Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

[Puritan Sailor]

The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.

This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.

Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account due to the scriptures demanding such.

One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).

It is actual history because the rest of Scripture interprets it as history. Your argument that it is theological not historical, is simply insufficient. It is both. Just as with ALL historical narratives in Scripture, there is a theological point to be made, so with Genesis 1. The historical events are recorded and interpreted by God for us to teach us about himself. It cannot be poetic or parable because that is not the literary style. If there is no historicity in Gen 1, then there is no foundation for the theology contained in it. We have no idea how God actually worked in history. Thankfully, the rest of Scripture does tell us that God created the world in 6 days (Ex 20). The historicity is affirmed, and the theological point is grounded in God's own historic example.

If you are not careful here, then hermeneutically you are on your way to denying the Incarnation. Did it really matter that Jesus was actually God and man? Or is it just a profound theological point the story of Jesus was suppose to make? How do you interpret the cosmogony of the new creation? Is is historical or just theological?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.

This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.

Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account due to the scriptures demanding such.

One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).

It is actual history because the rest of Scripture interprets it as history. Your argument that it is theological not historical, is simply insufficient. It is both. Just as with ALL historical narratives in Scripture, there is a theological point to be made, so with Genesis 1. The historical events are recorded and interpreted by God for us to teach us about himself. It cannot be poetic or parable because that is not the literary style. If there is no historicity in Gen 1, then there is no foundation for the theology contained in it. We have no idea how God actually worked in history. Thankfully, the rest of Scripture does tell us that God created the world in 6 days (Ex 20). The historicity is affirmed, and the theological point is grounded in God's own historic example.

If you are not careful here, then hermeneutically you are on your way to denying the Incarnation. Did it really matter that Jesus was actually God and man? Or is it just a profound theological point the story of Jesus was suppose to make? How do you interpret the cosmogony of the new creation? Is is historical or just theological?

This is precisely the danger of going down such a road. Not only is there nothing in the account of creation to cause us to think that it is not literal history, but the rest of Scripture clearly testifies that it is.

 

[a mere housewife]

Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical.

I see. We define it as cosmogony because it bears resemblances to other cosmogonies. Then we define cosmogony as myth, because every other cosmogony (which does not bear the inerrancy and incorruptibility of divine inspiration) is. Then we deny that the biblical cosmogony is history, because by definition, cosmogony is unhistorical?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical.

I see. We define it as cosmogony because it bears resemblances to other cosmogonies. Then we define cosmogony as myth, because every other cosmogony (which does not bear the inerrancy and incorruptibility of divine inspiration) is. Then we deny that the biblical cosmogony is history, because by definition, cosmogony is unhistorical?

So to say that Genesis 1 is a cosmogony is do deny that it is accurate history, and reduce it to the level of pagan mythology? Is that correct?

 

[a mere housewife]

Sorry Daniel, that first sentence should have been in quotes. I'm trying also to understand the statement made by Richard; it seems that it does boil down to your assessment, if I'm not misunderstanding.

 

[Ravens]

Richard,

I've always had a respect for you on this board. Whether you were dealing with psalmody, the dangers of the cinema, or any other such "minority" topic, I tended to see where you were coming from and agree with you. It pains me to see you posting on these cosmogonic interpretations. Perhaps it shall turn out that I am wrong, when all is said and done. But nevertheless, at the moment, it saddens me to see someone so committed to the Scriptures buying in to the typical claims made about Biblical and ANE literature that could be heard in any liberal, apostate seminary throughout the country, even if such theories are "tweaked" in order to make them more palatable to more orthodox Christians.

Personal comments off. As someone who has taken a deep interest in world mythologies throughout my life, I realize that a "cosmogonic link" could be established between the creation account of almost any given culture and the account given in Scripture. In my opinion there is no extraordinarily uncommon similarity between the ANE and the Biblical accounts that one could not find in other cultures. Example.

Voluspa:

3: Young were the years when Ymir made his settlement,
there was no sand nor sea nor cool waves;
earth was nowhere nor the sky above,
chaos yawned, grass was there nowhere.

4: First the sons of Bur brought up the earth,
the glorious ones who shaped the world between;
the sun shone from the south on the hall of stones,
then the soil was grown over with green plants.

5: From the south, Sun, companion of the moon,
threw her right hand round the edge of heaven;
Sun did not know where her hall might be,
the starts did not know where their place might be,
the moon did not know what power he had.

6: Then all the Powers went to the thrones of fate,
the sacrosanct gods, and considered this:
to night and her children they gave names,
morning they named and midday,
afternoon and evening, to reckon up the years.

