Hermeneutics And The Creation Wars

Bill-Nye-vs.-Ken-HamYou have heard by now of the worship wars, i.e., the contest between the competing claims about how we ought to worship. There is another battle stirring in our churches, over the proper interpretation of Genesis 1. One of the most frequently sung battle hymns concerns hermeneutics. This is a very important term but one which often goes undefined. Louis Berkhof, defined hermeneutics as the “science that teaches the principles, laws and methods of interpretation” Hermeneutics is a science, but as the Oxford English Dictionary reminds us, hermeneutics is both a science and an art. It is science because it does involve a body of accumulated learning but it is also involves art, i.e., the practiced, skilled and even intuitive application of principles. If it did not, theologians and ministers would have much less work to do.

A Reformed hermeneutic requires the skilled application of a set of principles which accounts for the following:

  • The original setting (author and audience);
  • The original language (vocabulary), grammar and style;
  • The original intention of the human and divine authors;
  • The narrower (immediate) and broader (canonical) context of a passage.

Thus we believe that the clearer passages help us to interpret the less clear and the newer passages teach us how to interpret the older (this is the analogy of Scripture). Christian interpretations of Scripture must fall within the confines of our “catholic, undoubted Christian faith,” which we call the analogy of faith (HC 22).

So there are objective principles on which we have agreed to operate. The business of interpretation is not completely subjective — sitting in a small group asking one another “what does this passage mean to you?” is a good example of a poor hermeneutic.

Though we should learn from unbelieving interpreters of Scripture, there is a difference between believing and unbelieving Bible interpretation. Those who rightly understand and accept the Bible’s testimony about itself are more likely to pay attention to what Scripture says elsewhere. Christians, having been redeemed by grace alone and united to Christ through faith alone, are given the Holy Spirit who helps us understand the Word of God.

Some, however, seem to think that the practice of hermeneutics is mechanical, as if one drops a penny into a machine and out comes the correct interpretation. Bible interpretation simply does not work this way, because all Bible interpreters are sinful. Further, since no one reads Scripture without preconceptions or without a theology, there is a subjective element to Biblical hermeneutics. The good news is that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear (perspicuous) about the essentials of the faith and, they are God’s Word written, so that they change us, rather than the reverse (Hebrews 4:12). Yet, Scripture itself (2 Peter 3:16) teaches us that, as Westminster Confession 1.7 says, “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.”

This brings us to sola Scriptura. Sometimes this great slogan is quoted as if to mean, “I believe in sola Scriptura, this is my interpretation, therefore if you disagree, you are denying Scripture.” To disagree with an interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily the same thing as disagreeing with Scripture itself. To be sure, it is possible to deny Scripture; this is why we have a Confession and Consistories, to prevent and correct mistakes in Biblical interpretation. It does not follow, however, that because one believes in the unique and primary authority of Scripture, that therefore one’s interpretation of a given passage is necessarily correct.

By sola Scriptura our Reformed fathers meant to teach that Scripture alone is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, not the traditions of men or even the Church. Scripture is that “norm which norms all other norms.” We confess that the Scripture forms the church, not the reverse. We must then reject those radical Bible interpreters who teach that the Bible has no fixed meaning or that the reader controls the meaning of the text.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not look at any other books than Scripture when interpreting it. We need history books and grammars to teach us the background, culture and language in which the Scriptures were originally given.

There is another book which we must learn in order to interpret the Scriptures properly. Indeed our Confession teaches that God’s creation “is before our eyes as a most elegant book” (Art. 2). We cannot ignore “the book of nature” when interpreting the book of Scripture. This was Calvin’s practice. In his commentary on Genesis (1554), he recognized that the Bible uses observational language. He acknowledged that though “Moses makes two great luminaries” (the sun and moon) astronomers “prove” that Saturn is greater than the moon. He resolved the tension by teaching that Moses wrote in a “popular” not technical style. The study of general revelation is “not to be reprobated” nor is this “science to be condemned” simply because “some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them.”

There is little doubt about how the books of Scripture and nature should be ordered in our study. We may discover wonderful things in the book of nature, but Scripture (special revelation) must have the priority over general or natural revelation. It is Scripture which interprets nature for us and teaches us what those discoveries mean. Psalm 19:1 declares that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” So do the seas, and all that is under them (Ps. 148:7). Romans 1:19-20 teaches that God has revealed himself in nature so that no man is without excuse. In this way natural revelation is Law, not Gospel. So, the Bible alone teaches us the doctrines of the Trinity, predestination, the two-natures of Christ and the Gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

The history of science, however, is replete with examples showing how students of the natural world have changed their minds in fundamental ways. They too come to God’s book of nature with presuppositions. Many approach it rebelliously, intent on denying God’s authorship or repudiating the Christian faith. Anyone who reads a book this way, whether nature or Scripture, is wasting our time. The Christian faith has not fundamentally changed since the close of the Biblical canon. Though our understanding of Biblical teaching has developed, we still affirm the catholic creeds and the cardinal doctrines as we did in the 2nd century.

