Framework Hypothesis

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.

I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.

Patrick,

Your point here is my biggest rub with the FH. I don't necessarily object to the idea that the creation days are literary devices and not literal 24 hour days. But it just seems to me that they are guilty of arbitrary exegesis when they move from Genesis 1 to 2. I'd like to read up more on the FH, but this is a big sticking point for me.

If you haven't already, read Klines article linked above then read Pipa's critique and refutation here.
http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

I think you will get a good feel for the problems. You're right. It is an arbitrary exegesis, and one that presupposes the truthfulness of modern "scientific views." I would think this fact alone would have the Van Tillians in an uproar.

 

[Ianterrell]

Didn't Augustine have a proto-FH?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by luvroftheWord

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
I've never met a FH advocate that denied a literal Adam and a literal fall of man. The doctrine of the Fall and original sin as traditionally understood is not contingent upon a 24 hour understanding of the six days. I would agree with you guys that the issue of death before the Fall is a troublesome issue for the FH. But that doesn't make it heresy, in my opinion.

I agree with you on this point, most FH advocates don't deny Adam and the Fall. The problem is that they are using an inconsistent hermenuetic to arrive at that conclusion. On what grounds do they accept the literalness of Adam, the serpent, and the Fall, and not the 6 days of creation? Perhaps because later Scriptures mention those things as facts? Sure. But later Scriptures also mention the 6 day creation as matter of fact too, mainly the 4th commandment. I think the only reason the FH advocates don't deny the literalness of Adam and the Fall is because they understand that to do so destroys the foundation of the Gospel. But denying the literalness of the days because they are intimidated by scientists, is simply letting the devils foot in the door, and it won't be long before the rest follows.

Patrick,

Your point here is my biggest rub with the FH. I don't necessarily object to the idea that the creation days are literary devices and not literal 24 hour days. But it just seems to me that they are guilty of arbitrary exegesis when they move from Genesis 1 to 2. I'd like to read up more on the FH, but this is a big sticking point for me.

If you haven't already, read Klines article linked above then read Pipa's critique and refutation here.
http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

I think you will get a good feel for the problems. You're right. It is an arbitrary exegesis, and one that presupposes the truthfulness of modern "scientific views." I would think this fact alone would have the Van Tillians in an uproar.

It does have quite a few Van Tillians in an uproar.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Perhaps it would be helpful to define heresy. I define it as the denial of a cardinal doctrine, which includes the Biblical account of creation, among other fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

If you have a different definition of heresy or if you could expand on how serious an "error" you think FH is, then perhaps we can refine our area of agreement/disagreement better.

I would like to see definitions of heresy as well. I want to agree with Andrew here.

CT

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Didn't Augustine have a proto-FH?

I'll have to read that part of the City of God again. But I've usually taken any comparison of modern theories with him as anachronisms. Its been a while since I read it, but as I recall, Augustine was not espousing any one view of the creation as much as trying to ascertain limits of the freedoms which the texts allows, based on the text alone. His intent, I thought, was to cut off certain ideas which were making the rounds back in his day. But I may be mistaken. That was one part that I read several times, each time without much profit from it at the time.

[edit mode]
Or was it the Confessions? Wow, it's time to read them again.

[Edited on 23-1-2005 by JohnV]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Perhaps it would be helpful to define heresy. I define it as the denial of a cardinal doctrine, which includes the Biblical account of creation, among other fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

If you have a different definition of heresy or if you could expand on how serious an "error" you think FH is, then perhaps we can refine our area of agreement/disagreement better.

I would like to see definitions of heresy as well. I want to agree with Andrew here.

CT

I think the Cambridge dictionary is a good place to start:

"a belief opposed to the official belief of a church and that is considered wrong, or the condition of having such beliefs "

That is why there can be (in my opinion) damnable and non-damnable heresies.

 

[JohnV]

Fred:

Would a damnable heresy, then, be one which opposes universally understood Biblical teaching, while a non-damnable one would be one that opposes one that not universally held?

In Galations we are told that preaching another gospel is a damnable heresy. But clearly, Paul is not talking about Gnositicism, but against those who have mixed Judaistic teachings in with the gospel. In the rest of the gospel he speaks about the proper use and understanding of the law. So one would suppose that he's talking here about those who mix in OT legalism and ceremonialism in with the gospel, and calls that another gospel. The point being, I would suppose, that the gospel is a gospel of grace, not ritual observance; and he calls this latter a damnable heresy.

Now perhaps I understand Galations wrongly, but however one understands it, Paul is condemning the admixture of other teachings into the once-delivered gospel, and not just another religion. Perverting the gospel is a damnable heresy, it seems.

Now, this goes back to Andrew's point. If there was some Biblical legitimacy to the FH, that it found support in the Word, instead of being "fit" into the text through gymnastic exegesis, it would be clear of being considered a damnable heresy. But it is a theory that is not found anywhere in Scripture. Nor does it have a well-founded scientific basis. In short, all it does is call the Biblical view in the decalogue into question.

I would say I have to agree with Andrew on this one about ex nahilo. It is not, though, as if they make a claim to it, but I think it is an eventual necessity of their logic.