ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
How can it not prejudice the normal process of scientists? For example, you hold to geocentrism due to Biblical Revelation. How would that position not bias the normal process that scientists use?
CT
Answers in Genesis responds to Modern Reformation Magazine
- Thread starter sastark
- Start date
- Status
How can it not prejudice the normal process of scientists? For example, you hold to geocentrism due to Biblical Revelation. How would that position not bias the normal process that scientists use?
CT
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
The difference, Austin, is that geocentrism was a real position held by the Medieval church, while a "flat earth" was not. Virtually no educated person has held to the latter view for more than 2000 years. One view was built upon the idea that the earth was one of many spheres, the other (mythical view) that the earth was flat. They could not have held to both simultaneously.
Last edited:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
You are correct. I'm fixing it. Technically speaking, though, heliocentrism is also not correct, since the sun is not the center of the universe, but this of course is not what you meant.
Zenas
Snow Miser
As some atheists have correctly pointed out, if you are able to destroy the account of Genesis, you will find in the rubble the Son of God and the entire reason for Christianity. In Genesis we find the reason for the advent of the Messiah. No Genesis, no Jesus.
Straw man---this is not the position advocated. Those who argue for framework argue that it is only Genesis 1 that is stylized, serving as a theological/apologetic prologue to the historical narrative.
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Goodness gracious, y'all.
When I made my point about heolicentrism and the flat earth, there was a point there. No one seems to have addressed it. As an educated person I know what these things are. I don't need pedantic lectures about them. The point is that there is only very rarely any benefit to adding to the objections of our cultured despisers by needlessly articulating and defending positions that (almost universally) do not advance the cause of reaching people with the cause of Christ. In my mind, blasting away at scientists about the details of Gen 1:1-2:3 does little more than make us look like a bunch of loons. I simply do not see Paul making similar issues a point of contention while on the Areopagus. It's almost like getting bogged down in politics, 'America's Godly heritage,' or defending the crusades. What do people need most? Is it to have a 6 Day view of creation, or is it to understand their personal need for Christ?
Look, as I said repeatedly, I have stated no exceptions to the Standards regarding Creation. BUT, regardless of my personal views, I would much, much, much prefer to allow someone to come to Christ through our focus on the Gospel, and then let them grow in their understanding of Scripture over the long haul to the point that they can accept any specific timelines which may or may not be found in Gen 1:1-2:3. And besides, if both a literal 6 Day view and a Framework view are acceptable under the rubrics of Reformed hermeneutics, then why shove this stuff down people's throats up front?
Regarding another point someone made, no responsible Reformed exegete is advocating throwing Genesis out the window. RTS stood up for this by asking for Dr. Waltke's resignation. But do you see them asking for any Framework adherent's resignation? Of course not. And that's b/c the people espousing the Framework view do not do violence to the theological freight of Genesis, nor of Scripture.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS COMMENT: The Framework view, as the only alternate view under Reformed hermeneutics, states that literal history begins in Gen 2:4. Thus everything before the creation of Adam & Eve (without antecedents) is deemed to be uncertain, as Scripture does not speak to it. BUT, everything after this, being addressed by Scripture, must be taken as history in the sense that we understand it.
This does not mean that Gen 1:1-2:3 has no teaching points. Rather, that it affirms that God is the divine origin of all things, that before Creation began there was nothing, and that God "made all things of nothing... by the word of His power, and all very good." All the Framework view does is say that prior to the creation of the man and the woman in the Garden, God made it all, but we just don;t know how, or when, or in what manner.
Why is this so difficult?
When I made my point about heolicentrism and the flat earth, there was a point there. No one seems to have addressed it. As an educated person I know what these things are. I don't need pedantic lectures about them. The point is that there is only very rarely any benefit to adding to the objections of our cultured despisers by needlessly articulating and defending positions that (almost universally) do not advance the cause of reaching people with the cause of Christ. In my mind, blasting away at scientists about the details of Gen 1:1-2:3 does little more than make us look like a bunch of loons. I simply do not see Paul making similar issues a point of contention while on the Areopagus. It's almost like getting bogged down in politics, 'America's Godly heritage,' or defending the crusades. What do people need most? Is it to have a 6 Day view of creation, or is it to understand their personal need for Christ?
Look, as I said repeatedly, I have stated no exceptions to the Standards regarding Creation. BUT, regardless of my personal views, I would much, much, much prefer to allow someone to come to Christ through our focus on the Gospel, and then let them grow in their understanding of Scripture over the long haul to the point that they can accept any specific timelines which may or may not be found in Gen 1:1-2:3. And besides, if both a literal 6 Day view and a Framework view are acceptable under the rubrics of Reformed hermeneutics, then why shove this stuff down people's throats up front?