For both sides in the creation wars, there is no doubt that it was the triune God of Scripture, who created “from nothing” (ex nihilo) by the power of his Word. There is no doubt that our God made Adam from the dust of the earth, and Eve from his side, as real historical persons, “in righteousness and true holiness;” (Catechism Q. 6) that God made Adam to be the federal head of all humanity, that God entered into a covenant of works with Adam (Hosea 6:7) which he failed, depriving himself and all his posterity (Catechism Q. 9) of the blessings he would have earned by his obedience. We all agree that the same God who made Adam and the covenant of works, also made a covenant of grace, a gospel promise (Genesis 3:14-16) to send a second Adam, a Redeemer who would keep covenant for his people and triumph over Satan (Romans 5:12-21).

We also agree on the moral implications of the creation account. We agree that God has instituted a work-rest pattern, in which we are to work for six days and rest for one; that there are creational laws, patterns and structures to which all humans are bound, e.g., that the family is a basic human structure, that worship of our Creator and Redeemer is basic to human existence, that human beings are significant and human life sacred because we are made in God’s image.

Even applying the hermeneutical principles on which we all agree, it is harder to see that Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended to teach us the exact length or nature of the days of creation. Certainly we are to think in terms of days, but does God’s Word intend to teach us that each of the days was twenty-four hours? When we ask this question of Genesis 1, are we asking a question which arises from the text itself, or are we asking a question Scripture never intended to answer? This seems likely to me.

Though some argue that the “obvious” or “plain” or “simple” meaning of Genesis 1 is that God created the world in six twenty-four days, these are not tests which Reformed interpreters of Scripture have historically used. In the 16th century, the Socinians argued that it was obvious to anyone with sense that the plain and simple meaning of Scripture is that God is one person, not three.

Others have proposed that we interpret Genesis 1 the way any child might. This would not seem to be a very sound path since we could not use this hermeneutic elsewhere in Scripture without jeopardizing the doctrines of the Trinity, predestination, the two-natures of Christ and justification.

Early in my Christian life I was taught that the obvious, simple and plain meaning of Scripture required that we believe that God’s plan in history was not first of all the redemption of his people, but the formation of a national people (Israel), that Jesus came to offer them a kingdom, that they rejected him, that, as a result he was crucified. I was further taught that the plain teaching of Scripture is that one day Jesus will return secretly to rapture his people, institute a seven-year tribulation, followed by an earthly reign for 1000 years, during which priests will offer sacrifices before the Lamb of God.

As I matured, I learned that, based on the principles sketched above, this most complicated scheme (it apparently requires films to explain it) is not the right understanding of Scripture, precisely because it uses a wrong hermeneutic. We reject the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture because it does not pay attention to the history, context, grammar and literature in which Scripture was originally given, therefore it misunderstands the theology of much of the Bible. Therefore, the “obvious, simple and plain” approach failed to produce good results.

So how do we bring the creation wars to a peaceful resolution? Surely careful application of our principles of interpretation is a good first step. Listening carefully and charitably to those who affirm our Confession with whom we disagree is another necessary step. A third step is to bring the teaching of Heidelberg Catechism Q. 88 to bear on this debate. The Catechism defines conversion (sanctification) as the “dying of the old man and the quickening of the new.” The work of Bible interpretation, perhaps more than any other vocation, calls for dying to self and the renewing work of God’s Spirit through the Gospel. We must not ask ourselves what we want a passage to teach, but what the passage wants to teach us. In the spirit of Q. 88, we must commit ourselves to work together, to bring our own minds and wills into submission to the teaching and intention of the text of Scripture at hand. There is a great deal at stake in the creation wars; such good works will repay us well.

This essay was first published c. 2001.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


129 comments

  1. Dr. Clark,

    Andrew points to a Q/A on the OPC website. I would add that the OPC Creation Report (and its local predecessors) was very helpful in calming the creation wars in the OPC. One of the key points was the list of things that people from various interpretations were willing to affirm. For example, once six-day creationists could hear advocates of the framework hypothesis assert their belief that Adam was a direct special creation of God this dramatically reduced the suspicions that the former had of the later.