***

17: Until three gods, strong and loving,
came from that company to the world;
they found on land Ash and Embla,
capable of little, lacking in fate.

18: Breath they had not, spirit they had not,
character nor vital spark nor fresh complexions;
breath gave Odin, spirit gave Haenir,
vital spark gave Lodur, and fresh complexions.

Taken from the Poetic Edda, translated by Carolyne Larrington, pp. 4, 6.

I've known of the Voluspa since I was a teenager dabbling in Asatru, but I never thought about the sequence of events until the past couple of days. Note the sequence:

1) Chaos: Without quibbling over words, I think it is fair to portray stanza 3 as a chaotic situation. Snorri seems to speak of a chaotic Ginnungagap between Niflheim and Muspell. No differentiation, no earth, no sky, no sea, just yawning chaos.

2) The Earth: It says that the sons of Bur "brought up the earth". As she notes in the foreward, in some Norse poems, the earth was made from the body of Ymir, and in some cases it was brought up from the sea. So at least in some Norse traditions, this earth was "brought up from the sea". If I felt rowdy I'd make a fun comparison between the destruction of Ymir and Tiamat and the construction of the earth, but I'll pass.

3) Plants: At the end of the fourth stanza, plant life is mentioned. The soil is grown over with plants.

4) Sun, Moon, Stars: Incredibly, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, is the very next stanza. Even more incredibly, the explicit purpose of their creation is "to reckon up the years."

5) Creation of Man: Three gods then create man and woman. From Snorri we learn that they were made from two trees. Notice that the fundamental things they lacked were breath and spirit. So, a "Divine Council" [sic] if you will, creates man from pre-existing elements, through the medium of giving divine breath and spirit.

To recap:

1) Chaos
2) Earth rises from Sea
3) Plants cover earth
4) Creation of sun, moon, and stars, to "reckon up the years."
5) Creation of man via the impartation of divine breath

I daresay that there are just as many, if not more, thematic and substantial parallels between Genesis 1 and the Voluspa as there are between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish.

There is nothing unique, in my opinion, about the connection between Genesis and the Enuma Elish that constitutes dependence or polemic. At the end of the day one would have to base his entire argument, unless I am mistaken, on nothing more than geological proximity. Similar to the case of evolution, all "transitional forms" of mangled creation documents or tablets are missing, and one is left, really, with an ipse dixit, at least as I see it.

I typed out the Voluspa by hand, so from this point on, I'll use internet sources for some of the Native American legends:

Kiowa Apache: "In the beginning nothing existed--no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere." The Creator next went on to create Light, followed by the Earth. Google the Cherokee, Creek, Inuit, and other legends, and you'll see a same theme, namely, chaos and/or water being the primal element, followed by the creation of all other things.

Some of the Hindu myths, the Japanese myths, and the Egyptian myths, as well as some African myths, also start out with either chaos, water, or, at times, "chaos/water."

Some cultures reflect and retain the original sequence more than others. In some, animals already exist, in others, the earth is created prior to the seas, but in many cases the sequence is stunning.

Even Ovid, despite being entangled by the Five Element view, seems to reflect the very same order:

The Creation of the World

Of bodies chang'd to various forms, I sing:
Ye Gods, from whom these miracles did spring,
Inspire my numbers with coelestial heat;
'Till I my long laborious work compleat:
And add perpetual tenour to my rhimes,
Deduc'd from Nature's birth, to Caesar's times.
Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball,
And Heav'n's high canopy, that covers all,
One was the face of Nature; if a face:
Rather a rude and indigested mass:
A lifeless lump, unfashion'd, and unfram'd,
Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos nam'd.
No sun was lighted up, the world to view;
No moon did yet her blunted horns renew:
Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky,
Nor pois'd, did on her own foundations lye:
Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown;
But earth, and air, and water, were in one.
Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable,
And water's dark abyss unnavigable.
No certain form on any was imprest;
All were confus'd, and each disturb'd the rest.
For hot and cold were in one body fixt;
And soft with hard, and light with heavy mixt.

