Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What do you all think of the Gap theory?
What do you all think of the Gap theory?
It has been often said that Germany lost WWII the day the Allies invaded Normandy on D-Day. I am convinced that broad evangelicalism lost the wars of feminism and homosexual acceptance when evangelical colleges and seminaries began to promulgate Day Age and Framework views as the norm. Evangelicalism may last for a few years, a number of decades, or the indefinite future. But, it will (barring an intervention by our Sovereign God) be crippled for the duration by that fateful acceptance.
Please elaborate on this point. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just interested to read exactly why you believe this...
It has been often said that Germany lost WWII the day the Allies invaded Normandy on D-Day. I am convinced that broad evangelicalism lost the wars of feminism and homosexual acceptance when evangelical colleges and seminaries began to promulgate Day Age and Framework views as the norm. Evangelicalism may last for a few years, a number of decades, or the indefinite future. But, it will (barring an intervention by our Sovereign God) be crippled for the duration by that fateful acceptance.
I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing.
It is always puzzling to me how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.
I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."
Indeed but, last time I checked, the Framework Hypothesis does not teach that the genre of Gen 1:1-2:3 is poetry.
That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.
Well stated, Sproul has indeed been very orthodox in his later years, and is unwavering in his defense of the Reformed Faith. RC is not perfect, and does not claim to be, the thing that angers me when I hear people (in our own "camp") take shots at him, is this simple fact, more than anyone, he has made the Reformed Truth understandable at a popular level, he has never ignored the grassroots.Usually I read about the older generation of teachers becoming more and more loose on their doctrine. It is an encouragement to see someone like Sproul keep himself under the authority of scripture throughout the entirety of his life.
Hello Gentlemen,
I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
Brian
For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.
As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.
Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.
That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.
Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".
Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his An Old Testament Theology.
That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.
Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".
Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his An Old Testament Theology.
It is not poetry. Even calling it "elevated prose" does not make it anywhere close to Hebrew poetry. There is much assertion/speculation in by the scholars cited above with very little to back up what they are saying. Whoever said that the syntax is "distinctively different" from narrative prose (Wenham? I can't tell since there is an ellipsis in the quote) is smoking crack. If you want to see a difference between the syntax of narrative and poetry read a book like the Song of Solomon. First year students of Hebrew will not be able to make heads or tails of it, however, they will be able to translate Genesis 1 without a hitch.
I do not find a great deal of use from observations of critical scholarship in this discussion to begin with. Why would I take with any seriousness the conclusions of men who would waste time with unbelief , e.g. the Documentary hypothesis ("pure priestly theology"), asserting the possibility of "poetic fragments" and "earlier creation accounts"? That is all scholarly code for "We do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a whole, nor that God spoke to him and gave him insight on the subject, nor that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in any way, rather the Pentateuch was pieced together over hundreds (thousands?) of years by multiple hands using passed on material and editorial liberties". That is the kind of garbage that you will even find "Reformed" professors of the OT handing out to their students.
While I'm on this kick, let me bring up the problem of unbelief in the classroom again. Back to a discussion of my Pentateuch course at WSC. The prof involved was asserting this same type of drivel, that the Levitical codes were not written strictly by Moses, but were editorially inserted as "can be most certainly seen by the parallels between the law code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Leviticus" (which really is not all that clear anyway when you actually compare the two). So I raise my hand (once again) and the prof tries to ignore me (once again). Finally I interject and ask, "You are saying that this stuff was all later editorial patchwork inserted from the law codes of pagan societies, but at the head of almost every chapter in Leviticus it reads that 'the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying such and such' - so what do we make of that?" The answer that I received from a supposedly Reformed prof teaching at a Reformed seminary was astounding. He said, "Well, some of these things are difficult, and don't have easy solutions." Allowing that kind of thinking into a Reformed seminary (which is exactly what you will get from taking your PhD at a higher-critical Roman Catholic institution, and being actively involved in SBL) is why conservative Reformed denominations are getting sloppy with their theology. Students are given the speculative and the novel, and they have no firm foundation set from which they can progress (apart from what they learned at their "fundamentalist" churches - God help them).
I mention all the above, because I do not take issues like Framework, etc. as something to be tossed about in a playful manner. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset behind much of the scholarship, and especially as the ideas of critical OT scholarship has had an influence on some significant Reformed scholars (anybody been keeping up on Pete Enns lately?...). This is a battle that also affects the students who would like to minister later in denominations where these scholars reside.
Case in point, the OT prof to whom I have been referring made quite clear to me in private conversation that he would do his best to see that I would never be ordained in his presbytery with my "fundamentalist" views of Scripture and my failure to hold a "sufficiently robust position of common grace". This is sinister stuff. To have Christ-loving, Gospel-centered men actively weeded out by denominational academics who want to see their agenda advanced at the expense of young ministers who may find the foundations of their scholarship to be lacking is something very serious, and something that will eventually undermine the work of any denomination.
To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.
Hello Gentlemen,
I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
Brian
Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.
Hello Gentlemen,
I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.
Brian
Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.
No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.
Actually, listening to R.C. was one of the turning points for me. Hearing him speak so candidly of his own change of mind a few years ago, I started reading YEC material over on the Answers in Genesis site and became convinced for the same reasons R.C. indicated.
So, no, the references have NOTHING to do with Jr. and I frankly have no idea what he thinks about creation.
DMcFadden
McFadderator Minimizing
No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.