Framework Hypothesis and the Confessions

[Theognome]

Whether you prefer the WCF, LBC or TFU, how does the Framework Hypothesis fit within your particular confessional stance? I'll admit that I do not agree with FH, but I don't absolutely see it refuted (or at least denied in principle) from a confessional standpoint. Thoughts?

Theognome

 

[Scott1]

It's pretty clear the Westminster Confession teaches a "calendar day" (in the space of six days) creation.

My only familiarity with the alternatives are from Dr Sproul's excellent commentary on the Confession, Truths we Confess where he says that he was "open to the possibility" of a framework hypothesis but has now changed his mind to the classical view (calendar days).

Implicit in that was that Dr Sproul at one time thought it could be compatible with the Westminster Standards.

The PCA did a study paper on these views. While not absolutely binding on presbyteries ordaining teaching elders, it conveyed a basis to allow four views, including the framework one.PCA Historical Center: Creation Study Committee Report to the 28th General Assembly, June 21, 2000

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Whether you prefer the WCF, LBC or TFU, how does the Framework Hypothesis fit within your particular confessional stance? I'll admit that I do not agree with FH, but I don't absolutely see it refuted (or at least denied in principle) from a confessional standpoint. Thoughts?

Theognome

I believe the current trend in this debate is that most acknowledge that it is perfectly clear what the Westminster Divines believed and meant when they wrote "in the space of six days." All evidence points to historical days of ordinary length. The question is, were they limiting the Church to that particular view? Or were they open to alternative explanations of "in the space of six days"? There are general phrases in the confession which are deliberately left open to interpretation such as "general equity" simply because that is all they could agree upon. Does the Confession allow such liberality on "in the space of six days"? I personally don't think it is possible, since the whole article is stated not only as a doctrine but as a historical fact. I'm not so sure the Church would allow such diversity of opinion on "God's making all things of nothing" or "by the word of his power..."
Perhaps some Confessional scholars can correct me if I'm heading the wrong way...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No; I think you are correct Patrick. However, as Alan Strange and others have pointed out, there's the Westminster Confession, and then there's how that confession is received by a church. i.e. Original intent and animus imponentis. Clearly, and I think to the point other arguments are straining at gnats, the original intent is 144 hour creation. I think that can be more certainly proved than the Westminster Standards take an exclusive psalmody position. But that is not the end of the matter for a church; there's the adopting intent when a later body to Westminster adopts the standards they produce. See a helpful appendix in The Affirmation of the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly of Divines. By Alan Strange, in The Confessional Presbyterian volume 4 (2009).

Whether you prefer the WCF, LBC or TFU, how does the Framework Hypothesis fit within your particular confessional stance? I'll admit that I do not agree with FH, but I don't absolutely see it refuted (or at least denied in principle) from a confessional standpoint. Thoughts?

Theognome

I believe the current trend in this debate is that most acknowledge that it is perfectly clear what the Westminster Divines believed and meant when they wrote "in the space of six days." All evidence points to historical days of ordinary length. The question is, were they limiting the Church to that particular view? Or were they open to alternative explanations of "in the space of six days"? There are general phrases in the confession which are deliberately left open to interpretation such as "general equity" simply because that is all they could agree upon. Does the Confession allow such liberality on "in the space of six days"? I personally don't think it is possible, since the whole article is stated not only as a doctrine but as a historical fact. I'm not so sure the Church would allow such diversity of opinion on "God's making all things of nothing" or "by the word of his power..."
Perhaps some Confessional scholars can correct me if I'm heading the wrong way...

 

[Casey]

However, as Alan Strange and others have pointed out, there's the Westminster Confession, and then there's how that confession is received by a church. i.e. Original intent and animus imponentis.

For those interested, there was recently a conference on animus imponentis: link (mp3's). As a matter of fact, this conference took place for the very purpose of answering this question regarding confessional subscription and the framework view. Strange was one of the four speakers.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

However, as Alan Strange and others have pointed out, there's the Westminster Confession, and then there's how that confession is received by a church. i.e. Original intent and animus imponentis.

For those interested, there was recently a conference on animus imponentis: link (mp3's). As a matter of fact, this conference took place for the very purpose of answering this question regarding confessional subscription and the framework view. Strange was one of the four speakers.

I've listened to these lectures too. They are informative outlining the issues involved.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Listened to Prof. Strange's; it was good. Only minor caveat I would have is he didn't buy EP as the original intent of the Westminster Divines (the OI we can say ) except insofar as it tilted that way probabgly. I think Matthew Winzer's review of Nick Needham's work on the issue settles it, if not absolutely conclusively; reasonably conclusively. See The Confessional Presbyterian (2008) 253-266, Reviews & Responses, Nick Needham, “Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments?” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 2, ed. J. Ligon Duncan, reviewed by Matthew Winzer.

 

[MW]

To answer the OP, in terms of original intent of the Westminster Confession, there is nothing in a framework hypothesis in and of itself which contradicts the Confession; problems only arise when it is used to support the idea that creation was brought to pass in something other than a sequential six day period. There is no reason why the literary framework of forming the tohu (formless) and filling the bohu (void) should not be understood as the very order in which God worked.

 

[Theoretical]

To answer the OP, in terms of original intent of the Westminster Confession, there is nothing in a framework hypothesis in and of itself which contradicts the Confession; problems only arise when it is used to support the idea that creation was brought to pass in something other than a sequential six day period. There is no reason why the literary framework of forming the tohu (formless) and filling the bohu (void) should not be understood as the very order in which God worked.

So, if I'm understanding that correctly, 6 24 hour days are the important part but if the order believed is the Framework order, that would be OK?

Day 1 and then 4
Day 2 and then 5
Day 3 and then 6
Rest

 

[MW]

So, if I'm understanding that correctly, 6 24 hour days are the important part but if the order believed is the Framework order, that would be OK?

Day 1 and then 4
Day 2 and then 5
Day 3 and then 6
Rest

That is only the historical order which a framework hypothesis proposes. Another hypothesis posits that God formed on the first three days, and filled on the subsequent three days, just as the narrative describes. My point is that any proposed "framework" is relative only to the literary structure of the passage; the historical understanding associated with that structure is not germane to it. What has been called the framework hypothesis really only has a right to comment on the narrative units and how they fit together; it has no basis for reconstructing the history as presented.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What do you guys think of this book.

Did God Create in 6 Days?

 

[DMcFadden]

I have it, like it.

But, hey, I'm a 24-7 guy.