Regarding another point someone made, no responsible Reformed exegete is advocating throwing Genesis out the window. RTS stood up for this by asking for Dr. Waltke's resignation. But do you see them asking for any Framework adherent's resignation? Of course not. And that's b/c the people espousing the Framework view do not do violence to the theological freight of Genesis, nor of Scripture.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS COMMENT: The Framework view, as the only alternate view under Reformed hermeneutics, states that literal history begins in Gen 2:4. Thus everything before the creation of Adam & Eve (without antecedents) is deemed to be uncertain, as Scripture does not speak to it. BUT, everything after this, being addressed by Scripture, must be taken as history in the sense that we understand it.
This does not mean that Gen 1:1-2:3 has no teaching points. Rather, that it affirms that God is the divine origin of all things, that before Creation began there was nothing, and that God "made all things of nothing... by the word of His power, and all very good." All the Framework view does is say that prior to the creation of the man and the woman in the Garden, God made it all, but we just don;t know how, or when, or in what manner.
Why is this so difficult?
I think it's "difficult" because it is an interpretational fiat. I find no reason to agree with abandoning the historicity of the first chapter of the Bible. One cannot simply downplay the significance of treating history as poetry if it is not. If it is not poetry then, in my mind, it's really no different when people improperly determine the genre they are dealing with and draw false inferences therefrom. There are always consequences to this. All of us are guilty of it as sinful human beings at times.
Rev. Olive,
I'll just point out that you say that the Framework view is the only alternative under the Reformed hermeneutic. The OPC Creation report lists 4, Framework, Analogical, Day-Age, & Days of unspecified Length (E.J. Young's view). Along with the 24-6 position, these 4 views have been regarded as upholding the Confession.
The Committee also does a good job studying how Presbyterians have traditionally thought on this issue. This may be a good place to start to see how American Presbyterianism has not been unified on this issue.
---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------
This is where the scholarship of people like Kline argues that there are contextual reasons to see a literary structure that some may term "poetic" but that does militate against the legitimacy of the historical account. It simply means that there are conventions that are used that place the details of the text in a certain light for certain reasons.
Upon looking at contemporary literature and analyzing the text, some have concluded that a Framework view works best to explain all the relevant data. Part of the issue, at least from my perspective, is that Genesis cannot be read in a vacuum. It must be placed in its historical context and for myself, I find that a Framework or Analogical views actually do more justice to the text (in its historical context). I don't want to rehash all of Kline here, but I think that to call it interpretational fiat is to down-play careful scholarship done by Reformed scholars.
Many Godly brothers may disagree and I may be wrong. But I think there should be care taken in the motives we attribute to one another (On both sides!).
I will add my quick thoughts to the article. While I am not YEC, I don't find trying to interpret how God has acted without his help is a very good argument. There may be plenty of reasons why God made the earth with fossils in them that we are not privy to. To suggest that because we do not know, God must be a liar if the earth isn't old seems like a major step for me. That is like trying to argue that God likes 2 more than 3 because he gave us two eyes, two ears, two arms, and two legs because if he liked 3 he would have given us 3 of each. I just don't buy it and I don't blame my YEC brother's who don't either.
I'll just point out that you say that the Framework view is the only alternative under the Reformed hermeneutic. The OPC Creation report lists 4, Framework, Analogical, Day-Age, & Days of unspecified Length (E.J. Young's view). Along with the 24-6 position, these 4 views have been regarded as upholding the Confession.
The Committee also does a good job studying how Presbyterians have traditionally thought on this issue. This may be a good place to start to see how American Presbyterianism has not been unified on this issue.
---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 AM ----------
This is where the scholarship of people like Kline argues that there are contextual reasons to see a literary structure that some may term "poetic" but that does militate against the legitimacy of the historical account. It simply means that there are conventions that are used that place the details of the text in a certain light for certain reasons.
Upon looking at contemporary literature and analyzing the text, some have concluded that a Framework view works best to explain all the relevant data. Part of the issue, at least from my perspective, is that Genesis cannot be read in a vacuum. It must be placed in its historical context and for myself, I find that a Framework or Analogical views actually do more justice to the text (in its historical context). I don't want to rehash all of Kline here, but I think that to call it interpretational fiat is to down-play careful scholarship done by Reformed scholars.
Many Godly brothers may disagree and I may be wrong. But I think there should be care taken in the motives we attribute to one another (On both sides!).