But God, or Nature, while they thus contend,
To these intestine discords put an end:
Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv'n,
And grosser air sunk from aetherial Heav'n.
Thus disembroil'd, they take their proper place;
The next of kin, contiguously embrace;
And foes are sunder'd, by a larger space.
The force of fire ascended first on high,
And took its dwelling in the vaulted sky:
Then air succeeds, in lightness next to fire;
Whose atoms from unactive earth retire.
Earth sinks beneath, and draws a num'rous throng
Of pondrous, thick, unwieldy seeds along.
About her coasts, unruly waters roar;
And rising, on a ridge, insult the shore.
Thus when the God, whatever God was he,
Had form'd the whole, and made the parts agree,
That no unequal portions might be found,
He moulded Earth into a spacious round:
Then with a breath, he gave the winds to blow;
And bad the congregated waters flow.
He adds the running springs, and standing lakes;
And bounding banks for winding rivers makes.
Some part, in Earth are swallow'd up, the most
In ample oceans, disembogu'd, are lost.
He shades the woods, the vallies he restrains
With rocky mountains, and extends the plains.

***

High o'er the clouds, and empty realms of wind,
The God a clearer space for Heav'n design'd;
Where fields of light, and liquid aether flow;
Purg'd from the pondrous dregs of Earth below.

Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when streight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:
New herds of beasts he sends, the plains to share:
New colonies of birds, to people air:
And to their oozy beds, the finny fish repair.

A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet, and then was Man design'd:
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest:
Whether with particles of heav'nly fire
The God of Nature did his soul inspire,
Or Earth, but new divided from the sky,
And, pliant, still retain'd th' aetherial energy:
Which wise Prometheus temper'd into paste,
And, mixt with living streams, the godlike image cast.

Thus, while the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft; and with erected eyes
Beholds his own hereditary skies.
From such rude principles our form began;
And earth was metamorphos'd into Man.

1) Chaos
2) Distinguishing Between Earth, Sea, and Sky
3) Stars
4) Animals
5) Man

So, my question is, why exactly do almost all ancient cultures start out with a chaos, or "unformed lump"; either that, or "universal waters", followed by a "separation" period wherein the earth, sea, and sky are distinguished, followed by the creation of stars, animals, and man.

Granted, I'm not acting as if these myths have not been garbled. I'm not ignoring Spider Woman, inconsistencies, preexisting animals, etc. But at least for me, it's just as plausible to think that, if all mankind descended from Noah and his sons, that they retained the account of creation (in their oral, and later written, cultures) and preserved the basic "gist", while particular elements became garbled over time.

I realize this post is long. My only point is, when a scholar engages in "freeplay", he can create links and tomes and peer-reviewed papers about anything he wants. A scholar could have a field day with the Voluspa. But of course, he can't. Geographical proximity, however, allows the scholar to do so when it comes to the ANE.

I noticed you said "there might be some Egyptian elements". I don't know if you are referring to Currid's work or not, but to be honest, I found even his treatment of the Egyptian myths with their "creation by word" and how it relates to Genesis unsettling.

I thought about posting that months ago, but never did. Namely, I realize it's too easy on the PB for anonymous laymen to "lay into" accredited scholars and pastors. Nevertheless, his treatment very much made me uncomfortable.

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.

I guess that explanation is too simplistic for some.

Blessings Richard,

Joshua

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If the difference are that vast (and they are) then what keeps one from allowing one to be portraying real history vs. the others not?

Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical. The similarities are not in the detail but in the themes and the presentation of those themes. Further, the structure of the account and the theology it advocates demonstrates it is polemical over and against historical.

You are forgetting one significant fact about cosmogonies. All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences. That is the meta-narrative which gave authentication to the pagan pantheons and worldviews, even authenticating dynasties. Whenever a culture became skeptical about their cosmogony, a new one took over, and hence a new religious worldview. So even if you consider Gen 1 a cosmogony in the form of myth, the original audience (i.e. Israel) would have understood it as literal history (like all the other ANE cultures), wherein the accurate account of the one true God creating all things is set forth.


Btw, Interesting also how the same phenomena is still happening today, the evolutionary cosmogony/mythology is considered historical by evolutionists....

 

[Ravens]

I made this post in the "Creation Question" thread awhile back. I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but since "polemics" against Baal and other's are usually associated with the Framework view, and such has been brought up in this thread, I thought I'd repost it here. Especially since, apparently, this is the ocean into which all creation threads tend to run.

Sorry for all of the *'s in the fake commentary. I just felt vaguely guilty for using the name of Christ in a "satire" (and still do), but I don't know any other way to do it and still make the point that the same kind of logic used in Genesis could be used in the New Testament.

Here is another problem that I have with the whole concept and language of reading "polemics" into the Scriptures: Paganism has gods for everything. Athens was a famous example of that; I'm sure we've all heard the famous quote that it was easier to find a god in Athens than a mortal. They even covered their bases by honoring "the unknown God."