    David

  2. Dear Scott, or Dr. Clark,

    This was really helpful in light of the creation debate that is raging in a small synod in which I am involved. I had the audacity to mention the framework view a couple of years ago which prompted one presbyter to go on a crusade to stamp out all views but 6/24 lunar day creation. I appreciated as well the link to the OPC document as well from one of the comments. Such testimonies are very helpful as they serve as testimonies of how peace and truth are maintained in other reformed bodies.

  3. Here we go again. Whether implied or stated, those who hold to a literal, six-day creation (the “historic” view) are considered the troublemakers. This is getting old.

    • To be perfectly clear, my goal in writing this piece in 2001 and in addressing this issue in RRC was to try to help foster peace. I do not virw those who hold the 6/24 view as “troublemakers.”

      I do intend, however, to challenge the notion that the 6/2view is the “orthodox” position.

      Keith is relating what is happening on the ground in his circles. I too have had similar things said to me: “I wouldn’t admit Machen or Warfield to this presbytery.” That approach does exist. Is there a parallel move to exclude 6/24 folk anywhere? I haven’t seen it.

      My prayer is that we can talk about hermeneutics and not politics.

    • ” Is there a parallel move to exclude 6/24 folk anywhere? I haven’t seen it.”
      Perhaps not in exactly the same manner, as liberals occasionally like to show their tolerance of confessionalists as long as we follow their basic rule (don’t disagree with our opinion in public, don’t teach your opinion, keep your opinion private, and realize that only an imbecile could hold your opinion), but with that qualification, I would point out that the 6/24 view is regularly hammered at every opportunity. While in the PCA we have a few (I don’t recall how many exactly) presbyteries that insist on a 6/24 view; from seminars at GA, to public writings by influential leaders, to statements from professors at the denominational college/seminary, to articles in the denominational magazine; the pressure is much more against 6/24. So, yes, I have to concur with Frank.

      • Mark,

        Being criticized and being systematically excluded from the ministry are different, aren’t they? I’m thinking of episodes where good men were excluded from entry into a presbytery solely because they did not hold 6/24 creation. Has anything like that happened 6/24 men?

        We’re not talking about liberal/mainline denominations, are we? We’re talking about NAPARC denominations.

        That said, I quite agree that both those who hold 6/24 and those that don’t should be treat each other with grace and respect.

        Can you point me to places where you see the 6/24 view treated with disrespect? This is not a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely seeking to understand what counts or is heard/seen as disrespect. Thanks.

    • “That said, I quite agree that both those who hold 6/24 and those that don’t should be treat each other with grace and respect. ”

      I agree that we should all be polite as far as that goes, but…and please don’t take this has any sort of intended disrespect, but don’t you see how those with a 6/24 perspective take statements like this? It’s the same as when someone in a mainline church says “well you have your view on marriage and me and my gay partner have ours, so as long as we respect each others’ view, we can coexist in this church” In other words they don’t see it as possible, because they see you as advocating an unbiblical (and unconfessional) view that is incompatible with theirs.

      • Mark,

        That’s part of the problem. I really hope you’ll read RRC, if you haven’t. The length of the creation days is NOT something over which we should fighting. We should disagree, we should make good, reasonable arguments but it’s not of the essence of the Reformed faith. It’s not a boundary marker. It’s not a confessional issue. The attempt to make it such is a characteristic of QIRC.

        Please note that I’m NOT saying that 6/24 is a QIRC but the attempt to make the length of the creation days a marker of orthodoxy is a QIRC.

        There are issues that are matters of fidelity to God’s holy Word. There are issues over which we should be prepared to divide, but this isn’t one of them.

  4. Dear Frank,

    I’m a 6-Day Creationist – and I certainly don’t take Dr. Clark as painting us as the troublemakers (even if some of us are!).

    Best wishes,

    David

  5. Dr. Clark,
    It seems that when we encounter a problem, we tend to over react. Some Protestant radicals (over against Rome, who said you need the pope, councils ect. to read scripture because it wasn’t clear) argued that you need no one but “the Holy Spirit” to understand scripture. Your article is a helpful reminder that there are some things in scripture, which aren’t as clear as other areas in scripture. However, as a person who believes in a 1 day rest out of 7, how would you answer someone who would say, “well since you assert that the type of day mentioned in Genesis in uncertain, how can we limit the Sabbath view to our perspective of time (i.e. 24 hour days), why not rest one entire year and work six years?” (sorry if my question isn’t clear). Not that I’ve encountered that type of argument but I’m just curious. Ps. I’ve taken to learning more early church history, where do you recommend I start, what’s a good book out there. I currently purchased J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines and Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers. Thanks for your time.

    • Gus,

      Historically, the Protestants weren’t “radicals.” Reformation scholars include a variety of groups under the heading “radical,” e.g., Anabaptists, spiritualists, mystics, rationalists, anti-Trinitarians but not the magisterial, confessional Protestants, i.e., the Reformed and Lutheran theologians and churches.

