliocentric solar system based on what they believed to be unequivocal language in the Scriptures that indicated otherwise.

To be fair to Calvin and Luther, of course, the scientific establishment also balked at the notion of heliocentricity. The original Copernican hypothesis was that the orbits were *circular*. The orbital equations just didn't work out right on paper and scientists had formulas that worked for a geocentric system. It wasn't until Kepler showed that, if the orbits are *elliptical*, then the orbital equations work for a helocentric system and are FAR less complicated than the geocentric system.

So what's the point in all of this? I just think we ought to be careful before we refuse to look through Galileo's telescope. We need not be gullible and believe every scientific theory. Darwinism is foolish not only because it's bad theology but because it's bad science. Nevertheless, if men, as they're subduing Creation, discover something new about the nature of the Universe from general revelation and it is true, then it is True. It does not overthrow Special Revelation but it might reform a mis-interpretion of phenomenological language.

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritanhead

Interesting post Rich.

Has anyone read that book _Creation in Six Days_? I've read a lot of creationism books, but not that one. I was wondering if what anyone thought about it.

Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry


----------



## Contra_Mundum

My position? 6 days. Young earth.

[gasp--shock--stunned silence]

Well, when it comes to conflicting interpretations, it really is "survival of the fittest," right?


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Come on, "a quickstart manual for a printer written in middle-Korean". Didn't you think that was funny? Did I get a chuckle? A smile? A nod? Man, I've got to find some new material.
> 
> Blessings brother, thanks again for the direction. You do that so well.



Bob, I always love the humor in your posts...I'm still burning down the KFC w/ you. However, I'm sure you know you shouldn't quit the day job! 



Robin


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is not what God could do, but what he *revealed* to us in Genesis and what he intends us to think on the basis of that revelation.
Click to expand...


  THE point to bear in mind!

Which probably means that Adam's role as "vice-regent" might mean something important..... ??? 

r.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Moses wrote that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, and he also wrote that God told Abraham his family would be enslaved for 400 years.
> 
> Neither of these things did Moses witness.
> 
> How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?
> 
> Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?
> 
> I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is not what God could do, but what he revealed to us in Genesis and what he intends us to think on the basis of that revelation.
> 
> Those whom I know who doubt the 6/24 reading of Gen 1 do not question ex nihilo creation or fiat creation or any other essential Christian truth.
Click to expand...


Well, Dr. Clark, there are more things involved than things about the creation days. There are essential Christian truths at stake that have to do with the first part of what you said, about going beyond revelation without authority, and putting that on par with what _is_ revealed. There is the matter of the fallacy of using one's position and the church to foist one position as equal to or greater than another, when in fact the opinions have never been properly introduced into church discussions. 

The point is, elders and ministers are not to speak or write outside their authority, for that compromises the office and the Church, namely the authority given it by Christ. Their office is not to give leading opinions, but to minister and administer Christ's authority. When speaking or writing outside their office, it must be clear that they have distanced themselves from their offices and the official church. This has not been done at all over this issue. 

It is for that reason that I consider all alternative views as illegitimate. 

To me this is the major issue, not the creation days themselves. I think it is a bigger issue than the creation days. It has to do with how we view the Word of God, whether we are really serious about the things we say about the Word of God as the Word of God. It is, as you say, a matter of what God reveals, and what He intends for us to believe. And the plain reading of the Word still must be dealt with, that He makes the direct correlation between the week days and the creation days. It cannot be sloughed off that easily. Just positing a theory is still only just positing a theory. Nothing more. Not when it is supposed to stand beside the Word of God; or as some have it, superimposed upon the Word of God. It sends shivers down my spine just to think that people to that so easily. 

The doctrine of the Word of God is an essential Christian truth.


----------



## Mike

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Ok, but how does one thought or the other effect the Gospel?
> 
> FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL????????????


This is something in the word of God, and therefore is inspired by Him and profitable for knowledge. 

The issues here are not the most essential, perhaps, but they certainly do interplay with the good news (in letting us know what was wrong to begin with, principally) and certainly deserve our respect and careful interpretation as the very Word of God.


----------



## kceaster

I guess my question about all of this is why does our reading and understanding of God's Word change because of the "wisdom" of man?

If God can create ex nihilo, then could He not also reveal and illuminate the exact truth to Moses without the use of a telescope, radioisotope dating, and geological surveys? It seems to me that we're asking men to discover the scientific truth about creation and we're doing it apart from what God reveals. I'm not suggesting for one moment that cancer research is a waste of time because God has already revealed His word. That's a bit different. The question of creation is not so much scientific as it is philosophic. We know Plato and Aristotle were wrong about origins, but if they hadn't written and thought about it, I'm not so sure science would now be looking to prove any theory other than God's truth.

For me it goes back to Van Tillian apologetics. We need to realize that God is creator, we are creature. Man constantly and consistently suppresses the truth of that. So, why would we think that God is expanding the revelation of Himself to include allowances from ungodly men? This is a concession point. I don't care if a Reformed man who upholds the standards has his conscience pricked because he believes in the gap theory. This is a superaddition to the Christian thinking. As Bob has pointed out, can very many people holding to framework understand it? I know I can't. I've read Futato. And I'm sorry, but framework is not for laymen, it's more for a serious scientific mind.

What does God reveal to the most simple of Christians? What can everyone understand? How has God lisped this truth? He created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Children understand this.

But when they grow up, they are bombarded with choices on the matter, and I think it's just plain wrong. It's not only a question we can't answer (detail about the creative process), but we are foolish if we think we can. God could never explain it, even with the most brilliant human mind. We don't understand "out of nothing" because we don't know what "nothing" is.

So, my statement is, let science do as it may. But it is always God confounding the wisdom of this world. They think they know so much, but God is allowing them to flounder in their sin. In the end, I don't believe we're putting enough emphasis on the noetic effects of sin as it regards science. We regale them because of their advances, but God sees the corruption of His image. We should too.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV

> _from Kevin_
> For me it goes back to Van Tillian apologetics. We need to realize that God is creator, we are creature. Man constantly and consistently suppresses the truth of that. So, why would we think that God is expanding the revelation of Himself to include allowances from ungodly men? This is a concession point. I don't care if a Reformed man who upholds the standards has his conscience pricked because he believes in the gap theory. This is a superaddition to the Christian thinking. As Bob has pointed out, can very many people holding to framework understand it? I know I can't. I've read Futato. And I'm sorry, but framework is not for laymen, it's more for a serious scientific mind.
> 
> What does God reveal to the most simple of Christians? What can everyone understand? How has God lisped this truth? He created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Children understand this.
> 
> But when they grow up, they are bombarded with choices on the matter, and I think it's just plain wrong. It's not only a question we can't answer (detail about the creative process), but we are foolish if we think we can. God could never explain it, even with the most brilliant human mind. We don't understand "out of nothing" because we don't know what "nothing" is.
> 
> So, my statement is, let science do as it may. But it is always God confounding the wisdom of this world. They think they know so much, but God is allowing them to flounder in their sin. In the end, I don't believe we're putting enough emphasis on the noetic effects of sin as it regards science. We regale them because of their advances, but God sees the corruption of His image. We should too.


I don't agree with you either, Kevin. I don't mean to be disagreeing with everyone, but the problem is a whole lot easier than all this. First, if you're going back as far as Van Til, why not go further back. After all, he's not the best exponent of the view of the originality of authority in the self-revelation of Christ. 

The fact of the matter is that the actual creation has very little to do with this problem. We know so little about it, and it provides an opportunity to speculate, even about what the Word of God says. And this speculation involves minimizing what we do know, and too often maximizing what we speculate. When the men of Westminster wrote "in the space of six days" they were not dealing with science, they were dealing with Scripture. This is what the Scripture leads us to believe. 

This is not a matter of pitting the minds of science against the minds of simple believers. It is a matter of being overrun by men who claim to know more than they do. What have we got to put up alongside Scripture? Do we have science? Is it really science? Are we not relying on our own judgments here? And does not Alexander Pope ring true here?


> 'Tis with our judgments as with our watches, none
> Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
> _Essay on Criticism_


Science is not science if it does whatever men may do with it. And we are tending to do the same with our philosophies and theology. Let these theories be properly introduced, according to the rules. And let us not trust our own judgments, but only the necessities of both general and special revelation. Speculation is still only speculation, no matter how many people believe it, and no matter what pressure society may put upon us to accept it. And neither may men holding office impose anything more than what they have proper authority to impose, or use their office in any way for what it is not meant. 

These are the issues. Take away these concerns, and all we have is individuals with different opinions, but with no effect on what is certain; neither directly or indirectly. No matter how complicated the explanations may be, the clear distinctions remain for one and all.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> RSC: The question is not what God could do, but what he revealed to us in Genesis and what he intends us to think on the basis of that revelation.
> 
> Those whom I know who doubt the 6/24 reading of Gen 1 do not question ex nihilo creation or fiat creation or any other essential Christian truth.





> John: Well, Dr. Clark, there are more things involved than things about the creation days. There are essential Christian truths at stake that have to do with the first part of what you said, about going beyond revelation without authority, and putting that on par with what _is_ revealed.



I quite agree. Ministers aren't generally scientists. Our job as ministers is to serve the Word of God. The creation debate is an exegetical and theological debate. My point about theology is that it doesn't work to set up an argument whereby anyone who disagrees with view x no longer believes the Bible. E.g., 

1. I believe the Bible
2. The bible teaches x 
3. You deny x
4. Ergo you deny the Bible.

What any private person or minister things the Bible teaches about x is interesting, but unless it's confessed by the churches it cannot be required as a doctrinal standard. 

We should not assume (as I think too many do) that if we all just use the same method the same way we'll all arrive at the same conclusions. Exegesis is as much art and science and it doesn't work that way. Folks using the same, sound, hermeneutic can arrive at different exegetical conclusions. There is some liberty in exegesis within confessional boundaries.

On creation, it seems to me that the confessional issues are the inerrancy of the Word, its perspicuity, and the cardinal doctrines of ex nihilo creation, the historicity of Adam and the like.

In the controversy over the framework (or even the day/age view or the analogical view) none of these doctrines or commitments is in question.

The idea of using one particular view of the creation days as a doctrinal norm or as mark of Reformed orthodoxy is relatively new in American Reformed/Presbyterian experience and it seems to me it is fueled by a fearful, reactionary spirit. 

