How many interpretations of Genesis or Creation does you denomination have?

[SolaGratia]

How many interpretations of Genesis or Creation does your denomination have?

My denomination has only one interpretation, the literal, Bibical one.

Here is an excerpt from a position paper that reflects what my denomination (RCUS) holds to:

Throughout Scripture, creation is spoken of as a six-day event. The clearest of these is the fourth commandment. When Moses gave the law to the Israelites, they knew what days were because they spent many of them out in the hot desert sun making bricks. The fourth commandment obligated them to follow the pattern for labor that God himself established at the very beginning. Now, if the days of Genesis 1 are not the same kind of days that we know today, then this commandment makes no sense. "God put together six images of creation and then rested forever; therefore, we must work six days and rest one day"? This is called the fallacy of equivocation; that is, the meaning of the terms is not consistent throughout the argument.

The above excerpt taken from a position paper, "The Days of Creation" -1999, RCUS.

Link Here: The Days of Creation - 1999

Also, here is an recent article with regards to the above question, title, How Many Interpretations of Genesis Should a Denomination Allow?

Link Here: http://www.rfpa.org/downloads/8614.pdf

 

[Bookmeister]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

 

[N. Eshelman]

Thus begins a slippery slope started by Gil!

I'll add one (and I am a 6/24 creationist) :

So Augustine, Calvin, Warfield, and the Princeton theologians wouldn't be allowed in the RCUS?

Have fun with this thread Gil. Love you, brother.

 

[SolaGratia]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

Alan,

Is this what the OPC, your denomination holds to?

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------

Thus begins a slippery slope started by Gil!

I'll add one (and I am a 6/24 creationist) :

So Augustine, Calvin, Warfield, and the Princeton theologians wouldn't be allowed in the RCUS?

Have fun with this thread Gil. Love you, brother.

Rev. Eshelman

From my part, this thread is just a simple question with regards to one's denominational stand or interpretation to Genesis or Creation.

For example, What does the RPCNA hold to?

In Brotherly Love!

 

[N. Eshelman]

Gil, I believe that confessionally we are held to 6/24 creation because that is the plain reading of what the Westminster teaches. Truth be told, there are a number in the RP Church that follow the Princeton school on this one. Mostly it is the from older pastors.

I would also like to add that the influence of JG Vos on our denomination has been tremendous. There are a number of people who believe that Vos, through his writings in the Blue Banner of Faith and Life was the most influential 20th century theologian in our denomination. Vos held to a 24/6 creation and promoted moving back to that position. Sometimes these things take a generation to catch on.

Here is a link to Vos' Genesis commentary.

 

[SolaGratia]

Rev. Eshelman,

Thank you for sharing what you believed concerning Genesis/Creation.

Is there something like an official position or interpretation that the RPCNA holds to?

Did I ever tell you that I love Johannes G. Vos!

 

[N. Eshelman]

Here is what the RP Testimony (part of chapter 4) says:

1. The account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is history, not mythology. Heb. 11:3.
2. Since all things were created and exist according to the will of God they are controlled in purpose and duration by the same will.
Rev. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:3-13.
3. The theory of evolution which as- sumes that chance happenings are an explanation of the origin and development of matter and living things is unscriptural. God created various kinds of living forms with tremendous potential for variation. The increase of varieties which has occurred is within genetic limitations provided at creation. Gen. 1:11, 20, 27; Gen. 2:2.
4. We deny that man evolved from any lower form of life. Gen. 2:7, 21-22.
5. We reject all theories of continuing creation. Gen. 2:2.
6. God created man and woman as His image bearers to complement one another. Scripture describes the responsibilities of each and their proper relationship to one another. Distinctions between the sexes do not imply superiority or inferiority of persons. Family life and social order become disrupted when these distinc- tions are confused or ignored.
Gen. 2:20-24; Eph. 5:21-33; Rom. 1: 26-27.
7. God made man ruler over His creation in a covenant relationship with Himself in order to glorify His name. As ruler, man was not created to be his own law-maker, but is subject to the covenant. Since the fall man con- tinues to fulfill the creation mandate. Through Christ’s redemptive reign over all things the gracious purposes of God for the whole creation are be- ing accomplished through men, sinful though they are.
Gen. 1:26-2:5; Gen. 3:17-19; Heb. 2: 5-9; Eph. 1:20-23.
8. Man is steward of the creation and should treat his resources of material wealth, environment, health, energy and talents as gifts of God, for which he must give account. Gen. 1:26; Ps. 8:6; Gen. 2:15-17; Heb. 2:5-9; 1 Cor. 4:2; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; 1 Pet. 4:10-11.
9. We reject any view of man’s rela- tionship to his environment which either leads to his irresponsible exploitation of, or denies his proper dominion over, the earth.
10. The whole creation now groans because of man’s sin. It, along with man, will be delivered from corruption at the consummation of all things. Rom. 8:21-22.

