I Have Changed My Mind Concerning Creation

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

That is great news.

 

[RamistThomist]

:thumbsup:

Doug Kelly's Creation and Change did it for me.

 

[Grymir]

Congrats are in order. As a student of theology, this will help you in ways you can't even imagine yet. God's blessings upon you!

 

[Quickened]

I'd be curious to hear what he said that got you to change your mind! (out of curiosity of course)

 

[danmpem]

I'd be curious to hear what he said that got you to change your mind! (out of curiosity of course)

 

[VaughanRSmith]

I'd also be interested in hearing what you learned.

 

[Michael]

Hey Jacob,

As the father of a 1 1/2 yr old who loves the movie Cars, I must say that you now have quite possibly the greatest avatar ever.

(At least until someone uses Mater)

 

[JBaldwin]

So glad to hear that. I thought you might be saying you were going to switch away from the literal 6 day/24 hour view. My husband was educated around scientists, and it took him a very long time to come around to the literal 6-day creation.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well to say a little background first as most of you know I have recently left the PC (USA) (within the last 3 months to be exact though I had always felt "uncomfortable" there) and have never, truly, had cause to really question the varied understandings of Genesis 1. Firstly in my OT01 (Winter 06-07, Intro to OT: Genesis-2nd Chronicles) at PTS I was first presented with the many varying positions concerning this, none of which I had heard before and prior to this I was a not concerned really about the question of creation at all. In that discussion in OT01 I thought it would be prudent to pick one of the options so I became a Framework person. Seemed the most logical given "scientific evidence" and all. Well I actually decided to research Framework a little more and found it wanting. So after that I had been in limbo until tonight. I must say I have always "wanted" to believe in 6/24 but never had the intestinal fortitude to do so.

Well in class tonight (ST 41, Westminster Confession) at RPTS taught by Dr. Wayne Spear we went over Chapter 4 concerning Creation. As I was listening to the lecture I was reading the Scripture references in my WCF (which happens to be the one in the OPC clothbound edition) and my eyes were opened and it became very clear to me that 6/24 was correct and the Confession plainly teaches it.

 

[Craig]

Amen! God's Word is authoritative. God bless.

 

[fredtgreco]

:thumbsup:

Doug Kelly's Creation and Change did it for me.

This is one of the best books anyone can read on the subject.

Kelly is awesome.

 

[Poimen]

I thought the Puritanboard was a haven for scholars. Judging by this thread however, it has been taken over by a bunch of Bible thumping fundies.

 

[Sydnorphyn]

hummm

Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

But, what of those presuppositions? Should readers of the Bible accept anything based on presuppositions? I wonder, what evidence in the Bible presents this position - if you do not mind sharing?

wondering

john

 

[S. Spence]

Just while we're on this topic has anyone come across any good articles on evolution with respect to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. that entropy (disorder) increases with time)?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

But, what of those presuppositions? Should readers of the Bible accept anything based on presuppositions? I wonder, what evidence in the Bible presents this position - if you do not mind sharing?

wondering

john

For one Scripture teaches that all Creation fell with Adam's sin correct? Well if one of the consequences of the fall is death (for animals as well as humanity) then there cannot be animal death before the fall (Gen 3:21).

 

[Contra Marcion]

:thumbsup:

Doug Kelly's Creation and Change did it for me.

Me, too. After having Dr. Kelly for Systematic I, I now routinely pass out copies of that book!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Call it ignorance or whatever but when I find out that a preacher denies the literal interpretation of Gen. 1-11 I have a hard time listening to anything else he has to say.

 

[jaybird0827]

I am absolutely thrilled to learn of the grace of God in deliverying you from PC(USA). I had to take my family out many years ago when I realized that any benefit we could possibly hope for in our attempt to be "missionaries" to what had been the denomination of our youth would more than have been offset by the liablities to our son and any other children the Lord would have been pleased to give us.