      The Radicals did seek to practice what came to be called “biblicism.” The Reformed and Lutherans did not, however. We affirmed both sola Scriptura including the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture and and the catholic (not Roman) practice of reading Scripture together with the church in all times and places. One of their great complaints about Rome, particularly after Trent, was that she (Rome) ceased to be truly Catholic, that, in reaction to the Reformation, she adopted sectarian views and practices. In the 19th century Charles Hodge articulated this view quite well. In another context, I recently tried to articulate the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.

      On the sabbath, I addressed this in Recovering the Reformed Confession, where I devoted an entire chapter to it.

      Here are the HB resources on the Sabbath.

      My personal view is that the days were intended originally to be understood as analogues to our days. There are ways in which the days narrated in Genesis 1 are like our days and ways in which they aren’t. That seems fairly clear. E.g., Days 1-3 have no sun. That’s a discontinuity with our experience. There was light without sun. That’s a discontinuity. Yet, there was a morning and evening pattern. That’s a continuity.

      There are more continuities between days 4-6 with our days but there are still some discontinuities, e.g., things coming into existence (as in days 1-3).

      The original hearers of this narrative were intelligent and they would have noticed these continuities and discontinuities. Obviously we cannot rest endlessly and obviously Scripture tells us to work. The creation narrative tell us to work. Paul tells us to work (or not eat!).

      Given that the Sabbath is rooted in the creational pattern and given

      One of my concerns about the entire discussion about the length of the creation days is that it has little to do with the concerns of the text itself. They are 19th-century questions that arose in light of challenges posed by Modernity and the Enlightenment. They aren’t questions with which the original text seems to have been concerned. Further, the time-frame for the things narrated in ch. 2 is intentionally unspoken. Why? Because it doesn’t matter. That’s not the point.

      Finally, on early church history and theology – yes, JNDK is a great place to start. Here are the syllabi for my ancient church courses:

      http://rscottclark.org/2014/02/ch601-ancient-church-2-fall/
      http://rscottclark.org/2014/02/ht602-patristics-seminar-2/

      There you will find bibliographies and links.

    • To add an unsolicited opinion on learning more about early church history, I would recommend spending a portion of time just reading various writers from that period, that is don’t read history texts to the exclusion of reading primary sources. (Kind of like studying systematic theology is profitable, but you wouldn’t want to do that to the exclusion of your Bible reading).

    • as a person who believes in a 1 day rest out of 7, how would you answer someone who would say, “well since you assert that the type of day mentioned in Genesis in uncertain, how can we limit the Sabbath view to our perspective of time (i.e. 24 hour days), why not rest one entire year and work six years?”

      Regardless of the nature of creation days 1-6, there is a much stronger, easier case that day 7 is ongoing, so you have that problem anyways.

  6. From Fesko in 2009:

    To go on to theological observations – so historical observations, some exegetical observations, and theological observations. Whatever happened in terms of the doctrine of creation with respect to the doctrine of analogy? Cornelius Van Til in his Introduction to Systematic Theology says this: “The distinguishing characteristic between every nonchristian theory of knowledge on the one hand and the Christian concept of knowledge on the other hand is therefore that in all nonchristian theories men reason univocally, while in Christianity men reason analogically. By this distinction, we mean that every nonchristian theory or method takes for granted that time and eternity are aspects of one another and that God and man must be thought of us being on the same plane.” So, in this sense, is it not possible to say that God’s creation week is the pattern and our work week is analogical to God’s week? And, this brings up an interesting point, an observation theologically, there is always talk of six-day, 24-hour creation. But, there are also seven-day, 24-hour creationists. In other words, just because you hold six 24-hours typically means that you believe that the seventh day is eternal. That is a very common opinion. And, so, if that is the case, then that really truly does not resolve the issue of the length of the days because if you’re six 24 hours and you hold to an eternal seventh, well then right there you are showing that one of the days of the creation week was not a 24-hour day. So, if we are really going to decide this issue in terms of a 24-hour day then it’s not a six 24-hour position that has to be the animus of the church – it has to be a seven 24-hour day if a day is always a day.

    My question: why is it 6/24, not 7/24, that’s prevalent? Anyone?

    Peace.

  7. Mark,

    1. As a six-day creationist I would vote against any candidate for office who told me they couldn’t work with someone who held, for example, to the Framework hypothesis (I’m a Minister in the OPC). Ministers are supposed to work for both the peace and the purity of the church. A person who elevates their private interpretation of such a challenging passage for interpreters to a boundary marker which defines orthodoxy doesn’t belong in the OPC.