Mind you, I'm not saying that the 6/24 view is fundamentalist, but ONLY that it's use as a standard of orthodoxy is not particularly confessional, as the American Presbyterians have understood vow 2 and have received the confession. 

In Dutch Reformed (ex-CRC) circles it is widely and wrongly believed that MGK's view are identical to those of Howard Van Til (a Calvin College prof). Nothing could be farther from the truth. MGK rejected HVT's invitation to participate in a project on creation because he disagreed with HVT's hermeneutic and conclusions. 

I know this argument isn't compelling to all, but I keep making it. We say we love the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen, but NONE of them held the 6/24 view. Indeed, BBW may well have been an evolutionist of some kind! 

I understand that doesn't make the 6/24 view correct, but there are too many folk in our churches who are ready to chuck the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen out of our churches (in a sort of retrospective purge) in their prosecution of the alleged heresy of non-6/24 views. Respected elders in confessional Presbyterian churches have told me that they would file charges against these fellows if they were alive today! 

That's remarkable.

The 6/24 view may be correct. There's nothing about it, however, that is distinctively Reformed. Holding it does not make one "Reformed." Lots of non-Reformed folk hold it and deny it. In that way it must function differently than say Christology (or predestination or justification or Word and Spirit etc) on which there is a distinctively Reformed view. It is impossible to deny the Reformed Christology and still say that one is Reformed. The 6/24 view doesn't function in the same way.



> John: There is the matter of the fallacy of using one's position and the church to foist one position as equal to or greater than another, when in fact the opinions have never been properly introduced into church discussions.



I quite agree. That's why we have confessions. The confessions norm what it is to be Reformed. The imposition of extra-confessional dogmas as norms or measuring sticks for what it is to be Reformed is highly damaging. 

I understand that some use this argument against me regarding covenant theology. I admit that the historic 3 covenant scheme is not as explicit in the three forms as it is in in the Standards, but it's implicit and it's how the 3 forms were understood by those who wrote them and adopted them (e.g., at Dort). Still, on that principle, I'm willing to admit a minister who denies the pactum salutis, though I think it's a grave theological mistake, because it's not explicit. I have a little more trouble admitting someone who denies the covenant of works, though I might be persuaded. If, however, as a result of his covenant theology, he denies Q 21 or Q 60 of the HC in substance (as the FV does) then we have a case.

It's a matter of setting theological priorities. Those who subscribe the Westminster Standards must affirm "in the space of six days" as that language has been received by the church. We might disagree about what it means, but it must serve as a baseline for our understanding of Scripture. 

If our exegesis of Gen 1 (or 2) leads us to deny the analogy of Scripture or the things confessed by the church then we must either submit to the church and ask her to consider revising her confession.

Ministers have only ministerial authority. They can't and don't create doctrine. They simply serve the Word of God what what it teaches as confessed by the churches. That doesn't mean we'll all agree on every extra-confessional issue or necessarily on how to subscribe the standards, but that's another discussion.

rsc

[Edited on 2-24-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

thank you for a very nice posting Dr. Clark



> I quite agree. That's why we have confessions. The confessions norm what it is to be Reformed. The imposition of extra-confessional dogmas as norms or measuring sticks for what it is to be Reformed is highly damaging.
> ...
> It's a matter of setting theological priorities. Those who subscribe the Westminster Standards must affirm "in the space of six days" as that language has been received by the church. We might disagree about what it means, but it must serve as a baseline for our understanding of Scripture.





how does the PCA Creation Report modify the Confession so that OEC/FI Pastors can in conscience subscribe to the WCF?


----------



## kceaster

John,

I think we agree more than you know. I wasn't just going back to Van Til, but I think you made my point better than I did. The point is, if we use Scripture alone, we will not come up with a modern scientific view. If we think in terms of day-age or something along those lines, then we've pretty much got the presupposition that science has explained what the Bible does not. Therefore, we must regulate our view because of what godless men put forward.

And I think, in response to Dr. Clark, that this is the problem with our forebears. They didn't exactly think it through because they were still reeling from the argument put forward by their modern science. I say that it matters not. What should we preach, Dr. Clark? I think you would agree that in the space of six days is it. Moreover, we make no comment on the length of days or on the age of the earth since it is not explicit in the Scriptures.

But in all this, there is a sentiment I'm putting forward that I would like all to respond to. Are we allowing the postulations of godless men to feed our presuppositions on the matter? Can we use Scripture alone to determine the framework and the other views? And, what is to be gained by using science to aid us in our interpretation of the Bible?

I think you already know my answers to these questions. I'd like to hear all of yours.

In Christ,

KC

P.S. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily think that 6/24 is some Reformist hill to die on. But putting that aside, how do we interpret the Bible? Is it by externals such as the state of man and his worldview? Or, should it be the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit through the Word? If it is the latter, then I'm not so sure that there is any room for modern science in the pulpit, classroom, sunday school, etc.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr Clark!

Thank you for that.

[Edited on 2-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> And I think, in response to Dr. Clark, that this is the problem with our forebears. They didn't exactly think it through because they were still reeling from the argument put forward by their modern science.



Have you read Hodge, Warfield, and Machen on science? They were very well read in the science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm not prepared to say that I'm better read than they were. 



> I say that it matters not. What should we preach, Dr. Clark? I think you would agree that in the space of six days is it. Moreover, we make no comment on the length of days or on the age of the earth since it is not explicit in the Scriptures.



Amen (see below)



> But in all this, there is a sentiment I'm putting forward that I would like all to respond to. Are we allowing the postulations of godless men to feed our presuppositions on the matter?



So, can I not learn physics from pagans? I can only learn it from Christians? Are you sure you want to say that? In the providence of God, the church has historically learned a great deal from pagans and we've usually attributed those benefits to pagans. Are there Christian numbers? Arabic or Roman, both are "pagan," I guess. Is there a "Christian" physiology? I learned my logic from pagans. I learned my Greek from pagans. The Apostle John got at least some of his vocabulary from pagans ("in the beginning was the Logos...." -- the Logos was a heavily freighted philosophical term shot through with pagan notions and associations).

The OT uses repeatedly phrases and ideas and themes from pagan literature from the Ancient Near East. It re-contextualizes them and re-interprets them, but it uses them. Paul quotes a pagan poet about Cretans being liars and slow-bellies. The list could go on. Christian theology has quite properly used Aristotelian categories and distinctions for most of 2000 years. Indeed our cherished "elements and circumstances" distinction is nothing more than Aristotle's substance/accidents distinction! Our entire doctrine of the unity of the covenant of grace and diversity in administration is another example of the same. Olevianus wrote about the "substance of the covenant of grace" implying the same distinction. The creeds speak of God's "being" -- which many modern theologians call "Greek" or "pagan." 



> Can we use Scripture alone to determine the framework and the other views? And, what is to be gained by using science to aid us in our interpretation of the Bible?



The idea of keeping "science" hermetically sealed from our understanding of the Bible is apparently attractive but impossible. We call that attempt "biblicism." It would mean not using any extra-biblical terms to explain Scripture. Just try to do that with any other discipline. Try explaining the function of cells without using some other words from some other sphere of discourse to explain it. It can't be done. Why should our explanation of the Bible be any different?

Does the Bible tell us, in botanical terms, what a tree is? No. It expects us to know what a tree is and a little bit about how trees function so that when it says that a righteous man is like a tree, we know what that means. 

The thing we must do is be sure to operate from biblical presuppositions. The Bible says that God is. The Bible says that God spoke into nothing and made all that is. These are non-negotiables. 

Thus, we have to be critical of scientific claims and test them against the Scriptures. It would be behoove us to learn a little about the history and methods of science so it isn't so frightening and threatening. I have found Michael Polanyi's work very helpful in this regard (and Kuhn and others). The history of science is being written more completely now. The arrogant modernist scientists who pronounce absolutely and dogmatically about how X shows that Christianity isn't or can't be true aren't doing science but religion and the history of science shows them to be foolish when they make such pronouncements. In this context, "can't" isn't really a very scientific way of speaking. It's a rationalist a priori not an induction or a deduction.

The history of science is full of pronouncements about "what all reasonable people know" that have collapsed under the weight of new research and evidence. My favorite is Bultmann's blathering about how in the age of the "wireless" (radio) etc no reasonable person could be expected to believe in a "three story" universe. What rubbish. At the very moment he was spewing carbon dioxide, modern physics was being transformed right beneath his feet. Three story universe indeed. It turns out that the universe is vastly more complex that Bultmann even imagined. 

We must also be willing to criticize our own assumptions, however. Have we set up extra-biblical and extra-confessional standards for truth as way of gaining certainty? Have we said to ourselves, "all reasonable people know X"? (let X = the earth is 6,000 years old, on the basis of the addition of the genealogies, which the Princetonians showed more than 100 years ago weren't meant to be added in the first place). This has happened and continues to happen. 

Until the early 18th century, most Reformed folk were geocentrists. They thought that, because the Bible says that the sun rises that the earth must be at the center of the universe. Today, virtually no Reformed theologian or pastor thinks that. 

That the earth was not at the center of the universe was hotly controversial, however, to G. Voetius in the early and middle 17th century. He fought against allowing heliocentric astronomy from being taught in the Univ of Utrecht. He also opposed theories of corpuscular blood circulation because they were promoted by Descartes whom he opposed root and branch.

Now, Voetius was right to be suspicious about Descartes epistemological assumptions ("I am thinking, therefore I exist") but by opposing him on astronomy (following the scientific views of L. Daneau and others) and circulation he brought the faith into disrepute unnecessarily. 

What changed? Why aren't we geocentrists? To my knowledge, it was not biblical exegesis that changed our minds. What did it? Well, science. The fact is that it became untenable to hold the gecentrist view and we had to re-think our assumptions about what the Bible is trying teach us. We realized that the Bible isn't trying to teach us a geocentrist astronomy. We realized that the Bible was speaking in observational language. 

Today no reputable inerrantist (e.g., the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy) would claim the Bible as a science text, but we once used it as such regularly. To connect with another discussion, we also used to believe in Christendom, but most of us don't anymore. 

Neither view was part of being distinctively reformed. Our Christology (pick a locus of theology) hasn't changed but our view of church-state relations has and so has our view of science and the Bible.