I will add my quick thoughts to the article. While I am not YEC, I don't find trying to interpret how God has acted without his help is a very good argument. There may be plenty of reasons why God made the earth with fossils in them that we are not privy to. To suggest that because we do not know, God must be a liar if the earth isn't old seems like a major step for me. That is like trying to argue that God likes 2 more than 3 because he gave us two eyes, two ears, two arms, and two legs because if he liked 3 he would have given us 3 of each. I just don't buy it and I don't blame my YEC brother's who don't either.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
More is dealt with in the articles that simply the historicity of Genesis 1-2:3. A global flood is rejected in favor of a local flood, and the reason is not because of exegetical issues in the first chapter of Genesis. It becomes "difficult" when those who argue against metaphysical naturalism (not science) are compared to "a bunch of loons" and "flat earthers" (a mythical straw man that needs to be forever dispensed with). How exactly is that helpful to the discussion?
I understand and agree that attributing motives is neither helpful nor in keeping with the 9th Commandment. I am simply pointing out the difficulty in closing the gap between a view that de-historicizes Gen 1-2:3 and then assuming that this is inconsequential. Even with the most fair representation of either side, this is going to be a cause of significant friction.
My problem with the MR article is that it is very patronizing to the view of a YEC on the basis of geological expertise. The exegetical grounds for their argument amounts to nothing more than an accusation of a lack of ethical purity on God's part if the way He ordered creation does not match their scientific presuppositions.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Do what? He asked why is it worth talking about things like the age of the Earth with unbelievers and I gave an appropriate answer. How does that then mean I'm accusing proponents of Framework of... whatever it is you describe?
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to say people who adhere to the YEC position are "loons" or "flat earthers." If I were saying that, I would be calling myself a looney flat earther. (Again, I have no exceptions to the Westminster Stds in this matter.) Rather, my point is that when we ride this hobby horse we look like looney flat earthers to those who are "outside," which I don't think is constructive.
Honestly, as I have participated in this discussion I think I am coming to the realization that I have not stated any exceptions b/c in this matter I am more comfortable in saying, "We confess/believe," and staying in submission to the broad stream of my theological inheritance. I am always very, very uncomfortable straying from "what has always, everywhere, and by all been believed."
As a framework-adhering friend of mine has observed, if I weren't ordained I would probably feel a whole lot less uncomfortable dabbling in theological speculation than I am. After all, ordination is such a high calling, and carries such great weight that we should always be reticent-- very reticent-- to strike out on our own when it comes to the Church's teaching on any subject. Sola Scriptura must always be balanced by tradition, authority, and submission. (That's probably yet another reason that I love Martin Luther so dearly.)
Shalom, and thanks for such a stimulating discussion!
Honestly, as I have participated in this discussion I think I am coming to the realization that I have not stated any exceptions b/c in this matter I am more comfortable in saying, "We confess/believe," and staying in submission to the broad stream of my theological inheritance. I am always very, very uncomfortable straying from "what has always, everywhere, and by all been believed."
As a framework-adhering friend of mine has observed, if I weren't ordained I would probably feel a whole lot less uncomfortable dabbling in theological speculation than I am. After all, ordination is such a high calling, and carries such great weight that we should always be reticent-- very reticent-- to strike out on our own when it comes to the Church's teaching on any subject. Sola Scriptura must always be balanced by tradition, authority, and submission. (That's probably yet another reason that I love Martin Luther so dearly.)
Shalom, and thanks for such a stimulating discussion!
Last edited:
Sgt Grit
Puritan Board Freshman
Austin
I work at an University, and no matter how eloquently I answer unbeliever’s questions I will most likely end up looking looney in their eyes unless God is working in their hearts, and that goes for all of the revealed trust, and not just YEC. If I can say in my heart "thus saith the lord" then I should defend it to any unbeliever who asks.
I work at an University, and no matter how eloquently I answer unbeliever’s questions I will most likely end up looking looney in their eyes unless God is working in their hearts, and that goes for all of the revealed trust, and not just YEC. If I can say in my heart "thus saith the lord" then I should defend it to any unbeliever who asks.
I believe I have clarified in the past that men might create working models that are not geocentric which (1.) accord with accepted theory and (2.) work for practical purposes. For science to function properly it must assume things which biblical revelation rules out. If we don't allow science to assume "normality" there would be no standard by which to conclude that an event has taken place which is a "miracle."
In other words, a Christian doing science must hold to two contradictory principles? That is, in science, the sun is the center while in faith earth is the center? This sounds to me like an "upper-story leap" (to borrow a phrase from Shaeffer). By reason we know one thing while in faith we know its opposite? Are you really going to oppose faith and reason like this?