    2. The OPC was not founded as a six-day Creationist denomination. The desire on the part of some to make it such would be a narrowing of the intent of the founders of our denomination rather than a faithful defense of what they stood for. I mention this because views other than six-day creationism are frequently presented as though they are a drift away from a more faithful past.

    3. Related to my second point, some six-day creationists seem to imagine that the Church virtually unanimously embraced six-day creationism until the rise of Darwin. The fact that Augustine was not a six-day creationist should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of this notion. In fact, Augustine’s view of instantaneous creation wasn’t so much at odds (as far as we can tell) with six-day creationists but with day-age views among the early Church Fathers. It may also be helpful to realize that the very conservative Free Church of Scotland was for many years dominated by ministers who held to the Day-Age theory (It may still be. I know that Donald Macleod advocates for the day-age view in his book “A Faith to Live By”). Frankly, I find this to be one of the weakest of the Bible-believing explanations of the days of creation. Nevertheless, I am not going to pretend that this makes our brothers in the Free Church of Scotland somehow into closet liberals.

    4. If someone believes that their interpretation of the length of days in Genesis 1 is the same as some mainline denomination redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, that person hasn’t thought very much about the challenges of interpreting Genesis 1 and 2. While I believe that six-day creationism makes the best sense of the Hebrew idiom as well as the later use of creation days as the pattern for the seven-day week; this is simply not anywhere near the certainty we have of items like: Jesus rose from the dead bodily or, for that matter, that the LORD condemns homosexuality.

    Best wishes,

    David

  8. How interesting! I’ve been listening to both sides of the argument, and I have yet to have anyone from ‘millions of years’ tell me how Exo 20:11, and Exo 31:17, and its usage and meaning of the word ‘yom’ is different from the usage and meaning of the same word in Gen 1 & 2. For me, this argument is crucial. It boils down to whether the Scripture is inerrant or not. I’ve had a ‘taken for granted’ attitude that it was ‘millions of years’, that somehow it is possible to accept the so-called scientific paradigms behind carbon and radiometric dating of ‘millions of years’, or that somehow ‘theistic evolution’ is a work of God, or finally, that we have to resort to ‘extra-biblical’, so-called scientific authorities (operating within a naturalistic paradigm antithetical to the Scriptures’s) to cast the final vote in determining how Scripture ought to interpret itself.
    So, once I was a ‘millions of years’ taken-it for granted believer. Not anymore. I am still waiting for an exegete to simply tell me how the usage and meaning of ‘yom’ in Genesis 1 & 2 is different from Exo 20:11, and Exo 31:17. Nothing really difficult here. Just tell me how differently these verses are to be interpreted.
    Another thing, I sometimes wonder if the world of academe, especially at a post-graduate level, and their insistence that ‘new knowledge’ be produced to add to the body of knowledge is a subtle pressure, which in turn causes an NT Wright to come up with NPP. It was interesting to read how a reformed theologian made the statement that Wright wasn’t unique at all with his version of NPP. Baxter had actually preceded him by about 300 years?
    Fesko (thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/john_own_on_union_with_Christ_and _justification, referring to Paul Helm’s “Analysis 15-Baxter’s Soup and Wright’s Soap,” http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/analysis-15-baxters-soup-and-wrights.html)
    So, I think the creation ‘wars’ are serious. Serious because it actually boils down to whether Scripture is inerrant. No, we should not label one another, and we should not ‘kill’ one another in an argument that is within the family. But we ought to continue to ensure that our paradigms for interpreting Scripture is formed by Scripture itself, and not from extra-biblical, fallible, human nature, ‘old man’ Adamic presuppositions.
    A very good article on some of the above issues is from ‘Answers Research Journal 6 (2013):79-98. http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v6/evangelical_commentaries_creation.pdf
    I am a ‘young-earth creationist’ and I love all whom the same Savior shed His blood for so that an entrance will be given to us into His glorious new heavens and new earth. But I will not give an inch to anyone, regardless of any string of alphabets behind their names, who attempt to interpret Scripture from a mix of Scripture AND extra-biblical sources.