 

[Bookmeister]

Gil,
The framework theory is tolerated but not endorsed by the OPC. I am switching to URC, for geographic reasons, I am not sure if it is allowed there. Can anyone in the URC inform me on this?

 

[Casey]

Gil,

The OPC's doctrinal positions are given only by means of the primary (Bible), secondary (Confession and Catechisms), and tertiary (Book of Church Order) standards. Reports are commended for study but are not official pronouncements. The OPC has no equivalent document to the RPCNA's Testimony. A quote from the GA page on the OPC website: "General Assembly papers are thoughtful and weighty treatises on important matters but do not have the force of constitutional documents, namely, our Confession of Faith and Catechisms and Book of Church Order." With that kept in mind, the creation report is available here: http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf So, ultimately, to know the position of the OPC you'll have to read our Standards. The way to know the mind of the body, aka, it's interpretation of the Standards, would require looking at cases related to creation that have reached the GA (I don't know about any, maybe someone else does).

 

[goodnews]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

Alan, that's a great question. Could it be that history was supposed to be a continual Sabbath rest? We have no evidence of Adam's labor until the curse declared in Chapter 3. As a matter of fact Adam's punishment seems to emphasize the idea of toil. Subduing and having dominion don't necessarily convey the idea of work.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

My denomination, the RPCGA, is 24/6. We have specific statements in our BCO regarding the induction and ordination of ministers and the necessity for those ministers to hold to that view.

 

[Casey]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

Incidentally, where does the text say that there was no evening and no morning for the seventh day?

 

[dannyhyde]

Gil,
The framework theory is tolerated but not endorsed by the OPC. I am switching to URC, for geographic reasons, I am not sure if it is allowed there. Can anyone in the URC inform me on this?

Alan,

Send me an email ([email protected]) and I can help you out more personally. For now, here is the "URCNA Statement on Creation" (Acts of Synod 2001, Articles 38, 43; pp. 20–23):

Synod affirms that Scripture teaches, as summarized by the Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity:

The authority and perspicuity of Scripture (Belgic Confession V; Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day VII).

Necessity and sufficiency of Scripture (Belgic Confession VII; Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day VII).

God the Father almighty created the heavens and the earth and all things visible and invisible (Apostle’s and Nicene Creed).

The Father created the heavens and the earth out of nothing (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day IX).

God gave every creature its shape and being (Belgic Confession XII).

The creation and fall of man. “God made man of the dust of the earth; man gave ear to the devil.” (Belgic Confession XIV).

The historicity of Adam (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day VII.20; Canons of Dort III, IV.1).

Man was created good, in a garden, and tempted by the devil, committed reckless disobedience (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day III and IV).

God’s words to the serpent in Paradise are noted as the first revelation of the Gospel (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day VI).

Adam plunged himself and his offspring by his first transgression into perdition (Belgic Confession XVI).

Adam’s fall into sin and our connection to it (Canons of Dort I.1).

God came seeking man when he, trembling, fled from Him (Belgic Confession XVII).

God created all things good in six days defined as evenings and mornings (Genesis 1 & 2 and Exodus 20:11). This means that we reject any evolutionary teaching, including theistic evolution, concerning the origin of the earth and of all creatures (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day IX).​

Synod affirms our commitment as churches to discipline those who teach anything that stands in conflict with the Bible, as summarized in the Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity.