These changes don't affect what it means to be Reformed. I still confess the same Reformed theology as our forefathers, even if I don't share their science or their politics. 

Being Reformed doesn't entail "this" politics (what's the "Reformed" or "biblical" view of the port sale controversy?) or "that" science. 

Being Reformed, however, does entail "this doctrine" in the confessions and "this liturgy," that RPW etc.

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## kceaster

*Dr. Clark...*

I was merely pointing out what we preach on this. And I think you agreed with me that we should not be preaching the modern science viewpoint. But doesn't that go the same way with all theological viewpoints. Our starting place is Scripture. Their starting place is not. Therefore, how can any part of what they think or say or write shape our view of theology? That's what I was getting at.

To me, creation is theological, therefore, I cannot allow ungodly science to shape my thinking about it.

As for geocentricity, I'm not convinced that in some way earth is not the center. I realize that we move around the sun, but at the same time, the earth is the center of God's creation.

As for all the other things you mentioned about learning from pagans, I would rather say that all of my learning is based in the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. Whatever I learn, it is because directly or indirectly He has taught me. I know that it is mere semantics, but I think you would agree that it is correct to say that all knowledge begins with God and, therefore, it cannot be pagan even though the means of the truth were certainly pagan.

I'm not suggesting that we could do the same with science as it pertains to the created universe because we already know where the starting point is. We are not learning about origins from pagans because ultimately, it is a philosophic and not scientific question. Science deals with observation, and none can observe God creating except in His Word, therefore we must see the origin of the universe in the Bible first. Don't you agree?

When I made the comment about our forebears I wasn't comparing myself to them intellectually. I am certain that they were well apt to understand it all. But, I think they were swayed too much by science and let it inform their theology regarding creation, instead of the other way around.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I appreciate Dr. Clark's post, even if we disagree on interpreting the pasage.

May I add a word to the thread concerning my main objection to the "non-historic-narrative genre" interpretation?

I am not aware (another way of saying "I am ignorant") of a post-Reformation radical _reworking_ of basic hermeneutical categories in order to accommodate a non-geocentric world view. Was their's not an admission that standard "secular" categories such as poetry, that the language of observation versus "modern" technical precision, etc., must all be taken into account? Didn't this move bring biblical hermeneutics even more closely in line with the Renaissance humanists _ad fontes_ principles, and the recovery of old learning? I challenge the notion that this further move was especially prompted (in Reformation nations) by the rise of autonomous Enlightenment rationalistic humanism. Wheat and tares grew close together in those days.

I realize that something similar is being postulated in our age, namely that new data (a constant stream) re. the physical universe, and that of other disciplines, demand the continual integration of our theological enterprise into the whole university. But quite frankly, it seems to me as though the older exegesis is cast out wholesale _by conservatives_ as *untenable* in the "modern age" (did the fathers get nothing right regarding the intent of the author in explaining the origin of the world?). If God wanted us to believe for all time the historic position of Reformed Orthodoxy prior to the Darwinian revolution, based on a historic-narrative reading of the text (with all the recognizable "marks" of that genre), *how much clearer could he have made it?*

A fair question, I think. Still unanswered in any form.

And in its place we are offered a completely new genre, conveniently tailored for a throughly accomodated understanding of Genesis 1. Or is it Genesis 1-2? Or is it Genesis 1-3? Or is it Genesis 1-11? Why is Abraham the first truly "historic" figure in Scripture, according to some conservative scholars? They claim they are simply applying the same hermeneutic _conservatives_ first advanced to explain away the historic-narrative (pretend!) of Genesis 1. Why not extend the mythic history perception all the way to Genesis 50? After all, there is no canon to tell us where "exalted prose" stops and "narrative history" is in effect.

Dr. Clark would balk, I'm sure, at such extremes, but there are other college and seminary professors teaching in conservative institutions who will not, and do not. How shall we object to them, having already accomodated in this fashion, without justly being accused of arbitrariness?

Why not include Exodus? What about the 10 plagues? Real? Or just a story about Jehovah defeating all the pagan gods of the ancients? We can find a "poetic structure" there, a *framework*. And if _structure_ is the determining factor, along with _there being no hard evidence from science that there ever was an Israelite slavery, or plagues, or the departure of millions of the population,_ why not apply the new hermeneutic? Is there a reliable biblical-theological canon that consistently informs us when we are in danger of rejecting a vital truth, when we mistakenly seek to apply the "exalted prose" rule? If there is one, I await its explanation. If "exalted prose" is a new category of interpretation, I need to know how to 1) identify it consistently, and 2) apply it to my exegesis, and bless the flock thereby.

Maybe another doctrine, one a little closer to the religious core, seems utterly out of place in the present era. Don't like the Virgin birth? Don't like Atonement? That's fine, just create a new hermeneutic that removes the incongruity between then and now. Where will it end?

I'm not arguing for a static, inflexible, ossified state of hermeneutical affairs. I'm not suggesting that we have arrived at a state where _Semper Reformanda_ is no longer a legitimate battle cry. Someone just answer the question, "How exactly did the earlier exegetes err? What were the PROBLEMS? What did they have correct?" Don't blithely dismiss them as "inadequate for today, no explanation needed," and then offer an alternative interpretation, a "solid gold" paradigm-shift, that (supposedly) solves all the old problems.

There are thousands of people who are still wondering what those "problems" are, and why so many of the people who first spotted them were so hostile to the faith (and not neutral truth-seekers).


Anyway, there's my take.
Bewilderedly Yours,
(Still stuck in the Dark Ages),


----------



## JohnV

Well spoken, Bruce. 

You refer to _conservatives_ throwing out the old genre as untenable. Well chosen words. Conservative they are, but I will go further to question whether they truly are Reformed. We need to remember these things:

1. Men are using their ecclesiastical offices and authority (including the positions at Bible colleges and seminaries, where our fut ure office-bearers are prepared for their respective callings ) to propagate these theories which are superimposed ( or to be more precise, imported upon ) Scripture. This is clearly outside their offices, and is an offence to the offices and to the Church, not to mention to Christ Himself Who commissioned them through the Church. Ordination is supposed to mean something, but for personal use. 

2. Men who are taking a stand for these theories are not bothering to distance themselves from these definitively anti-Reformed practices of their fellow proponents of these views. If could be that perhaps someone like Kline has never used his office, just like Machen, in relation to these views. But has he ever bothered by those who do, like Irons? And if he is not truly bothered by it, then how seriously can I take him for the views he says he believes? I can't. 

3. Not only are men using their offices to propagate such things, but they use their offices as cloaks, as protection against criticism. To call such a thing un-Reformed, due to the abrogation of the prime directive of Sola Scriptura in preaching and the offices, is to call down the wrath of the Session, the Presbytery, or even GA, for supposedly breaking the fourth vow, the one of submission and respect to the offices. This is actually happening at this present moment, though on another, but similar, issue. 

4. Young minds are being taught at this very moment that personal views are just as Biblical as established Church doctrine, and that people may use their offices to propagate these as long as GA does not call it heresy. So there are a plethora of churches, each with different doctrinal emphases, hardly recognizable as being of the same denomination. From a pew perspective, you could not tell that they confessed the same confession. Young minds are being taught that there are several creation views, only one of which is the six day view but that it is of no greater weight than the man-made views. How horrible! They are not being taught to distinquish properly anymore. For if they were, then of obvious question is: Where are the elders in all this, the ones who are supposed to be overseeing? 

5. There are people like myself, who are not that adamant about a specific six-day view as a mark of orthodoxy, yet make a great deal about the use of offices as a mark of orthodoxy, as well as respect for the authority of the church as a mark of orthodoxy. Personal licence overriding these is a slap in the face of people like myself, not to mention Christ who commissioned them through the Church. It forces listening to the preached Word to be optional, and pits father against elder, and so father against church, and so father against children who are catechized by the church. 

Yet who is it that ends up on the outside? Is it them? By no means. They go on from bad to worse, all the while holding the Reformed banner, while we have been cut off from the fellowship and the sacraments, and even our children, for not being moved by the winds of doctrine that so moved them.

6 I ask only what was asked in Jeremiah 5: What will they do in the end? When Christ comes back and asks what they have done with the talents entrusted to them, what will they then say? 

You ask if this is really happening in the churches? I have particularly picked on the Framework Hypothesis because it is clearly an importation of philosophy upon Scripture. It is clearly, very clearly, NOT Sola Scriptura. But that does not mean that I don't have better examples. But if we don't stand here, then where will we stand? 

I have no problem with someone holding to a Framework view. As long as he do so as a private member of the church, and state it as private view. Divorce this completely from the offices, including that of teaching our young in the places where they train our future pastors and elders, and our children the doctrines of the Church, and there is no problem. It could even be viewed as a sign of health in the church. But this is not the case in our churches. These things are so mixed in with all the levels of the churches; and we do not see how the church is being eaten away from the inside by it. People even dare to spout heresies, such as FV via the same licence. 

We need to start with the offices including those who teach in the colleges. Once we have the topic completely cleansed from the offences, then we may reopen it, but do so properly. Meanwhile, Kline is completely compromised, no matter how well he defends his position. 

Until then, I will continue to see this as a scourge on our church, no matter how well it is defended. The simple truth is, a theory is imported into Scripture, and not from general revelation, but from the imaginations of man. That says it all. This has gotten far too bloated with human pride.


----------



## fredtgreco

I agree in the main with Bruce.

One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dear Bruce,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I'm not claiming a fundamental shift in hermeneutical principles. Calvin, after all, had advocated a doctrine of accommodation long before Galileo had made a similar argument to Roman authorities.

There was, however, a major shift in the way Scripture was read. Lambert Daneau, Voetius, and many others (as several scholars have described) and as can be seen in primary sources, used Scripture as a science book. This was an ancient practice. 

By the mid to late 18th century we weren't doing that any longer. By the mid 19th century. So there was a real shift in the way we used Scripture.

When we finally gave in to the notion of heliocentrism and stopped using the Scripture as a physics/astronomy text, we were only being consistent with the principles Calvin had used long before. 

It prejudices the discussion, however, to describe everyone doing astronomy in the 16th and 17th centuries as though they were Enlightenment rationalists. Some were and some weren't, but WHO was doing astronomy (after all, to reject their conclusions because of who they are or what religious views they held or didn't hold would be fallacious) is rather less important logically than what they discovered and what it meant for our Bible interpretation. 

