cornelius vantil
Puritan Board Freshman
what is your view of creation week?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by pastorway
6 day literal, just as God wrote with His own finger on the Stone tablet (Fourth Commandment) that He created the world in 6 days and rested the seventh. (an example of the fact that the Hebrew word for day when modified by a number always equals a literal day.)
Phillip
Originally posted by cornelius vantil
i am framework......that is probably in the minority but i would like to see what everyone thoughts are.
I don't believe that an incorrect doctrine of the length of days should of itself make a man unfit for the ministry. When ordaining a man, we should look at the whole man and judge whether or not he will be profitable to the church. This issue is not a important as others. But I would not want to lie or pretend that the Westminster divines intended framework or day age when they did not.
It is also very likely that most men who hold to a day-age view do not allow the logical consequences of that view to tarnish their doctrine of the Sabbath.
Thank God for inconsistencies!
The grounds would be that the FH advocate does not say that Genesis 1-3 is figurative, he would say it is a non-chronological description of a literal event. The FH does not say God does not create ex nihilo. There are serious problems with the FH in my opinion, and Kline especially has many fanciful notions in general; but a denial of ex nihilo is not one of them. Even Augustine, with his notions of creation (which were also quite odd), did not deny ex nihilo.
That is why for me FH is not heresy - even though I think you can be a heretic and still a Christian (i.e. a teacher of non damnable heresy) - I believe it is flawed, but that is it. To argue otherwise is to open oneself up to easy counterattack by the FH advocates, much the same way that the simplistic, "Roman Catholics believe in salvation by works," can get you obliterated by a savvy RC apologist.
Originally posted by puritansailor
6 day view for all other reasons as stated. I do not think the Church has been left in the dark until Kline came around. PLus any non traditional view is simply a consession to unbelieving worldviews. It is not derived form the plain reading of the text itself.
This is how I understand it.Originally posted by cornelius vantil
Originally posted by puritansailor
6 day view for all other reasons as stated. I do not think the Church has been left in the dark until Kline came around. PLus any non traditional view is simply a consession to unbelieving worldviews. It is not derived form the plain reading of the text itself.
brother, i would have to strongly disagree with you. my affirming FH is not a consession to unbelieving worldview but is the best way to understand the account in genesis. my issue is not that God could not have created to the world in 6 days (he most certainly could if that was his intent), but that the way genesis 1-2 is structured makes it highly unlikely that the intent of the author was to a chronilogical account of the creation week. there are a few reasons for this
1. day1 and day4 conflicts: God creates light and separates it from darkness and calls it "good" in D1, then in D2 God creates the sun and the stars and the first reason he gives is to separate day and night. now if the first arangement was considered "good" why introduce a second arrangement? wouldn.t it be better to conclude that D4 is a recapitulation and expansion of D1?
2. nature of providence during the creation week: the writer says this in Gen.2:5
"and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground"
this verse presupposes that God used ordinary providence during the creation week. this verse brings a few problems with a literal reading of the creation week
a. this verse has vegitation arriving before the arrival of man when in the creation week this was inverted, vegiatation D3 man D6
b. if God used ordinary providence then D1-D3 cannot be chronological because apart from the sun and moon in D4 there was no ordinary method in measuring the days. which further gives the need of D4 to be a recapitualtion of D1
would love to hear some dialogue
Originally posted by puritansailor
This is how I understand it.Originally posted by cornelius vantil
Originally posted by puritansailor
6 day view for all other reasons as stated. I do not think the Church has been left in the dark until Kline came around. PLus any non traditional view is simply a consession to unbelieving worldviews. It is not derived form the plain reading of the text itself.
brother, i would have to strongly disagree with you. my affirming FH is not a consession to unbelieving worldview but is the best way to understand the account in genesis. my issue is not that God could not have created to the world in 6 days (he most certainly could if that was his intent), but that the way genesis 1-2 is structured makes it highly unlikely that the intent of the author was to a chronilogical account of the creation week. there are a few reasons for this
1. day1 and day4 conflicts: God creates light and separates it from darkness and calls it "good" in D1, then in D2 God creates the sun and the stars and the first reason he gives is to separate day and night. now if the first arangement was considered "good" why introduce a second arrangement? wouldn.t it be better to conclude that D4 is a recapitulation and expansion of D1?
2. nature of providence during the creation week: the writer says this in Gen.2:5
"and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground"
this verse presupposes that God used ordinary providence during the creation week. this verse brings a few problems with a literal reading of the creation week
a. this verse has vegitation arriving before the arrival of man when in the creation week this was inverted, vegiatation D3 man D6
b. if God used ordinary providence then D1-D3 cannot be chronological because apart from the sun and moon in D4 there was no ordinary method in measuring the days. which further gives the need of D4 to be a recapitualtion of D1
would love to hear some dialogue
The two creation accounts are two types of narratives with two purposes in mind. The first is deliberately chronological, and interpreted as such in the Decalogue. That is how the Jews and the Church have understood it for thousands of years. I don't think they were wrong.
The second is a narrative specifically about Adam and is not intended to be strictly chronological. How many times is Adam put in the garden in that account? It has a different purpose in explaining the origin of man and his fall.
I don't have time to add anything further right now but I would refer you to EJ Youngs critique of the FH as well as Pipa (but I'm sure you already read them).
Young was a analogical view guy, but I still think his critique of the FH is excellent. You maay see it in his "Studies in Genesis One" published by P&R.Originally posted by cornelius vantil
have not read young's critique would love to though. i have read l. duncan, k. gentrey, j. pipa, and a. sandlin critiques and to be honest they did not address the issues raised especially the gen2:5 issue. that was just danced around by duncan. i was very disappointed. while i would agree with you the both creation accounts served diffrent purposes that does not answer gen2:5. that passage says that the ordinary providental work of God in bringing rain and the arrival of man were nessacary before vegatation can grow. if this was not to be taken literally or chronologically, then why would the Lord reveal it as such?