Synod affirms our commitment as churches to the Church Order’s procedure in dealing with matters of discipline of those whose teaching stands in conflict with the Bible as summarized in the Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity.

Grounds:
1. The above is consistent with the basis of our federative unity, which we declare is in the Bible as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity. We have said together in the introduction of our church order:

"We as a federation of churches declare complete subjection and obedience to the Word of God delivered to us in the inspired, infallible and inerrant book of Holy Scripture. We believe and are fully persuaded that the Reformed Creeds do fully agree with the Word of God and therefore do subscribe to the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort. . . The churches of the federation, although distinct, voluntarily display their unity by a common confession and church order."

2. The Three Forms of Unity adequately contain the parameters within which the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 can responsibly take place.

3. The above will provide the context in which we are able to protect the churches from heresy and spur one another onto faithful and vigilant discipline in order to protect our confessional unity. There is no specific case before this synod in which someone has been charged with violating the Three Forms of Unity regarding matters put forward by any of the overtures.

4. This provides a brotherly way to address the concerns raised by the OCRC and to give pastoral response for the members of our own federation.[/B]

 

[Marrow Man]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

Alan, that's a great question. Could it be that history was supposed to be a continual Sabbath rest? We have no evidence of Adam's labor until the curse declared in Chapter 3. As a matter of fact Adam's punishment seems to emphasize the idea of toil. Subduing and having dominion don't necessarily convey the idea of work.

Actually, Jeff, labor is a creation ordinance (see O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants for more on this), as seen in Gen 2:15 -- "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." The Hebrew word for "cultivate" (or "tend") means "to work." Interestingly, though, the same word is used in other contexts in the Pentateuch to mean "to serve" (as in religious service). Obviously, this is a different sort of labor than occurs post-Fall.

 

[Peairtach]

There are Old Earth Creationist and Young Earth Creationist office-bearers in the Free Church of Scotland.

 

[goodnews]

There was no evening and morning for the seventh day, how do you account for this?

Alan, that's a great question. Could it be that history was supposed to be a continual Sabbath rest? We have no evidence of Adam's labor until the curse declared in Chapter 3. As a matter of fact Adam's punishment seems to emphasize the idea of toil. Subduing and having dominion don't necessarily convey the idea of work.

Actually, Jeff, labor is a creation ordinance (see O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants for more on this), as seen in Gen 2:15 -- "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." The Hebrew word for "cultivate" (or "tend") means "to work." Interestingly, though, the same word is used in other contexts in the Pentateuch to mean "to serve" (as in religious service). Obviously, this is a different sort of labor than occurs post-Fall.

That's a good call Tim. And that's easily my favorite book on understanding the covenantal nature of Scripture, and particulalry how it all points to Christ. I think we're saying the same thing here too, you just put it better than I did. Adam had tasks to perform to be sure as he was serving in a priest-like capacity (hence the connotation "to serve" as in a religious service) in the Garden. But, Robertson also said that his "labor" was also a means of man enjoying his life in the context of creation, while he glorifies God, all as a life pattern. It seems as if the cursed labor following Genesis 3 is something quite different as the world would no longer bring about it's fruits so easily or abundantly, and would do so in a way quite less enjoyable and fulfilling than before. After the fall it doesn't seem to be done as an act of service/worship b/c mankind's relationship with God had been broken. So, I'm just wondering if that daily labor, in a priest-like capacity, wasn't b/c the pre-fall Garden actually existed under God's continual Sabbath. God doesn't command a Sabbath rest in those early chapters of Genesis. And chapter 3, when Adam was driven from the Garden after the fall, seems to be saying that Adam's new work of the ground was now for the sole purpose of eating to exist. No longer was the tree of life available to bring eternal life (through eating in obedience & faith). So again, now we eat, by our struggle, simply to survive. And, only later would God establish our present week of toil for 6 days followed by a Sabbath rest.

Just some thoughts which I haven't, as of yet, sifted through the Scriptures to see if they have any merit.