# The Framework View of Creation



## Romans922 (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm wondering if anyone on the PB would be able to explain to me why there are men who come for ordination and are asked about their creation view and the length of days, and they say that their view is the Framework view. But that makes no sense to me because the Framework view is a literary view not a creation view or a length of days view. Would someone explain this to me?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 7, 2012)

I think by saying that they hold to the Framework view they are basically saying that they are agnostic about the length of the creation days. I.e., if it's just a literary device intended to communicate an apologetic against Ancient Near Eastern gods, then it is not intended to say anything about the length of the days at all.

I personally think that it is intended to be such an apologetic, but that it also teaches the 6, 24-hour days view at the same time.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 7, 2012)

May I say from the point of view of a pew-warmer that OPC members I've talked to over many years about it view it as just a dodge, a cover to deny belief in the true inspiration of God's word? When I say "all those I've talked to," it has only, to my memory, been members of OPCs, but many more than one congregation. Those I've talked to about it or overheard over the past few years run the gamut from disgusted to irritated to puzzled. 

At a fellowship one day I spent some time trying to discern from a man (who is no longer OPC) exactly what framework IS. After about ten minutes of question and answer, I was told in a condescending tone, "You need to go to seminary to understand these things."

!

If there is any doctrine I need to go to seminary to understand, we have a serious problem.

There may be framework enthusiasts on PB, and I don't mean to start challenging ordained men; but I do mean to convey that what is (at least often) perceived of in the pews is that framework is a sophisticated dodge when one doesn't want to say, "You know, I just don't believe Genesis 1." From the perspective of a mere church member I'd prefer to deal with someone who plainly states that instead of trying to get all metaphorical about it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 7, 2012)

Covenant Joel said:


> I think by saying that they hold to the Framework view they are basically saying that they are agnostic about the length of the creation days. I.e., if it's just a literary device intended to communicate an apologetic against Ancient Near Eastern gods, then it is not intended to say anything about the length of the days at all.
> 
> I personally think that it is intended to be such an apologetic, but that it also teaches the 6, 24-hour days view at the same time.



That's how most I've interacted with take it. The standard note is that it's not being presented for technical accuracy in the sense that we would expect out of a modern scientific description of the events as they unfold. I think that's a fair observation.

Let me preface by stating that I'm a YEC but not because of the theories that some YEC use to try to reconstruct the days of creation according to modern scientific criteria. I think that the bottom line with Creation is that we weren't there and Special Revelation is given to us by the One who was. It is enough for me to simply state that the days are days because I'm not going to impose an external standard based on emperical evidence upon the Scriptures as my interpretive grid nor do I believe I need to offer an alternative theory (based again on modern scientifc understanding) that will lend itself to testing by the scientific methods that I don't base my faith in the record upon in the first place.

I guess what I'm saying is that, in a certain sense, some may feel compelled to agnosticism because the YEC position is sometimes presented in the sense that you must accept either their scientifc account of what Genesis 1-2 means in competition with the prevailing scientific theories and I don't think either should be the basis for a view of Creation. It should be exegesis based on the internal witness of the Scriptures for any external criteria will be tentative.


----------



## kappazei (Jul 7, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> ...a sophisticated dodge when one doesn't want to say, "You know, I just don't believe Genesis 1." From the perspective of a mere church member I'd prefer to deal with someone who plainly states that instead of trying to get all metaphorical about it.



On a related note, I've been reading a book on the history of conservative Protestants in British Columbia (where I live) and |I am amazed at how difficult it is to combat the encroachment of liberalism, even back then.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 7, 2012)

I guess there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 7, 2012)

Just curious. Is there any possibility that a scientific discovery could change one from a YEC to an OEC which would force a person to read Genesis differently than from a YEC viewpoint? This is what happened with Galileo right?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 7, 2012)

No and No.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 7, 2012)

Earl, 

The earth is flat is no where in Scripture, nor the earth being round... However, Genesis 1 and 2 are quite clear, espec. when you include Genesis 5 and 11. 

Now back to the Framework question....


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 7, 2012)

Andrew:

I assume that you've read the PCA report on this. What guidance are you able to gain from that? That report is intended to answer this sort of question, among others. 

Let me also recommend the OPC report (disclaimer: I had something to do with it). It may be accessed here: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Jul 7, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Earl,
> 
> The earth is flat is no where in Scripture, nor the earth being round... However, Genesis 1 and 2 are quite clear, espec. when you include Genesis 5 and 11.
> 
> Now back to the Framework question....



I do believe the issue was not the earth being round but that it was the center of the universe.


----------