 

[Philip A]

I thought the Puritanboard was a haven for scholars. Judging by this thread however, it has been taken over by a bunch of Bible thumping fundies.

It's taken you three years to figure that out?

 

[Christusregnat]

Well Dr. Spear in class tonight at RPTS finally got me to really understand the pre-suppositions that are tied to a 6/24 reading of Genesis 1 and the difficulty of the gymnastic exegesis of other positions.

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

God is good!

 

[Ravens]

His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history.



Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.

 

[DMcFadden]

His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history.



Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.

Joshua, I don't mean to sound like a back woods hick to the more scholarly among us, but my experience was identical to yours. R.C. Sproul's and John Piper's teachings were used of God to enlighten me to things I had shoved to the back burner of my mind for years regarding Calvinism. Answers in Genesis materials and people like Kelley changed my thinking on the Genesis issue. Six academic degrees and credential programs had left me settling for half-answers and "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand" type of paralysis of analysis for years. Coming to Calvinism and to a straight forward reading of Genesis felt like "the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of the text in front of me" just as your did. I love your description. It puts into words exactly what my own doctrinal transition was like.

 

[fredtgreco]

His opening post in this thread might very well end up as the "Most Thanked Post" in PB history.



Seriously though, I rejoice when I see other people embrace the 6-Day viewpoint. I came to embrace it in the same way that I came to embrace Romans 9; namely, the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of text in front of me.

Joshua, I don't mean to sound like a back woods hick to the more scholarly among us, but my experience was identical to yours. R.C. Sproul's and John Piper's teachings were used of God to enlighten me to things I had shoved to the back burner of my mind for years regarding Calvinism. Answers in Genesis materials and people like Kelley changed my thinking on the Genesis issue. Six academic degrees and credential programs had left me settling for half-answers and "on the one hand . . . but on the other hand" type of paralysis of analysis for years. Coming to Calvinism and to a straight forward reading of Genesis felt like "the fog and darkness cleared, and I wondered how I could have ever missed the obvious and plain meaning of the text in front of me" just as your did. I love your description. It puts into words exactly what my own doctrinal transition was like.

I think this is an important point. I always have to laugh when someone treats the "ordinary day" view as being benighted or unscholarly, especially since I have (to speak as a fool) 4 degrees.

 

[fredtgreco]

Just while we're on this topic has anyone come across any good articles on evolution with respect to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. that entropy (disorder) increases with time)?

Doug Kelly's book has a decent (if not exhaustive) treatment of this.

 

[AV1611]

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

That is interesting because I have started to move in the opposite direction from you

 

[Me Died Blue]

Amen! God's Word is authoritative. God bless.

To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).

:thumbsup:

Doug Kelly's Creation and Change did it for me.

This is one of the best books anyone can read on the subject.

Kelly is awesome.

I'll have to check out that book.

 

[Craig]

To be fair, at least among the disagreements different Reformed theologians and churches hold and/or allow, that's not the issue (in the question of how to interpret the creation passages).

To be equally fair...if the *way* in which the Creation account is to be taken authoritatively is to take a different sense than a natural reading...that throws the sense in which the rest of scripture is to be taken as authoritative out of whack...I realize that isn't how it always plays out for Reformed believers...but that's the slip'n slide.

I'm not trying to debate this...this isn't the sort of thread where I should quibble.

I think Backwoods Presbyterian has an idea of what I'm getting at...as do others...and I want to simply rejoice with him.

 

[DMcFadden]

I have given up the internal struggle and have submitted to a literal, 6-Day creation.

That is interesting because I have started to move in the opposite direction from you

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (sorry, I forgot that you kids don't know what a broken record sounds like . . . "to run the risk of engaging in vain repetitions"), try reading Kelley and material on the Answers in Genesis site. They really do raise scientific, biblical, and hermeneutical issues worthy of consideration, especially if you find yourself moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thanks all for your kind words.