But in this case science would be confirming what we know by faith. Only materialism/naturalism would deny the possibility of miracles---the presence of an actual miracle would serve as a defeater of naturalism.
They are not two principles. They are ruled by one principle -- all facts are of God and interpreted by God. But we recognise two different spheres in which the principle operates -- natural and supernatural (or general and special) revelation.
Nor are they contradictory. Each sphere is functioning in a different way and to different ends. For example, there is such a pheomenon as scientific revolution. This phenomenon basically assumes as a matter of course that scientific enquiry is a matter of human investigation. The science of theology never assumes this as a working hypothesis. There is a faith once delivered to the saints. It is possible to make an once for all theological statement which is not possible for a scientist to make with relation to the mechanics of creation. Science deals with what it can prove. Faith rests on divine testimony. Hence two statements which appear contradictory are ultimately resolved by recognising that the two statements belong two different spheres or categorisations of thought.
We walk by faith, not by sight. What is learned by faith is not a matter of sight. What is known by sight is understood to fall short of the world which faith seeks. So there can be no "confirming" process until that perfected world which faith seeks is ultimately seen and enjoyed. There may, however, be partial glimpses which are made possible by the faith guided eyes of the understanding. Still, these are never confirmed by science because science only makes tentative "conclusions" on the basis of observation.
The science of matter is not materialism. There are facts which are revealed by God in nature which are the domain of all men -- believer and unbeliever alike. These facts are also the assumed context of special revelation. That is what I am alluding to when I speak of understanding what is "normal" in order to be able to standardise "miracle" as a properly functioning concept of human thought.
ChariotsofFire
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think the scientific evidence is strongly in favor of young earth creationism. I don't really see the rush to pervert Scripture on the matter either.
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Josh, are you a geologist? (Neither am I, but the scientists I know & know of are quite sure of the opposite.) For myself, I am always very hesitant to make scientific claims on the basis of a document that was not written to be a scientific text. I see no overwhelmingly compelling reason why we as people who stand on the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture must assert that the 6 days are intended to be literal (especially when so many, even in our circles are unwilling to assert that they are) nor why it is theologically necessary for our system of doctrine that we hold to a view of what precedes Gen 2:4 that must adhere to a literal 6 day view.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
My wife's cousin's husband, who is a professional geologist (Who fairly regularly gets to do some really neat bore analysis in a suspended basket hundreds of feet down in the earth.) would agree with you.
Austin,
Are you saying we should accept the scientific conclusions on faith as they are beyond our understanding as "non-scientists"?
ChariotsofFire
Puritan Board Sophomore
If we really want to side with a majority, why not side with the majority of Christians since the time of Moses? Why do we desire to side with the scientists of the day more than our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? 6 day creation is the historical view since the time of Moses to the 18th century, and despite a few dissenting voices gives us a strong argument to believe in a young earth based on God's providence.
As far as the science goes, I side with the minority view (of today), and I find the arguments for a young earth strictly from a scientific point of view quite compelling. Of course I could be affected somewhat by my world view
-- possibly some of the mainstream scientists are as well 
The broader scientific community does not really allow for open debate on the matter of a young earth or even intelligent design. So I don't trust the mainstream scientists at all. Our theology should be determined by what Scripture says, and in light of Exodus 20:8–11, Mark 10:6 and 13:19, Luke 11:50–51, I'm convicted strongly that anything but 6-day creation is not in line with what the Scripture teaches. And the reason it's such a sticking point with many Christians is that the Scripture is being twisted to say something it doesn't on an important issue -- the creation of the world. Denominations have split over the truth of Scripture concerning women in office, homosexuality, etc. I don't see why creation is any less of an issue. Especially considering the battle we have with the Godless culture -- the culture that believes everything was created by random chance over billions of years. Many Christians don't want to give in to the influence of this culture and compromise. This is important.
ChariotsofFire
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dr. Joey Pipa gives a defense of 6-day creation here:
SermonAudio.com - A Defense of 6-Day Creation
at the 2000 Origins Conference
SermonAudio.com - Sermon Series 2000 Origins Conference
SermonAudio.com - A Defense of 6-Day Creation
at the 2000 Origins Conference
SermonAudio.com - Sermon Series 2000 Origins Conference
Which is? If anything, a framework view is more conservative on this issue, being hesitant to claim something that the text may or may not say.
Another possibility is that the days in Genesis are a) non-consecutive b) stylized, like the book of John: ie non-chronological (John is arranged thematically not chronologically).