The Renaissance did draw us back to the normativity of the historical/literal sense of the text, but the medieval theologians were quite aware of different literary genres in Scripture. They observed those genres with different levels of success by Protestant standards.

I can't account for every other conservative account of Genesis but I'm certainly not saying that our forefathers got nothing right. What I'm claiming is that what they got right was _theology_. What they didn't get right was _science_. That's okay, in 100 years our "science" will be corrected. That's why we have read the Scriptures according to their intent (I know we agree about this). The exegetical question is whether the intent of Moses in Genesis or the intent of the Spirit in inspiring Moses was to teach us not only a theology (God, man, sin etc) was to teach us more than that. There's no need for a wholesale casting off of the older exegesis. 

E.g., There were a number of historic premil folk in the Reformed camp in the late 16th and 17th centuries, e.g., Piscator, that scoundrel, Mede, and Alsted. Most of us today would say they were wrong -- they took the old historicist view and basically pole-vaulted the millennium into the future. That was a hermeneutical mistake, but recognizing that mistake doesn't invalidate everything else about their theology or exegesis.

As to an accommodated understanding, I can't accept your assumption that it arose as an accommodation to science etc. In fact, we've always (since Calvin) regarded ALL of Scripture as an accommodated revelation. It's not the case that part of Scripture is accommodated and part is not. It's all accommodated. 

What I'm advocating is that we recognize what is unchangeable and what is not. 

There's nothing about arguing for an analogical or framework interpretation of Gen 1 that makes that text less historical or less literally true or less reliable. 

It's an exegetical discussion. Which exegesis is the best account of the divine and human intention as discerned from a reading of the text in its broader canonical, literary, and historical contexts.

I think we both agree that there are different genres at work throughout Scripture. The fact that such recognition can be abused, as we all know, doesn't invalidate the recognition. The literal sense of scripture can be abused (e.g., a 1000 year reign of Jesus in Jerusalem complete with memorial sacrifices!) but that doesn't keep me from reading Scripture literally/historically. Those who abuse sound principles should be called to account for their abuse.

In fact there are literary structures (e.g., Chiasms) in historical narratives in the historical books. The two things are not mutually exclusive. 

Genesis is an historical narrative of things that really happened, but it contains literary artifice. Surely we all recognize that the Adam narrative is both historically true and telescoped -- he named all the animals in creation in less than 24 hours? Sinlessness is not infinitude or omnipresence or omniscience. Adam still had to reckon with space and time. 

Surely the first 11 chapters are telescoped. The genealogies have long been recognized as telescoped. Saying such things is no challenge to inerrancy or the reliability of Scripture.

The gospels themselves have been recognized since the earliest fathers as stylized accounts of the life of Christ. Ned Stonehouse made that case (again) 60 years ago. Luke and John are not identical in structure or arrangement. They are recognized as complimentary by inerrantists.

The fact that the synoptics are stylized, abbreviated, re-arranged doesn't mean the virgin birth (or more accurately the virgin conception) is not an historical fact or that Jesus didn't turn over the tables in the temple (however many times he did it). Nothing about such recognition of various genres suggests historical falsity or a mythological interpretation.

The Revelation/Apocalypse is highly stylized, symbolical account of the inter-regnum but it is also literally true. Some premillennialists would say that the non-literal reading of the the Apocalypse is a slippery slope. Some folks would say that connecting baptism to circumcision is a slippery slope. Some folks say that denying the abiding validity of the civil law is a slippery slope. Slippery slopes can be found everywhere and the most dire predictions made on the basis of them. Luther did it to Zwingli: The bible says, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' if you Zwingli don't believe that (-- which was code for "agree with me re in/with/under) then you don't believe the Bible. So the confessional Lutherans have treated us as fanatics since the 1550's because we don't share their Christology and sacramentology. They accuse us of rationalism and not believing the Bible. It is perfectly clear to them and always has been that Jesus is locally present in the elements and we don't believe it because we're infected with secularist/pagan/rationalist views. 

Of course Genesis and Revelation belong to different genres, but the same principle is at work. The 1st three chapters are not as stylized as the rest, so the genre shifts or the intensity of figurative language shifts within the same book. If genres can shift within a book (as in Daniel and in the other major prophets) why not Genesis? Can we rule it out a priori? 

Why is it okay to intepret scripture in reaction to modern science -- MS says x, therefore I'm going to read SS this way in reaction -- but not in response to lor in critical dialogue MS? Why is totalitarianism the only acceptable stance? 

At that point it's not about hermeneutics or exegesis but about sociology, "them" v my people. I don't think that's a conscious move in our circles but I do think it's part of the equation. 

rsc


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thank you Dr. Clark for the response.

I may have been misunderstood at this point:


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> It prejudices the discussion, however, to describe everyone doing astronomy in the 16th and 17th centuries as though they were Enlightenment rationalists. Some were and some weren't, but WHO was doing astronomy (after all, to reject their conclusions because of who they are or what religious views they held or didn't hold would be fallacious) is rather less important logically than what they discovered and what it meant for our Bible interpretation.


In my post I make the point of agreeing with you in this, and offer that the move away from geo-centricism was in part a continued outworking of Reformation principles (having deep roots), and not (as Will Durant, et al, would have us think) to be associated exclusively with its irreligious Enlightenment half-sister. Hence the "wheat and tares" allusion.

Appreciation of the flexibility of genre helped tremendously, and yes, changed the way Scripture was read. But I don't believe in infinite flexibility. I think we'd agree that there are discernable limits beyond which even such an elastic genre as poetry can be contorted out of recognition. The wax nose.

It is precisely because I perceive in Framework Hypothesis an undue elevation of the stylistic qualities of the passages in question _over_ the narrative structure--to the point where style is supposed to tell us nearly _everything_ of significance, and history is practically _effaced_--that I have a problem with it. As I have read the advocates, I repeatedly come away with the sense that what I am being told is: This passage tells us _what_ happened--God created the world, but not (or practically nothing about) _how_ it happened, vav consecutives and assorted details notwithstanding--all that is just "awe-inspiring" _presentation._ Then Gen. 1:1 is really all we needed. Let's get right in to chapter 2.

I accept that *all* of Scripture is accomodated by God to us in our finite condition. What I'm opposed to are illegitimate concessions to a pagan Naturalism, that has turned the scientific method and its results (properly interpreted, of course!) into a sacrament. I see the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Days as yet additional attempts, along with the Gap Theory and Theistic Evolution, to save the God Behind Creation from hopeless irrelevancy by accomodating _his Word,_ and by extension HIM, to the dictates of an alternate authority. Meanwhile the sagans grin as you retreat back into a Kantian two-tiered universe (that Van Til demolished!).

I grant this is a reactionary response. I'm not suggesting that this is how FH looks like to those who are standing within it to engage the unbelieving world. I'm saying that's how it looks to someone like me who is standing next to you in the fight. *I shudder to think what I might look like to your eyes...* 

In my post I do not equate "historic-narrative" with "literal" (definitely an abused term, one that I avoided). I am using the term to describe the genre, including "historic" to exclude "parable" or similar. I agree with these statements:


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> It's an exegetical discussion. Which exegesis is the best account of the divine and human intention as discerned from a reading of the text in its broader canonical, literary, and historical contexts....
> 
> In fact there are literary structures (e.g., Chiasms) in historical narratives in the historical books. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Genesis is an historical narrative of things that really happened, but it contains literary artifice.... Saying such things is no challenge to inerrancy or the reliability of Scripture.


The main questions have got to be exegetical and hermeneutical (i.e. what rules are we going to apply to this exegesis?) And thank God that so much of Scripture is beautiful and wonderful and memorable. That is part of the Art of Scripture, without a doubt. 

The 10 Plagues are also a literary set. They are presented in a triple triad, with a final stanza. They are shot through with formulaic encounters, repetitive expressions, and cumulative storytelling effect. Is it merely a framework? Is it more important that we learn _that_ the Israelites went out of Egypt (if they were really geographically there, and not just tribal nomads); rather than getting bogged down in the trivia of _how_ the writer expressed the deliverance?


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> If genres can shift within a book (as in Daniel and in the other major prophets) why not Genesis? Can we rule it out a priori?


Can we rule a _genre shift_ out, a priori? Who's doing that? Of course Genesis shifts genres here and there. The only questions are where, and on what grounds? Has a new genre been manufactured to make Genesis 1 more palatable to more people?


> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Why is it okay to intepret scripture in reaction to modern science -- MS says x, therefore I'm going to read SS this way in reaction -- but not in response to lor in critical dialogue MS? Why is totalitarianism the only acceptable stance?


I like your use of "totalitarian." I used that in another thread, the "MY way or NO way" dialectic. But I don't find it apt to describe my position. Are 6-Dayers (for want of a better term) anti-MS as a discipline? That certainly wouldn't have characterized 100 years of development from the mid 18th to mid 19th century. Nor do I think that's a fair description of most scientists or Reformed pastors and theologians today who hold to the 6-D interpretation.

Did scientists just keep following the truth, while the theologians pulled the shades? It is the Naturalistic philosophy I oppose, as I know you do. Saying that 6-D is "reaction," but FH is "response" seems like a caricature. Your side may have _less_ to be critical about and have more room for agreement with MS, but since you are willing to take some issues up with the standard MS approach someone in that camp will no doubt find you overbearing.

If someone decided to investigate why water froze at 100 C, we would say he was asking the wrong question. If someone today investigates how whales evolved into cows we should respectfully suggest he is asking the wrong question, wasting time, effort, and resources. Ideas have consequences. One can advocate a 6-D view and still engage the philosophy of the day in a critical fashion. But it will have to be more of the Van Til reduction-type critiques, because the worldviews are so contrary.

I admit that a FH approach may actually get you to a place where a MS advocate seems more willing to engage in dialog than he will with one holding a 6-Day interpretation. But how much difference is there between that stance, and the blockhouse apologetic methodology? It seems to me you've surrendered part of the worldview for a meeting at the table.

I agree that an us-them mentality is part of the equation. In some sense that may be inevitable. There is a view, I know, that 6-D advocates basically have a "fundamentalist" attitude toward the whole debate. There can be little rapproachment from our two sides if FH is viewed as rank "liberalism" and 6-D is viewed as "fundy." Well, from this side, it seems quite unfair to be so labeled from an exegetical and hermeneutical standpoint. The fundys may be close by (somewhere) but we Reformed types see the street we're standing in as being pretty well travelled in the Reformation heritage. And as I said in the previous post, we're still waiting to see bona fide problems with the old path.

Thanks for the exchange.

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I can't account for every other conservative account of Genesis but I'm certainly not saying that our forefathers got nothing right. What I'm claiming is that what they got right was _theology_. What they didn't get right was _science_. That's okay, in 100 years our "science" will be corrected. That's why we have read the Scriptures according to their intent (I know we agree about this). The exegetical question is whether the intent of Moses in Genesis or the intent of the Spirit in inspiring Moses was to teach us not only a theology (God, man, sin etc) was to teach us more than that. There's no need for a wholesale casting off of the older exegesis.



If science is so changeable then why are we basing a change in interpretation of scripture on it? Unless you are somehow going to bound the scope of scientific re-interpretation, it really makes little sense to call a certain interpretation of scripture wrong based on some scientific theory. (Even if one wants to make it a head counting game, the majority can be just as wrong as any minority when it comes to science)

In 100 years, everyone may be making fun of good ole Galileo, and then going back to apologize to Turretin.

CT

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce, Dr. Clark, and JohnV:

Thank you so much for this dialogue. It is very edifying and instructive. Bruce - you really did a great job of explaining your concern regarding the implications to hermaneutics.

What I like about this exchange is that it goes far beyond the typical "We believe Scripture and you don't" exchange.


----------



## cultureshock

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree in the main with Bruce.
> 
> One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.



Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.

Brian


----------



## JohnV

I agree with you Bruce, about the traditional six day view not being a totalitarian view. What I oppose is that the suggestion that six days may mean any time period, not necessarily a regular day. It is insufficient to postit that; there has to be proof that it does not mean six days. For it is God who suggests the correlation, to which man puts his correlations as equal possibilities. That would entail, necessarily, that the seven day measuring of the passing of time is arbitrarily introduced by man, which is then accommodated by God in Scripture. That is a pretty audacious argument. 

What I have been taking pains to point out is that this is not ever merely a discussion about origins or first days. There is always, necessarily, other things involved, things that have to do with the centre points of orthodoxy. We know far too little to be dogmatic about the creation days, but we do have God's Word on it. And six normal days are not an impossibility; the sun being created on the fourth day is not an impossibility or a detriment to the six-day view. God commanded that we work six days, in relation to His working six days to create the cosmos. Sloughing that off, no matter how sophisticated, is still just sloughing that off.


----------



## Puritanhead

*Radioactive dating methods*



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I am a 6-day Creationist because I haven't been convinced to believe otherwise. I have an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering and understand radioactive dating methods. I also know a bit about the tautology between geology and the "fossil record" with respect to the dating of fossil finds. There are a number of issues that, scientifically, militate against a really old universe.



I understand that the various radiological dating efforts (viz. carbon-dating, potassium-argon dating and rubidium-strontium dating) tend to have limitations that people do not account for-- and that they only go back so far in terms of accuracy. I know some tend to give more creedance to its accuracy, but I have heard of ample skeptics. I don't know a lot about this area, however.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree in the main with Bruce.
> 
> One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


Highly unordinary in what fashion? Depending on your answer one could say that a lot fo things are highly unordinary in the Bible, but that doesnt give us the right to do as we please.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree in the main with Bruce.
> 
> One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.
> 
> Brian
Click to expand...


Brian,

The point is that the waw-conversive/consecutive is THE mark of Hebrew narrative. It is the way that you tell that something is intended to be a chronological narrative. The historical books are full of this kind of usage; poetry does not use it at all.

In fact, I have never seen a good grammatical argument for the Framework theory. The best I have seen is the invention of a "semi-poetry" category, that I have never seen in any other language (having had more or less experience in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German and French).

If one begs the question and states that Genesis 1-3 fits no category because it is unique, and therefore can have any grammatical structure one wants, I could say that it is anything I want. That not only proves too much, it makes Genesis 1-3 impossible to interpret with any reliability.

Anyway, here is a sample from Gesenius on the waw:


> Â§ 49. The Perfect and Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.
> 
> a
> 1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (Â§Â§ 106, 107, cf. above, Â§ 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses1 is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 K 20:1, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah "¦ came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Is 7:17, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee "¦ days, &c., 7:18, and it shall come to pass (perf. hy"h'w>) in that day "¦
> 
> b
> *This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant and (called waw consecutive2)*, which in itself is really only a variety of the ordinary waw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears with a different vocalization. Further, the tenses connected by waw consecutive sometimes undergo a change in the tone and consequently are liable also to other variations.
> 
> 2[1] This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, *for by waw consecutive an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action*. Moreover, it is clear from the above examples, that the waw consecutive can only be thus used in immediate conjunction with the verb. As soon as waw, owing to an insertion (e. g. a negative), is separated from the verb, the imperfect follows instead of the perfect consecutive, the perfect instead of the imperfect consecutive. The fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth, Esth., Neb., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive, and others (Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with waÃ’w copulative, is taken as a sign of their close connexion with the historical Books now or originally preceding them. Cf., on the other hand, the independent beginning of Job and Daniel. It is a merely superficial description to call the waw consecutive by the old-fashioned name waw conversive, on the ground that it always converts the meaning of the respective tenses into its opposite, i. e. according to the old view, the future into the preterite, and vice versa.
> (emphasis added)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I am a 6-day Creationist because I haven't been convinced to believe otherwise. I have an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering and understand radioactive dating methods. I also know a bit about the tautology between geology and the "fossil record" with respect to the dating of fossil finds. There are a number of issues that, scientifically, militate against a really old universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the various radiological dating efforts (viz. carbon-dating, potassium-argon dating and rubidium-strontium dating) tend to have limitations that people do not account for-- and that they only go back so far in terms of accuracy. I know some tend to give more creedance to its accuracy, but I have heard of ample skeptics. I don't know a lot about this area, however.
Click to expand...

The problem with all the methods is they assume a uniform radioactive decay throughout all history which cannot be verified. They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods. Radioactive dating is fairly precise when you are certain of the starting conditions but the starting conditions are a guess. Beyond the dating methods, there are a number of other things that militate against an old earth, among them: the hot core of the earth, the amount of dust on the surface of the moon, the limited amount of erosion in some places, ... (the list goes on). I just have never received a convincing enough argument to force me to conclude the universe must be billions of years old. 

That said, I still think science is good at examining current phenomena (even when their theories of why they're here are gooned up). I'm not a big fan of the pseudo-science that some Christian groups engage in to try and come up with "Christian" theories that are just as fanciful as Darwinism. I've heard some people in Sunday School speak dogmatically of how it never rained until the Flood based on the fact that "a mist covered the earth". This mist apparently caused mankind to have longer lives then. It's just silly. I suppose it's possible but it's not science just because it's a possible explanation and we ought not to think that, just because we reject their presuppositions and some of their silly theories, that the rest of the knowledge and academic rigor that really intelligent men lend to a field pales in comparison to our folk imaginings in certain subjects we know little about.

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

> They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.



actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.

....

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> 
> They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
> i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
> the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.
> 
> ....
> 
> [Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
Click to expand...

Actually no "what" for the C-14 method?

How do you date via C-14 without knowing what the decay constant is or what the propotion of C-14 to C-12 is?


----------



## Puritanhead

Thanks Rich for your response. I learned a little something new.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> 
> They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
> i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
> the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.
> 
> ....
> 
> [Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no "what" for the C-14 method?
> 
> How do you date via C-14 without knowing what the decay constant is or what the propotion of C-14 to C-12 is?
Click to expand...


the best essays that i am aware of on the topic are:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens 

on calibration of C-14 raw data:

tree rings mega links is at:
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

on varves try:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/geochronology/geochronology.htm
i don't see the one at the uofa that i usually recommend

the decay constant depends on both the weak and strong forces, physics is not my forte, i'll let someone else point out what else in the universe would break if the decay constants weren't.

the varves data is particularly interesting, there is several days on good reading on the lakes looked at and what has been found thus far. neat stuff.

i've only glanced at the coral data so i don't have sites to recommend yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've seen those Thanks. I don't want to drag this down into a discussion of C-14 dating methods. Those methods merely calibrate the proportion of C-14 in the air for particular years to try and increase accuracy. They still rely on the assumption that half-lives are constant. It's just one issue Richard. I don't want to distract the overall thread but thank you for the links.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

from "Because it Had Not Rained"



> The literary character of Gen. 1:1-2:5 prepares the exegete for the presence there of a stronger figurative element than might be expected were it ordinary prose. This passage is not, of course, full-fledged Semitic poetry. But neither is it ordinary prose. Its structure is strophic and throughout the strophes many refrains echo and re-echo. Instances occur of other poetic features like parallelism (1:27; 2:2) and alliteration (1:1). In general then the literary treatment of the creation in Genesis 1 is in the epic tradition.
> 
> Having made such an observation concerning the literary genre of the creation record, it is imperative (especially in the present theological scene) that one convinced of the genuinely historical nature of the events recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis promptly add that the disregard for historical truth associated with the usual epic is not imported along with the formal literary aspects of the epic style into the divine revelation. Such importation was no more inevitable than that the polytheism of pre-biblical psalmody, for example, must have been carried over with the religious lyric form into the biblical Psalter. Though Genesis 1 be epic in literary style, its contents are not legendary or mythical in either a Liberal or Barthian sense. The semi-poetic style, however, should lead the exegete to anticipate the figurative strand in this genuinely historical record of the origins of the universe.
> 
> It also needs considerable emphasis, even among orthodox exegetes, that specific evidence is required for identifying particular elements in the early chapters of Genesis as literary figures. The semi-poetic form of Genesis 1 does not make it an exception. Exegesis which disregards this degenerates into allegorizing and these chapters are not allegories.
> 
> The specific exegetical evidence for the figurative character of the several chronological terms in Genesis 1 has been repeatedly cited. The word "day" must be figurative because it is used for the eternity during which God rests from his creative labors. The "day's" subordinate elements, "evening" and "morning", must be figurative for they are mentioned as features of the three "days" before the text records the creation of those lights in the firmament of heaven which were to divide the day from the night. (From the position taken in this article the last argument is, of course, only ad hominem. But on the other hand, if the validity of the interpretation advocated here is recognized, the figurative nature of the "evenings" and "mornings" follows with equal necessity.)
> 
> Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.


----------



## Peters

Dr. Clark, do you object to the notion that there could have been "death" in the creation (though not human death) before the fall?

Thanks.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> from "Because it Had Not Rained"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The literary character of Gen. 1:1-2:5 prepares the exegete for the presence there of a stronger figurative element than might be expected were it ordinary prose. This passage is not, of course, full-fledged Semitic poetry. But neither is it ordinary prose. Its structure is strophic and throughout the strophes many refrains echo and re-echo. Instances occur of other poetic features like parallelism (1:27; 2:2) and alliteration (1:1). In general then the literary treatment of the creation in Genesis 1 is in the epic tradition.
Click to expand...

It should be clear that this paragraph of Kline's is the only part of his quote that sets forth any strictly exegetical conclusions. And honestly, the case is far from being made. Merely pointing out that a passage has a literary _structure_ does not drive a hermeneutic wedge between form and meaning. The issue is not whether a passage has one or two instances of apparent parallelism, but whether parallelism is shot-through a text. The issue is not whether TWO words in Gen 1:1 begin with the letter "beth", but whether alliteration is characteristic of the text.

I can go to almost any historic passage of Scripture (this one is 34 (!) verses--36 verses if you add in Kline's warrantless inclusio of two verses from the second major division), and find _something_ I can call poetic. Then, according to this canon, I may call it "semi-poetic" and start to pry it loose (just to make it "float" a little above) from its grammatic constraints that anchor it to the world of events. "Upper Register"! Historie/Geschichte anyone?

"Epic" material it may be. But Kline would render it much more akin to unbiblical epic by making it "about history" instead of strict history, despite his profession of historio-phillia below:


> Having made such an observation concerning the literary genre of the creation record, it is imperative (especially in the present theological scene) that one convinced of the genuinely historical nature of the events recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis promptly add that the disregard for historical truth associated with the usual epic is not imported along with the formal literary aspects of the epic style into the divine revelation. Such importation was no more inevitable than that the polytheism of pre-biblical psalmody, for example, must have been carried over with the religious lyric form into the biblical Psalter. Though Genesis 1 be epic in literary style, its contents are not legendary or mythical in either a Liberal or Barthian sense. The semi-poetic style, however, should lead the exegete to anticipate the figurative strand in this genuinely historical record of the origins of the universe.
Click to expand...

Note well: the passage is *historical in nature*; Kline does not deny that creation _happened,_ nor that the only true God of Scripture did it; only that it happened _in the manner or chronology_ that a prima facie, straightforward reading of the narative might lead one to believe.

In other words, read 1 Sam. 17 fundamentally different from Genesis 1.


> It also needs considerable emphasis, even among orthodox exegetes, that specific evidence is required for identifying particular elements in the early chapters of Genesis as literary figures. The semi-poetic form of Genesis 1 does not make it an exception. Exegesis which disregards this degenerates into allegorizing and these chapters are not allegories.
Click to expand...

I guess the only thing I can say is: its nice that Kline recognizes that, having pried away the text from firm attachment to history, he still recognizes that Alexandrine exegesis is the natural trajectory of his conclusions, and he seeks to guard against that. Interesting that he should have to warn orthodox exegetes not to take his methodology to far. Interesting too that he seems to add some kind of vague and arbitrary constraint: "the early chapters of Genesis."

Ah, the shadowy mists of pre-history.


> The specific exegetical evidence for the figurative character of the several chronological terms in Genesis 1 has been repeatedly cited. The word "day" must be figurative because it is used for the eternity during which God rests from his creative labors. The "day's" subordinate elements, "evening" and "morning", must be figurative for they are mentioned as features of the three "days" before the text records the creation of those lights in the firmament of heaven which were to divide the day from the night. (From the position taken in this article the last argument is, of course, only ad hominem. But on the other hand, if the validity of the interpretation advocated here is recognized, the figurative nature of the "evenings" and "mornings" follows with equal necessity.)
Click to expand...

NOTE: the parenthesis at the end is a serious concession. It means that while this may be a legitimate conclusion of his article, it is not strictly speaking an argument for the article, for in order for it to be valid the previous argumentation must already have been seen as determinative. As Pipa puts it:


> The circular nature of Dr. Kline's argument hardly needs to be pointed out. Because he assumes "day" in 2:1-3 refers only to eternity, the term "day" has symbolical meaning throughout chapter 1. The assumption is gratuitous. He needs to prove that "day" is used exclusively as a metaphorical term on the seventh day, as well as chapter 1.


The seventh day is marked by the ordinal number in sequence. God blesses a _day,_ not his rest. Moses/Jehovah appeals to this passage in Ex. 20:11 to enforce the day of rest. All these are cogent arguments that militate against Kline's assumption. As for the "evening-morning" matter, it first assumes "sunrise-sunset" as basic to the idea, then imports a figurative meaning into the first three days, then also into the last three days. Not much going for it either.

But of course, Kline already admits this whole section is not so much a proof as a conclusion, and so of no support to his argument.


> Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.
Click to expand...

This is Kline's own assesment of his accomplishment. Read the article for yourself. Read Pipa, "From Chaos to Cosmos," and other critiques of Kline/Futato/Irons, et al. Read, Read, Read.

Draw an informed conclusion.


----------



## fredtgreco

Once again I agree with Bruce. In order to draw the "Purely exegetical considerations" that "compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts," Kline merely piles on assertions.

Why is it not ordinary prose? Because Kline says so. No evidence at all is given. Why is it that day must be used figuratively? Because Kline says so.

The trick of making the hermeneutical rules for Genesis 1-3 different because the material is unique is dangerous, and would be seen as such if used for any other "unique" passage. What about the resurrection? That is certainly unique. What about scenes from glory? That is certainly unique and figurative - likely more figurative than Genesis 1-3.

For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.


----------



## JohnV

I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty. 

As you say, if all he gives as authentication for his view is his own say-so in re-interpreting Scripture, then that is not being honest to his area of expertice, much less his calling.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.



Is not saying " a theologian's exegesis is his weakness" , akin to saying a pitcher's weakness is throwing strikes?

CT


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not saying " a theologian's exegesis is his weakness" , akin to saying a pitcher's weakness is throwing strikes?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

You can always "bean" the guy. That way he would be too scared to stay at the plate and hit the ball. Of course, it really doesn't solve the problem.


----------



## Peters

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.



How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down? 

Thanks


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'd have to agree with Marcos on this. I think calling him dishonest is harsh.

John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.

Bruce: Again, I really appreciate your critique. It has been some years since I was exposed to the FH controversy and, at the time, I never took the time to understand the arguments. I'm beginning to appreciate it more and why some are really concerned about it. Honestly, at the time, my Elders might have understood it but never articulated what the fuss was about. Your argument is _very_ compelling. You get to the point succintly, precisely, and convincingly. You have been graced with much talent and I am thankful you are using it to God's glory.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down?
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...




> _from Rich_
> John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.


You are right to call me on this. I'm sorry if I offended you. I do believe in what I said, and firmly so, but I did not mean to offend. 

All I'm saying is that it is dishonest to assert equal standing for the FH to the six-day view. The Church has not ruled that the Bible explicitly teaches the FH. So to suggest, as a man, even as an officer in the Church, that the Bible does teach it is to go beyond the office. Ministers and elders to not make doctrine; they may only preach received doctrine. To do more is to be dishonest to the office and to the calling, and also to the rule of the Church. 

It is one thing to reduce the six-day view to the level of the FH view, it is another to elevate the FH view to the six-day view.

At the very best men like Kline may only say that they disagree, and that they believe otherwise. That is, they may make an exception to the Confessions on this matter. But that is all they may do. There is still no warrant for teaching or preaching it from their office. If they do, if they use their office to propagate it as more than what the Church has ruled it to be, then that is being dishonest to the office.

This is what I believe. I hold to the old understanding of Sola Scriptura and the limits of office. That means that I view things like this in a very strict way. That's what I believe; that's what I believe it means to be Reformed.


----------



## Peters

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _from Rich_
> John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right to call me on this. I'm sorry if I offended you. I do believe in what I said, and firmly so, but I did not mean to offend.
> 
> All I'm saying is that it is dishonest to assert equal standing for the FH to the six-day view. The Church has not ruled that the Bible explicitly teaches the FH. So to suggest, as a man, even as an officer in the Church, that the Bible does teach it is to go beyond the office. Ministers and elders to not make doctrine; they may only preach received doctrine. To do more is to be dishonest to the office and to the calling, and also to the rule of the Church.
> 
> It is one thing to reduce the six-day view to the level of the FH view, it is another to elevate the FH view to the six-day view.
> 
> At the very best men like Kline may only say that they disagree, and that they believe otherwise. That is, they may make an exception to the Confessions on this matter. But that is all they may do. There is still no warrant for teaching or preaching it from their office. If they do, if they use their office to propagate it as more than what the Church has ruled it to be, then that is being dishonest to the office.
> 
> This is what I believe. I hold to the old understanding of Sola Scriptura and the limits of office. That means that I view things like this in a very strict way. That's what I believe; that's what I believe it means to be Reformed.
Click to expand...


Brother, there is no offence. I just want to know why you think Kline is wrong. I'm sorry but who cares if the church has ruled on anything. This begs the question: Who exactly speaks for the church? When you say that ministers may only preach "received doctrine", do you mean that which has already been established by a confession or creed? This is not Sola Scriptura. 

Help me understand further what you mean, brother.


----------



## JohnV

Marcos:

You said, 


> Brother, there is no offence. I just want to know why you think Kline is wrong. I'm sorry but who cares if the church has ruled on anything. This begs the question: Who exactly speaks for the church? When you say that ministers may only preach "received doctrine", do you mean that which has already been established by a confession or creed? This is not Sola Scriptura.
> 
> Help me understand further what you mean, brother.


Let's take this one step at a time, because I am unsure where the problem lies. First you ask, "Who cares if the church has ruled anything?" Well, I do for one. Christ has granted His authority to rule in His name to those chosen from the congregation who show the gifts of understanding the doctrines of faith, of leadership, and of being able to teach others. These people are ordained by the church to their offices. Ordained men lay their hands on these men as a formal gesture of bestowing the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon them for their calling. Of course, no man has any authority to give or take the Spirit to or from anyone else. This is how godly men submit to the leading of the Spirit, recognizing that the Spirit is upon someone already for that office. That was why he was chosen for it. This laying on of hands is the formal institution of the office upon him before God and His people. 

We must listen to these men, as they speak for God, and as they speak to God on our behalf in the official church setting. God is present through the Spirit at the meeting of His people in the name of Christ. Mat 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
These and only these rule the church. Therefore what they rule is of great interest to me. Not just today's elders, but the elders throughout history that have made rulings that impact the entire church. The Council of Nicea, for example. The Synod of Dordt for another. The Westminster Assembly also. The confessional statements are a summary of the rulings of the historical church, of which we are a part. To stray from these is to stray from that church. 

I'm not exactly sure how this begs the question. Perhaps you can lay it out for me. The Church documents speak for the Church. That's what the Confessions represent. It is what has been bequeathed to us by our forefathers in the Church. I don't see how this begs the question.

Lastly you assert that preaching the doctrines the historical Church has officially recognized as THE teachings of Scripture is not Sola Scriptura. I don't follow. If this isn't Sola Scriptura, then what is? Does each generation form its own creed and confession, and call that Sola Scriptura? I'm don't follow you here. 

When an ambassador is sent to a foreign country, he is sent with the direct message of him who sent him. He is not there to give his own message or his own opinion, but to deliver the very message he was sent to deliver. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the duty of the minister in preaching as well. He has been given what to preach, and he must preach only that. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't pick what he may preach or not preach; he must preach the whole council of God. If he has opinions on matters besides these doctrines, it is not his office to represent them to anyone. 

I did a profession of faith before God and His people before anyone of us knew about the Framework Hypothesis. It was never told me that this was what the Bible teaches, as part of what I must confess to. It has never been added. Therefore it is merely an opinion, nothing more. The Church which has oversight of my faith has never said it is Biblical doctrine. And if it is not Biblical doctrine, then it is not part of the duty of an ordained office-bearer to represent it to me from his official capacity as being what the Bible teaches. It may be his opinion, but the church which has sent him has not given him the mandate to preach it. The Spirit has not given the Church the mandate to mandate preachers to preach it. It is only opinion. That's all it is. The fanciest of exegesis for oneself does not change that. Only ruling by the official church, the plurality of elders, changes that. That is who the rulership of the Church has been given to; not just to one man, or to a group of men acting beside the rulership of the Church. 

The FH has never been ruled to be the proper and rightful interpretation of the creation. It is a liberty of views which has been allowed. That is all. I am under no obligation to it; the Church has made that explicit. Thus a man is acting outside his office if he uses his official position to obligate me to that view. It is a matter of liberty of conscience, not a matter of doctrine. As a person, a believer, a minister also has that same liberty, but no more or less than any other believer. A minister's liberty of conscience does not negate the liberty of conscience for the non-ordained. The church is the body of believers, not just the ordained. 

If we are under any obligation to the opinions of the ordained leaders of our respective denominations, then you and I would not be able to keep up with all the views. What if one ordained leader says one thing, and another says another thing? Who are we obligated to? What if in one church the minister decides that the FH is what the Bible teaches, and in the next church of the same denomination down the road teaches that the six day view is what the Bible teaches? They can't both be right. One is leading by the Spirit and the Word, and the other not. It is also possible that neither are; but it cannot be that both are right. It is not hard to determine which it is, because the plurality of elders has already ruled on that: we have an official church document which says that we are obligated to believe "in the space of six days." It cannot be shrugged off. 

This is where Kline would be dishonest, then. On his own authority he is differing with the plurality of elders. Not just today's elders, but all historical elders. This is what they have given us to believe, what their witness to us is of the Spirit's leading through the body ordained by Him. To shrug that off on his own authority is implicitly saying that his own authority trumps that of the whole historic church. This is only possible if he can show clear Biblical backing for it. That is, its not his opinion but clear Biblical teaching which all alike must believe. It is his office to uphold the Word, and to be one with that authority throughout the ages. He is obligated not only to show that this is clearly from the Bible, but also that the historic church is one with this. Or he has to prove that the historic church erred in this. And it cannot be the judgment of one man, but it has to be the judgment of the Church. 

The men of Westminster especially took great pains to be one with the Synod of Dordt, and of all previous officially accepted rulings of the historic church; not as proof of doctrine, but as proof of the witness of the Church to Scriptural doctrine. Their backing for the doctrines were Scripture only. Their great depth of knowledge of the writings and witness of the great leaders of the church showed that they were one in doctrine with the past, not making new teachings. They were bearing witness to the Scripture's teaching just like the Churchmen of the past had done before them. They were being one in faith with them. 

What we owe to someone like Calvin is the great example of faith he has given us. But the doctrines are the Spirit's, not his. His own gifts are only a part of that heritage; the greater part is what the apostasy of the Roman church has taught us about true doctrine, about rejecting false doctrine and practice. Calvin was gifted to organize these, but he introduced nothing new that was not there before. The teachings of the doctrine of .justification by faith were expanded to exclude the errors that were revealed through the apostasy. Everything that Calvin introduced was submitted for the review of the elders, to rule upon for its Scriptural soundness. He was gifted by the Spirit for the special task, and that was why he was such a leader. He pointed us to Christ. If we're not following where he pointed, then we're also not following him. He never pointed to himself; neither should we. 

It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present. It has never been a part of the Reformed heritage to licence men to preach their own doctrines, differing from church to church. The oaths that I took are older than all these present controversies; the faith that I professed is older than I am, older than the philosophers and theorizers of this age or any other. I confessed to be one with the Church in faith. That means not only what my present denomination presents as true doctrine, but what the historic church has presented as true doctrine. If my present church departs from that, then it has departed from that unity. I have not departed from that unity by remaining true to what has been handed down, to what I have professed. Only if it can be clearly proven that the historic faith that I professed was wrong, only then am I obligated to change my profession. Until that time, I remain in that stream, even if I am the only one. It is only the witness of the local church at this moment that I differ with, not the witness of the Church of history, that has been present througout all the history of the New Testament Church, the Church which is truly of Christ. That is the example of faith that a man like Calvin gives us. This overrides the teachings of men like Kline who are introducing new things to the Confessions of the historic Church on their own, beside the official rulership of the plurality of elders of the historic Church. 

I hope this helps, Marcos. As I said, I'm not really sure why or what you are questioning here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

John you wrote:


> It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.


What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?


----------



## Peters

John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.

Thanks


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> John you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?
Click to expand...

Rich:
For certain reasons I am estranged from my church. These will be resolved in time, but right now it is a matter of sharp disagreement.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.
> 
> Thanks



I was only telling you what I have believed concerning the issues that are involved. This is what I was taught, and what I believe the Reformed churches have held to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> John you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich:
> For certain reasons I am estranged from my church. These will be resolved in time, but right now it is a matter of sharp disagreement.
Click to expand...

John,

That grieves me brother. I'll be praying for you. I hope you are finding a place to worship on the Lord's day.

In Christ's Love,

Rich


----------



## Peters

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peters_
> John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was only telling you what I have believed concerning the issues that are involved. This is what I was taught, and what I believe the Reformed churches have held to.
Click to expand...


But do you hold to it because you see it in Scripture? If so, where? 

Sorry to hear about your situation with the church, brother. I too will pray for you.


----------



## JohnV

Mat 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". 

Mat 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
teaching them to observe *all that I have commanded you*. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." 

Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 

( I've added bold lettering to the Matt. 28 passage to highlight the aspect of "all", to indicate neither more nor less. )

Jesus gives the authority of His rulership to the twelve apostles, to preach the Word, His Word, and to rule or govern His Church according the doctrines and example of the Word. The OT ordination and anointing is replaced by the NT offices, ordained and annointed. The same regulation for worship still applies, that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Word, only with the proviso that this now includes the NT's covenantal fulfillment is Christ. Offering strange fire before the Lord is still not acceptable. 

Did Christ teach the FH? That still has to be proven. Until it is proven it cannot be accepted as that which Christ has mandated His representatives in the Church to either teach, whether in spoken or written word, or defend, whether in spoken or written word. 

Some denominations have not ruled on it, but some denominations have ruled that the FH is neither heresy nor doctrinal. That is, it is indifferent. To perhaps overstate it for the sake of comparison, it is like checkers or chess, indifferent to the life of the Church. ( Please, this is an overstatement only for the sake of emphasizing the idea of _adiaphora_, indifference and non-essential. ) That means that it is out of bounds for the elders as far as obligatin it as Biblical or not, for it is not under the mandate of Christ. This decision does not make it in bounds, but out of bounds to preach or teach. For the ruling necessarily entails that it is not doctrine, and therefore is unattached to the mandate Christ gave to those who preach and rule in His name. 

These texts come to mind, but I can find more. I would go through Jus Divinum to find the very texts that the WA used to justify their understanding of the offices and their duties. 

There are also articles of the Christian faith in the WCF, mostly in ch. 1, that relate to this as well. But the one that I resort to first off is in the Belgic Confession, namely article VII,


> *The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith*
> We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the *whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures*: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since *it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.*
> Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.



Again, I've added bold characters to the text of the article to highlight the matters which address these concerns. We are admonished to test the spirits, to whether they are of God. It has to be that these things are clearly of God, not of man, for them to be added to the doctrines. Preaching and teaching them from the Christ-given office is saying that they are added to the mandate Christ gave, that they are what the Bible commands, that they are what Christ taught. 

So the onus is on the defenders of the FH to prove that Christ taught this, that He meant to teach this. So the teaching must be clearly traceable throughout the history of the Church, just as Calvin, the elders at Dordt, and the elders at Westminster took extraordinary pains to show in the doctines they defended. It is not just a matter of mining an vague paradigm from the Word, and justifying it on that alone. It must be clear, and at large, otherwise it undermines the sufficiency and the perspicuity of the Word; in other words, it undermines our surety of the doctrines of faith contained in the Word.

From these the rest of the argument merely follows. 

Thank you for your questions, Marcos. It has helped me to think through these things again, and has helped to clarify these for me as well. Every opportunity to go back to the Word and to the witness of the Church is welcome.