You can see the same thing in Hinduism. I am not even quite sure if there is an "official tally" of the number of Hindu deities, but I have heard it reaches into the thousands. The Norse myths of the ocean couldn't even contain all of the gods that supposedly had power over the sea: Njord, Ran, AEgir; and let's throw Jormungandr in to boot. Point being, what Chesterton said about the Greeks applies, in general, to all pagans: "They couldn't see the trees for the dryads [not verbatim]."

Why do I bring that up? Because the overflowing polytheism of darkened nations allows any text to be turned into a "polemic". I don't often like when people flippantly mention our Lord in order to prove a rather trite or academic point, but I don't see any other way around making my point. So let me show you what polytheism, coupled with a "Let's Find a Polemic" approach, makes possible.

Here's a sample commentary from 2014:

"The authors and redactors of the documents that eventually came to be collected in what was formerly called the "New Testament" were writing, primarily, to people of low socio-economic status, surrounded and beleaguered on all sides by the impressive majesty of the Roman empire. The claims that the faith community later placed back into the mouth of Chr*st (we should not associate these claims, of course, with the historical Y'shua ben Yosef) clearly clashed with the prevailing polytheism of Imperial Rome."

"Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient religion of the Greco-Roman pantheon was now being superseded by mystery cults and Emperor worship, the august pantheon of antiquity still exerted quite a sway in the minds of the commoners. We must also keep in mind that the documents of what would later be styled the "New Testament" were written to people of a different culture, who spoke a different language. Ergo, we must take off our lenses of preunderstanding and see these ancient texts in a way that the average proselyte or catechumen would have understood them."

"When we approach the texts in this fashion, we see clear traces of early proto-Christian polemic against the ancient Roman triad of gods (namely, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto) woven throughout the gospel narratives. Why does the gospel record numerous examples of (1) Chr*st walking on the water, (2) Chr*st calming the wind and the waves on the way to free the Gadarene epileptic, along with concomitant gloss of the "believing community" that "even the wind and the waves obey him", (3) Chr*st calling up a fish to pay taxes for Peter, (4) Chr*st enabling a miraculous catch of fish, (5) et al. Clearly these are to be understood in the prevailing cultural context of the time, and we see clearly that a polemic is being made that Chr*st is L*rd of the Waves and King of the Sea, and not Neptune."

"This insightful approach yields further results. Now we understand that when Chr*st called back Lazarus from the grave, or the text records saints rising after a great earthquake following the crucifixion, or, if we may, Chr*st himself rising from the earth and from the dead, we clearly see that a polemic is made against Pluto. The New Testament author-redactors are showing that the Christian G*d, and not Pluto, is the true L*rd of life and death."

"Lastly, this gives a profound and decisive meaning to the ascension. What is the ascension, but a grand exclamation point punctuating the end of the Chr*st-story? How does it do so? Namely, in one decisive stroke, as it were, it wrests power from the high god of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, by showing that, indeed, Chr*st is L*rd of the Skies. That the early church spoke of him being enthroned at the right hand of the F*ther only establishes and seals this fact."

"What a pity that the assured results of higher-critical scholarship were not known to the church as it formulated some of the distinctive dogmas that we now know to be muddle-headed and rather mistaken...."

Anyhow, that fictional account, I believe, makes my point rather well. Namely, when pagans have a "god" for everything, then "everything" can be turned into a polemic. Polemics against rock gods, sky gods, fire gods, fish gods, etc. There is no logical chain of reasoning that necessitates any of it, and the commentary I just provided, in my opinion, is 100% as plausible as the so-called Baal polemic.

 

[Me Died Blue]

You are forgetting one significant fact about cosmogonies. All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences. That is the meta-narrative which gave authentication to the pagan pantheons and worldviews, even authenticating dynasties. Whenever a culture became skeptical about their cosmogony, a new one took over, and hence a new religious worldview. So even if you consider Gen 1 a cosmogony in the form of myth, the original audience (i.e. Israel) would have understood it as literal history (like all the other ANE cultures), wherein the accurate account of the one true God creating all things is set forth.


Btw, Interesting also how the same phenomena is still happening today, the evolutionary cosmogony/mythology is considered historical by evolutionists....

These are some really good points; in particular, I'd not thought of the latter observation (regarding evolutionists today) in that way before, as it relates to cosmogony and the Genesis account.

 

[AV1611]

All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.

Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.

 

[AV1611]

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.

Thanks for your post, lots to consider. I would agree with your observations above with certain caveats.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.

Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.

How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.

Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.

How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?

According to Exodus 20 it was actual history.

 

[MW]

I would suggest a reading of these:

HASEL, G. F. (1972) “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, Andrews University Seminary Studies. 10 pp. 1-20.

And for follow-up study, here is another article by the same author -- just to "hasel" your viewpoint

Hasel, G. F. --- The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

From the above article please note the following extract:

2. Reformation Understanding of Creation "Days"

The sixteenth-century Reformers agreed that the fourfold sense of Scripture compromised the literal sense of the Bible, making its authority for faith and life null and void. They insisted that the single, true sense of Scripture is the literal sense, the plain meaning of the text.

One of the major achievements of the Protestant Reformation is the return to Scripture. This meant that Scripture is in no need of an external key for interpretation — whether that key be the Pope, the church councils, philosophy, or any other human authority. Scripture's clarity and perspicuity became the norm of the day; its reading from within its own context was paramount. External meaning must not be superimposed on it, as had been the practice under medieval Catholicism. The Bible was to be read in its literal and grammatical sense.

Martin Luther, accordingly, argued for the literal interpretation of the creation account: "We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read." The other Reformers understood the creation "days" in the same way.

This literal and grammatical interpretation, known in the history of hermeneutics as the historical-grammatical method, was the norm for biblical interpretation more or less into the nineteenth century.

3. Changes Under the Influence of Modernism

As the concept of long time periods made its way into the understanding of Earth';s origins in the wake of the publications of James Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875), some Christian concordist interpreters started to reinterpret the Genesis "days" of creation in a non-literal manner. The impetus for this was not found in the Bible itself but in the new world view which was being developed on the basis of uniformitarianism and its concomitant understanding of origins which demanded long periods of time.

The understanding of the creation "days" as "days of restoration," "days of revelation," aside from taking a "day" for an "age" ("day-age" theory) or an epoch/era goes back to this time and the changes in time frames required by the new geology. The approach of a non-literal reinterpretation of "days" was typical of concordists who had accepted long ages for the origin of Earth. In view of these developments, it is unavoidable to conclude that external influences exerted by a new understanding of geological ages became the catalyst for the reinterpretation of the "days" of creation.

 

[py3ak]

Ben, I think this article might be beneficial to you.

I disagree with each one of your three numbered statements. But I suspect it may be a question more of basic feelings and attitudes even than presuppositions, and probably not likely to be well hashed out on a thread already this long and hard to follow.

 

[Perpetua]

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.

I just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance.

I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."

 

[Ivan]

I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

I would find it difficult too, Lynda. Sometning for you to think about, eh?

 

[Hippo]

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.

I just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance.

I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."

You could consider giving him the benefit of the doubt that he honestly believes that an old earth position is biblical. It is possible to hold such a position in good faith, whether it is correct or not is another matter.

 

[a mere housewife]

Dear Sister, could you not in good conscience participate in the worship of the saints when you are meeting for that purpose, and you stated that your minister 'never preaches anything regarding this [his views on creation] from the pulpit', and is solidly biblical in other areas? If the other family member is your spiritual head then that is an additional reason to expect God to use the means He has instituted -- the preaching of the word in the assemblies -- to bless you in spite of the fallenness of your minister.

 

[Dwimble]

Let me preface my comments with this...I honestly, really, truly do not want to be harsh or cause offense, but I find your post problematic in a couple of ways. First of all, this is your pastor that you are talking about, not just some random person or acquaintance. And you say this about him:

...in all other issues [He] is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace

and

He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit...

And yet, you then make these comments about him:

...he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word.

And then finally:

I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Again, I don't want to be harsh, but it looks like you are sitting in judgment over your pastor, and accusing your pastor of some very serious things. You are judging his motives, his heart, his beliefs, his attitudes. You disagree with him over that one issue, and when you try to "refute" him and "point out many more flaws" in that area (none of which is your responsibility to do in the first place), you claim that he gets as "upset as a non-believer".

So, now instead of listening to the pastor whom God has placed in authority over you to instruct you, and whom you say is solid in his doctrine, you'd rather sit in church and read a book by someone whom you deem acceptable to you, because you seem to have judged your pastor as not good enough for you. You seem to think you know better than him and more than him.

Perhaps your pastor is wrong in this area, and perhaps your pastor needs to repent over these things. But instead of judging him you should be praying for him, submitting to him, and thanking your Sovereign Lord that He has given you a pastor who is "solid". Yes, he may need to repent in this area, but you most certainly have some areas where you should be humbly repenting as well.