Only one of those has anything to do with the six days and even that is dealing with them symbolically. No biblical OEC-er is going to accept your verses as they affirm a) that the six days are theology not history b) that the universe is not the result of random chance, but of God's providence.
But here's my point: this debate needs to be one that we have in the Church not with the world. The debate is over how we reconcile general and special revelation on this point and how each is to be interpreted. We must not, though, allow this issue to divert our apologetic endeavors away from the real issue: Christ and Him crucified. OEC is part of the reformed tradition and has been since the 1850s---it's a bit late to be second-guessing B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge just as it is a bit late to be second-guessing neo-Calvinism as a really reformed movement. Like it or not, it's a part of the landscape.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
I would posit that a great deal of difficulty that exists in trying to teach Christ and Him crucified that we have today stems from the fact that several key scholars of the middle 19th century bent to the pressure of 'proven science' and adopted an Old Earth, non literal view of the first portion of Genesis. It is a linchpin, like it or not. I know that not all who hold to an Old Earth view pervert the Gospel, but it opens wide Pandora's box of subjective interpretation of Scripture. That may sound like a hard line, and perhaps it is; but I see NO compelling reason in Scripture to not hold a literal six / twenty four hour day view of the creation week. There is none. The only 'compelling' reason is in the sciences, and they are not even solid. Hypotheses and theories are constantly tweaked and abandoned as new evidence comes to light in almost every field. There was a time when every intelligent student of history, archaeology, and many students of Scripture admitted that there was never a people known as Hittites. Low and behold a vast culture of Hittites was discovered and many experts learned that crow is edible, though not all that tasty. Some were unwilling to admit that they were wrong and to this day a minority deny that the excavations that were done were the same people as Biblical Hittites, even though it has been confirmed in repeated manners.
Why bring that up? Because the Bible will never be proven wrong. I think that all on this board will agree to that. It then brings us back to the question that must be answered: Where is the compelling internal evidence for the abandonment of a literal 24 hour / six day creation?
Why bring that up? Because the Bible will never be proven wrong. I think that all on this board will agree to that. It then brings us back to the question that must be answered: Where is the compelling internal evidence for the abandonment of a literal 24 hour / six day creation?
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Good point, Lawrence, though I have to say that I agree with Philip that there's a case to be made that the Framework view is arguably more conservative, as it hesitates to assert something that Scripture doesn't necessitate.
However, as we go round and round, it really is the case that in all likelihood none of us will have our views changed all that much. What I would like to see us all agree on is that both the 6 Day view and the Framework view are within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. Surely if the PCA study group could agree to that, we can as well. Generally speaking, when I find myself somewhere in the midst of the consensus of my former professors at RTS Jackson, I feel like I'm within a healthy spectrum.
Any thoughts? (I'm sure there are!)
However, as we go round and round, it really is the case that in all likelihood none of us will have our views changed all that much. What I would like to see us all agree on is that both the 6 Day view and the Framework view are within the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. Surely if the PCA study group could agree to that, we can as well. Generally speaking, when I find myself somewhere in the midst of the consensus of my former professors at RTS Jackson, I feel like I'm within a healthy spectrum.
Any thoughts? (I'm sure there are!)
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
As a counter, is it really conservative to be hesitant to deny something that is in the text. Now I know you are against gay marriage, but this way of argument would be equivalent to saying, "I don't want to say gay marriage is biblical or not, I am just not sure." And then trying to label such as the more conservative position.
The problem is the text of the Bible did not change in the 1800s, so all the same words were there before and after. If this is the case, why did some start to say the meanings of the words are not what we thought they were?
Why can't we call some Reformed people from the 1800s compromisers? Just because they compromised over a century ago should not change what we call it.
Also how one reconciles general and special revelation is not some small point. That is the point where we hammer the false theistic systems. There is exactly where Islam etc fails.
Austin
Puritan Board Freshman
Well said, but if I'm not mistaken, something like the Framework view has been around since the days of Augustine. The issue, I believe, comes down to one of genre. If Genesis 1:1-2:3 is history, then we end up with one view. If it is poetry (particularly polemical poetry) then we have another. Clearly, based on the interpretation of Gen 2:4ff in subsequent passages of Scripture, that passage is meant by Moses to be history. The Framework view also resolves the quite apparent problem of the lack of parallelism between the "1st" and "2nd" accounts of Creation (1:1-2:3 & 2:4ff). Really, it is not the critiques of our 'cultured despisers' that makes me strongly consider the FW view, but this latter issue of the differences in the 2 accounts of Creation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked