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

[Gage Browning]

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

 

[brianeschen]

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

Can you clarify this?

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

or

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

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

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

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

 

[N. Eshelman]

[/QUOTE]

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

Same thing, I think.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

1. Yes
2. Yes

 

[Scott1]

PCA
Report of the Creation Study Committee

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


....

It should be observed that the ordinary courts of jurisdiction for officers in the church are the presbytery for the teaching elders and the session for the ruling elders and deacons. These are the courts that deal with the theological position of the officers, and it is not the prerogative of the Assembly to interfere with the judgments of these courts, except by way of review of the presbytery minutes, or by judicial process.

The advice of some who hold the Calendar Day view is that the General Assembly recognize that the intent of the Westminster divines was the Calendar Day view, and that any other view is an exception to the teaching of the Standards. A court that grants an exception has the prerogative of not permitting the exception to be taught at all. If the individual is permitted to teach his view, he must also agree to present the position of the Standards as the position of the Church.

Others recommend that the Assembly acknowledge that the four views of the interpretation of the days expounded in this report are consistent with the teaching of the Standards on the doctrine of creation, and that those who hold one of these views and who assent to the affirmations listed below should be received by the courts of the church without notations of exceptions to the Standards concerning the doctrine of creation.

The advice of others on the committee is that the PCA has existed for over 25 years with a variety of viewpoints regarding creation being accepted, and a diversity of presbytery and sessional practices. These members of the Committee recognize that it would be disturbing to the Church if the Assembly sought to change the present practice of the Church which has provided for various ways of receiving candidates for office, who make the following affirmations.

All the Committee members join in these affirmations: The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.

....

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

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

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

So it would seem.

 

[brianeschen]

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

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

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

So it would seem.

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Nathan

Richard

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

Same thing, I think.

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

 

[sastark]

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

Not "recovering our confessions" but recovering "the reformed confession".

 

[SRoper]

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

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

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