----------



## Peters

John, if you were going to teach Genesis 1-2 from a 6/24 perspective how would you do it? What points would you make? How would you refute arguments that oppose yours, like say for example, oh i don't know, Kline's, etc.? I undertand that you don't want to teach Genesis 1-2 contrary to reformed tradition, so how would you teach Genesis 1 -2? I really want to know, so that we're not left saying: "Kline is wrong because that's not the reformed tradition." Instead, say: "Kline is wrong because the Scripture shows here........." 

This is also a question for any 6/24er, not just you, John


----------



## Puritanhead

This thread is like the Energizer bunny... it just keeps going and going...


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> John, if you were going to teach Genesis 1-2 from a 6/24 perspective how would you do it? What points would you make? How would you refute arguments that oppose yours, like say for example, oh i don't know, Kline's, etc.? I undertand that you don't want to teach Genesis 1-2 contrary to reformed tradition, so how would you teach Genesis 1 -2? I really want to know, so that we're not left saying: "Kline is wrong because that's not the reformed tradition." Instead, say: "Kline is wrong because the Scripture shows here........."
> 
> This is also a question for any 6/24er, not just you, John



There are a few reasons why I picked on this particular issue, and perhaps a bit too much on Kline. The point, though, is not the creation issue, but rather the issues of the sufficiency and perspicuity of the Word, the offices and their limits, and the responsibility to the present and historic church. 

So, what you're asking now is a different thing, as I see it. If I were to teach on Gen. 1 and 2, what would I be teaching? And then again back to the original issue: Would I refute the other views, the ones that are not six day views?

I am not in such a position. I have no place to teach. But, as I understand, this is hypothetical, for the sake of argument. So I offer it as such, and no more than that. It reflects more what teachings I would look for in a teacher, not so much that I think myself adequate to teach others.

First, in teaching it would be important to be careful to delineate between doctrine and opinion, especially since there are so many different views out there. It is not so much that the 6 - 24 hr. days should be emphasized, as it is to try to keep a clear distinction between what is revealed and what is speculated. In other words, should be emphasized that the Word is the Word, and that we should believe it even if we can't explain it. But one should stick to the text and teach from Gen. 1:1 through all the verses. That might include a brief summary of it as God's revelation of Himself in creation, governance, and providence, as found in Belgic Confession art. II, as well as the summary in the WCF. I

I would use my own example from design and plan of why there is no problem with the fourth day. It is not what the Bible teaches, but is an illustration to show that the fourth day is no stumbling block to the 6 - 24 hr. days. In such a case I am not teaching anything the Bible does not clearly declare, but only using an example.

I would choose to try to keep the lesson not too long, so as to allow a little more time than usual for questions concerning this topic. I'm pretty sure that most of the people listening to the lesson would want to ask their questions. And I believe the Bible does give answers. So when trying to keep a distance between doctrine and opinions, this would include my own. Especially my own, since those opinions would give the most threat of creeping in as more than opinion. 

In answering the questions, I would be expecting mostly to be called on to refute the other views. But I wouldn't do that too much. I think the problem does not lie in the confusion on the revelation of Gen. 1 and 2, but on the doctrine of the Word. So I would gravitate to responding to questions in a manner that keeps that clear distinction between revealed doctrine and speculations. The problem is not that we don't know enough about the creation days, for we never knew anything more than what God revealed to us in His Word. The problem is how free we are to raise our speculations to the same level as those things that are necessary to believe. 

For example, the Westminster Assembly decreed that we must believe "in the space of six days". So I would ask if this also includes the notions of "in the space of _untold_ days" or "in the space of six _time expanses_". If we can mean by these terms anything that fits our theories, then ought we not to just expel these terms from the Confession? It if does not mean precisely "in the space of six days", but can also mean "_not_ in the space of six days", then why is it in there? So then the important question to ask is whether the Bible demands this phrase to be believed as from God Himself? And the answer would be that we have the exegesis that Fred was talking about, we have Ex. 20:11, and we have the witness of the Church, that it is traceable throughout the history of the Church; and we have a confessional ruling, which also shows that the Spirit was also working in this decision; we have all these to show that "in the space of six days" is Biblical. What do the other theories have? Do they have an exegesis? Do they have a direct text like Ex. 20:11? Do they have a good and sufficient reason to believe that Ex. 20:11 means something else? Do they have the witness of the Church? Do they have a confessional ruling, which also shows the leading of the Spirit? 

Notice that this is not judging anyone. It is only saying that we need to go about this honestly, looking at all the facets. I believe this has not been done. I still see no clear reason why "in the space of six days" can also mean "not specifically in the space of six days" at the same time, and still be in the Confession. There has been no decision by any church which says that another theory is now doctrine, and that "in the space of six days" cannot necessarily mean "in the space of six days". There has been no remarkable declared change in doctrine, Confession, or polity which has opened the doors to speculation being propagated by the offices. None of these things have happened. So the main thing, as I see it, is why these views are a problem in the churches, and when and where did it happen? These new ideas are not *only* about the creation days. 

That is how I would answer questions about the other views. That's because I don't see that as being about other views so much as about more important things. We don't know much about the creation days, but we do know a lot about the doctrine of the Word, the mandate and responsibilities of the offices, Church history, and so on. If we can avoid these problems in positing other views, then we have a legitimate view to deal with. 

So if I were given the responsibility of teaching on this matter, I believe it would try very important not to sacrifice the sure and certain things for the sake of things that we do not know about, things that we can only speculate on.


----------



## Peters

> There has been no decision by any church which says that another theory is now doctrine...



I do not believe that the church decides what is doctrine, ie. what's true. We must work from the Scriptures first and above all. That is to say, we must be like these guys:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11) 

Thanks for your consistent responses, John.


----------



## RamistThomist

What John is saying is that someone who is ordained or in a teaching position under the authority of the church must respect their vows. If one had vowed not to teach contrary to the Confessions, he must be honest and uphold it.


----------



## JohnV

That is partly right, Jacob. It is also that Christ commanded those He commissioned to teach what He had commanded. So, because this is Scripture that He commanded, it can be nothing more and nothing less than Scripture. Whether or not someone had taken any vow, he is never licenced to teach what Christ did not command. 

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, Marcos. I did not mean to suggest that the great Synods and Councils of the church created doctrine. They do not invent it, or create it, or make into doctrine. The Word is the sole source of doctrine. Over the centuries certain questions have come up on matters that are not directly addressed in the Scripture, or rather things that men have misunderstood; and these are clarified from Scripture by these Synods and Councils. They are not adding to the Word, but clarifying out of the Word. In all this Scripture is still the only interpreter of Scripture. So these church synods do not decide anything to be doctrine that is not doctrine already. They need to stay within what Christ commanded, and nothing more.


----------



## Peters

Brother



> What John is saying is that someone who is ordained or in a teaching position under the authority of the church must respect their vows. If one had vowed not to teach contrary to the Confessions, he must be honest and uphold it.



I hear you, brother, but is the literal 6/24 position a definitive mark of the confessional/Reformed? Do you disagree with Dr. Clark´s observation that"¦ 



> The idea of using one particular view of the creation days as a doctrinal norm or as mark of Reformed orthodoxy is relatively new in American Reformed/Presbyterian experience and it seems to me it is fueled by a fearful, reactionary spirit.



"¦or that Hodges, Warfield, and Machen were neither confessional or Reformed or true to their vows?

John



> They do not invent it, or create it, or make into doctrine. The Word is the sole source of doctrine. Over the centuries certain questions have come up on matters that are not directly addressed in the Scripture, or rather things that men have misunderstood; and these are clarified from Scripture by these Synods and Councils.



Historically, are not creeds and confessions typically formed to combat heresy and to establish a theological constant from the Scriptures? What other doctrine does this creation issue jeopardize? Dr. Clark has already asked this question: 



> The bigger question in the whole debate is what is the theological effect of the framework? So far I haven't seen any coherent answers to this question. I can't see that it affects one's doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, or last things.



I think it's a good one.


----------



## RamistThomist

To answer your question, yes I believe that 6/24 is the reformed standard. I believe it is biblical and confessional. There is nothing new I could say that someone like Fred or Bruce haven't said.


----------



## JohnV

Yes, I agree with Jacob. The Confession makes it the standard. As concerns the creation days itself, this has come under question only in recent memory in the North American continent. Before that it was merely assumed, I suppose. And there has been a lot of reactionary fear to the fact that the six day creation was being assailed. But this does not make the six day creation a new idea or new belief. The question is whether it is a norm for orthodoxy. And that is a different question. Dr. Clark is right about that.

I have tried to show that bringing in new theories has impacted the church in other areas. Or perhaps it has been that the theories are brought in because the Church has been impacted in other areas. These questions remain: who is bringing in these new notions? and how? If it is not Scripture, and if it is not the Church, then who? And do we owe any submission to it? 

I am inclined to believe right now that the Scripture does not bring these new notions in, that the Church has not, and that we do not owe any submission to them. As such, I believe Dr. Clark is correct as to the six day view not being a mark of orthodoxy, but the Church as the body of Christ is a mark of orthdoxy, the preaching of the Word is a mark of orthodoxy, the proper administration of discipline is a mark of orthodoxy. So the point at issue here is not that people have other views, but that other views are being taught as being what the Bible teaches without official authorization. That, as I have said, is where this impacts the churches.

You could say that the Confessions were formed to combat heresy. It would be better, I think, to say that they were the response to heresies. So it is not so much that men created answers to the heresies, but that the Spirit used heresies to illumine the truth for those who stood firm in the Word. It is not that new things were revealed, but that the same truth prevailed against all attacks, opening us up more and more to what was already revealed in Scripture. In other words, the controversies about things that some men thought were left open to our own additions did not outdate the Scripture, or did not reveal to us that Scripture was inadequate to give us answers, or that the Scripture lacked sufficiency. It was not that the Scripture did not reveal it for us, but that we were ignorant of its teachings until the Spirit led us through trials to reveal it to us. The Scripture is just as vitally revealing now as it has ever been. The problem is not Scripture, but us. Therefore the history of the Church is very important to us, for the Spirit has led her through the ages. That is what the Confessions represent, as I understand this.


----------



## fredtgreco

Thread cleaned and back on track.


----------



## Peters

Thanks for your oversight, Fred.


----------