    • Franklin, You do well to recognize the problem of Ex 20:11 and 31:17 in interpreting the days. It is certainly a difficulty that must be dealt with by those, like me, who hold to the framework position. If I understand your question correctly you are asking how could anything other than a literal 7/24 (the 6/24 position won’t work here as noted by Fesko above because you would be asking a self-defeating question) creation week give support for the command that humans are, as God’s image on earth, also to work then rest in the same 7/24 pattern?
      In Ex. 31:17 however, I think you have the answer imbedded in the statement made there. The reason it gives for humans resting is that God “rested and was refreshed” on the 7th day. Ex 23:12 makes this application to animals and servants resting on the 7th day. So the question is, “was God refreshed in exactly the same way as a human?” Are you willing to say that God gets tiered like we do during the week and needed to take a break to be refreshed?
      Hopefully the absurdity of answering these questions in the affirmative is evident. God does not grow weary, or tiered. He is not worn out or in need of refreshing like humans. You ask how the word yom is used differently in Gen 1 and 2 versus Ex 20:11 and 31:17, but I ask you how is refreshed (both niphal WCIs of nâphash) used differently from 31:17, when applied to God, versus Ex 23:12, when applied to man?
      In answering that question you have the answer to your original question. God is presented in Gen 1 and 2 as the consummate workman working and resting. However, he is presented in analogical, human terms. We, as humans, who are the images (analogies), thus imitate him in this work/rest pattern. Thus we can say that Gen 1 and 2 can be analogical, yet provide the grounds for a the commands found in Gen 20:11 and 31:17.
      Hope that helps.

  9. The trouble is that doctrinal error is a moral failing, i.e. sin. There are only two choices here: a) God has not revealed enough about His work of creation to hold to any view of creation (cf. Deut 29:29), or b) He has revealed enough about His work of creation and we are required to believe it.

    If a) then holding either 6×24 or Framework (or any of the others) is necessarily sinful. If on the other hand it’s b) then no more than one of any of those can be correct and anyone holding to one of the other’s in necessarily in sin on that subject.

    Is it wrong to call those who are in sin to repentance? If you believe that God has revealed enough about his work of creation to hold to a specific view of the doctrine of creation then you are arguing that we should just let each other go on in sin.

    The inescapable fact is that the church’s failure to discipline its ministers on doctrinal errors such as worship and creation starting in the 18th and 19th centuries was contributory to the spirit which ultimately lead to Auburn Affirmation.

    The spirit of go along to get along is so ingrained, there is no reason to wonder at why the PCA has found it impossible to discipline any FV ministers.

    Churches such as OPC, PCA and URCNA didn’t fully reform when they were founded, and thus were merely treating some specific symptoms of a fatal systemic disease. It’s as crazy as a 3 pack per day smoker who insists his lung cancer has nothing to do with his smoking, or like the throat cancer patient who continues to smoke by holding the cigarette to his tracheostomy tube.

    Many will argue that the gospel is not at stake with the doctrine of creation, and perhaps it’s not directly, but the reality is that once you’ve started the retreat, that’s all there will be on the grand scale. Having retreated so far that the PCUSA was left with nothing more than the doctrinal deliverance of 1910, it did them no good. Since that did nothing to stem the tide in least towards modernistic unbelief.

    I know you won’t allow this to appear, but just let it serve as another friendly reminder if you have any conscience at all, that you argue to allow sinners to continue on sin without correction, without even an Eli-like “it is not a good report”. When ministers discuss things which are sinful without calling them sinful how well are the churches really served?

    • False dichotomy in your first paragraph. There is also the option that God has not revealed enough in Scripture _to require_ any particularly detailed view of creation. (To overly clarify: by “particularly detailed” I mean the mechanics and timing of the process, obviously not whether there was a Creator.)

    • “The inescapable fact is that the church’s failure to discipline its ministers on doctrinal errors such as worship and creation starting in the 18th and 19th centuries was contributory to the spirit which ultimately lead to Auburn Affirmation.”

      GW: Dr. B.B. Warfield, great defender of the inerrancy of the Bible in opposition to higher criticism and anti-supernatural theological liberalism, held to a “day age” view and was open to a Divinely-guided evolution and animal ancestry of Adam. Was he of the same “spirit” as the signers of the Auburn Affirmation? Should he have been disciplined for his views? Dr. J. Gresham Machen, defender of biblical orthodoxy and staunch opponent of the Auburn Affirmationists, seemed to hold to a day age view and basically followed Warfield’s position. Should he have been censured?

      Creation is an important issue, but when the issue of how to interpret the days of creation in Genesis One get so associated with the gospel that holding to a non-literal view makes one’s orthodoxy suspect, I think that is taking matters way too far.

  10. Started reading these latest two long comments. I can’t stress the animus Imponentis lectures enough. All concerned conservative Christians should listen. Fesko, Strange, Muether, and Knight III thoughts on these matters.

    Bee’s knees..

    • There is such a thing as a proper elasticity on certain matters within Christian doctrine.

      And the church uncovers new light as she moves forward in history.

      That and more would be the first 10 or so minutes of Dr. Strange’s first lecture. I sat as these lectures were given, and aked questions. Yo

  11. Having spent most of my life assuming that basically everyone believed in a six-day young earth creation until Charles Darwin came along, I was blown away to read that Augustine didn’t believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1, and in fact one of his principal initial objections to Christianity was that he assumed that as a Christian he would be obligated to, until he came into contact with Ambrose of Milan who also did not believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1.

    Whether or not you think what Augustine and Ambrose believed carries any weight, the point is that it is not the case that Genesis 1 was universally read literally by Christians in the past.

    • I spent most of my life assuming that evolution was true. Most everyone I know spent most of their life assuming the same.

  12. Dear Andrew,

    I agree with you that doctrinal error is the result of sin. Nevertheless, there are two things you should consider: (1) First, not every theological conclusion that can rightly be drawn from Scripture is equally clear; and (2) The only officers that will ever be ordained and installed in the Church militant are fellow sinners.

    CLARITY & CHARITY

    It is easy to suggest that a particular interpretation of Scripture is the “plain” reading of the text until we become familiar with other interpretations by committed Christians. In spite of the way that the issue is sometimes presented, six-day creationism has not been the uniform view of the Church for the past 2,000 years. Committed Christians have disagreed, and continue to disagree, over the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis.

    This is one reason why the OPC Report on Creation is so helpful. It not only helps to clarify different approaches to Genesis 1 and 2 it also (in my judgment) rightly asserts things that we should be able to agree on as being clear – such as Adam being a special direct creation of God.

    On those areas that we can be less certain about, we don’t simply throw up our hands and say “different strokes for different folks.” Instead, we continue to research, write, and dialog with one another. There is virtually a cottage industry of publications dealing simply with Genesis 1 & 2 precisely because Bible-believing Christians have not yet come to a consensus on what these chapters are teaching.

    As a six-day creationist, I confess that the errors in my theology are all related to sin in some way. If I am wrong in this interpretation, than I hope to be lead to repentance as quickly as possible. I also want those who are sinning by holding views contrary to Scripture (which I by God’s grace happen to be interpreting correctly) to repent as quickly as possible.

    Yet, surely complete agreement on every interpretation cannot be the standard for fellowship or for working together in our common mission to disciple the nations. A large part of the Christian life is learning to love one another without having all the answers.

    DOCTRINAL INTEGRITY AND BOUNDARIES OF FELLOWSHIP

    Here is the problem: While we recognize that the one sinless man didn’t have any theological errors, all the candidates we have for ministry are fellow sinners.

    Expecting me to interpret the Bible without ever making errors before recognizing that the LORD has called me into pastoral ministry is the same thing as waiting until I’m glorified – in which case I will no longer be available to serve as a minister here on earth. This is true for everyone else as well.

    So what can we do as a church? On those matters that are clear, and there are a lot of them, we require our Ordained Servants to clearly confess the system of theology taught in the Scriptures as understood by the Reformed Churches. Perhaps someday we will have this sort of consensus about more details of the doctrine of creation. We don’t have that consensus now and my reading of scholarship suggests we are not getting much closer to achieving it. In the meantime we recognize that our differences at this point are not a barrier to faithfully carrying out the Great Commission together.

    Best wishes,

    David
    p.s. It is important to remember that those who hold views other than six-day creationism are not denying the Doctrine of Creation. What they are doing is interpreting some details about the Doctrine of Creation differently than I do.

  13. I should have made clear that my last response was to Andrew Duggan and not to Andrew Buckingham.

    Best wishes,

    David

    • Dear David,

      One of my points was that the church has gone backwards on this question. With regard to the doctrine of creation, this only became a question in the churches of the reformation only since the rise of uniformitarian geology. All too often this issue wants to be discussed as though it were a mere academic debate. It is not. That was one of my other points.

      Despite your characterization that I was proposing that only sinless men should be ordained, I’m not, but these issues need to be considered in the light that to get it wrong is to be in sin necessarily. Theology is a very risky business. Ministers in general don’t understand those risks anywhere near as well as they should. See Psalm 50.

      With regard to the doctrine of creation, the presbyterian churches had a settled position defined by the WCF. Not until those who came in and said that 6 days doesn’t really mean 6 “days”, in order to accommodate uniformitarian geology, did this debate arise. It’s not as though the church exegetically determined it had been wrong on the days of creation and uniformitarian geology was developed to explain rock layers in light of that new understanding of scripture, but instead it was just the reverse. Uniformitarian geology gave rise to the acceptance of other doctrines of creation other than 6×24, not the other way around.

      The problem for contemporary ministers is that they were trained by men who were generationally compromised on the subject, and fail to release the nature of the problems in their own theological training.

      I know you think that its just details, but that’s exactly what the authors and signers of the Auburn Affirmation said about the Virgin Birth of Christ, etc. While the details of the doctrine of creation don’t touch on our Christology like the Virgin Birth, my point was that the PCUSA wouldn’t have gotten to the point of the Auburn Affirmation if they had consistently administered discipline to those who deviated from our received standards. As the apostle enjoins us, we should sound with certainty. Instead we glory in each man believing what is right in his own eyes. It used to be we limited that to worship (Psalmody), then it got expanded to creation, then it got expanded to the Sabbath, etc. Despite what the OPC report says about the special creation of Adam, there are those that argue that doesn’t preclude Adam having hominid ancestors. Rather than seeking to teach all the world everything Christ has commanded us, we seemingly glory in how tolerant we are of each other’s failings, because after all we’re all sinners aren’t we.

      Church history doesn’t happen in vacuum.

    • Gotcha, David.

      As an ordained (albeit inactive deacon, since I left the OPC I was in for another OPC) man, I’ve faced my views squarely against the session atthe time. Though I was less firm in this conviction then, I am more convinced of views allowing for an older earth, but I welcome young earth viewpoints and especially those persons who hold them. When you said “ordained servant,” it reminded me of this article in Ordaibed Servant Online, “preachers in lab coats, scientists”

      http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=220in Geneva gowns”

      Having a wife who is licensed by the state in the hard sciences certainly doesn’t leave me without my own selfish motives.

      Thank you David for yours. I realize I am using a response as quite soapbox right now..

      Peace.

  14. Hey Scott, and in case any readers don’t know: Scott and I are very good friends. So, all, please interpret this as a friendly and respectful post, albeit pointed.

    However, I wish to announce on Scott’s site a category that he left out in his fine RCC. Although we all love and respect each other, the hermeneutics of Genesis 1 calls for Scott and many other friends to add a new category: QIRT, the Quest for Illegitimate Tolerance. Or if we personalize it for the finest theological BlogMeister around a SQUIRT, “Scott’s Quest for Unnecessarily Illegitimate Tolerance.”

    Come on guys, laugh a little.

    However, my serious point is this: As one who intends to Recover the Reformed Confessions, it seems to me both from the text and the orginial intent, that the Westminster Standards, in both the WCF and WSC 9, actually do make ordinary creation a boundary marker. Where, again, does this Confession suggest that some of the protological items affirmed are optional? The divines were clearly refuting Augustine and recommending only one view. And, yes, they knew they were drafting a Confession.

    Sorry, but all attempts to show that other minoritarian views existed among the divines show only that: i.e,, that the minority view was not adopted by the actual product (Note: the same is true for ecclesiology. The mere presence of independents or Erastians does not prove that those ecclesiologies were “alternative lifestyles” to Presbyterianism.) So, how can we seek to Recover that Reformed Confession, while at the same time Questing for an Illegitimate (or at least, unadvised) Tolerance? If I hadn’t read otherwise, I would expect my good friend Scott (and others) to be as zealous to conform to the boundary markers of protology contained in the WCF as he is for all the other areas (Sabbath, Regulative Principle, etc) in the same Confession. Or to ask in the context of this discussion: why are we tolerant on protology (if the Confession is clear, other fine modern adherents to it notwithstanding), but not tolerant on other areas? And how does one find a canon-within-a-canon for confessional boundary markers, except by some tradition or norms for personal treatment?

    Also for the record: Westminster Sem Calif, as evidenced by this discussion, does not discriminate against this 24-hour dinosaur.

  15. Dear David,

    Something I failed to mention in my previous reply, is that I didn’t say doctrinal error was just the result of sin, I said it was sin in and of itself. So it doesn’t seem that we really agree given the qualification you added. Death is a result of sin, but is it necessarily sinful in and of itself to die? True, doctrinal error is the result of sin, but is also sin in and of itself.

  16. Thank you, David! Concise and precise. You saved me the trouble of spending twice as much time to say it half as well.

    One would have thought that after David’s research years ago on the Westminster divines’ view of the creation days, the “traditional” 6/24 position would never be on the defensive again. Alas, such is not the case. What bothers me most about Reformed discussions of creation is that the young-earth guys are sometimes treated like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving – you’re family, you know we love you, but, really, just smile and say as little as possible. (I’m not thinking of anyone who has contributed to the current discussion.)

    In my view, any position other than the “historic” 6/24 view should be treated as an exception to the Westminster Standards and, as such, carefully examined by Presbytery every time. As David reminded us, there IS an identifiable, “default” view in the Confession and Catechisms. This is clear by historical research and exposition of the text. If we wish truly to recover the Reformed confession, we begin here, and then grant the exceptions that Presbyteries (and Sessions) judge acceptable.

    • I’ve posted way too much,Frank. So if that little peice is excused, I am with you that this conversation appears civil, by relative degree to where creation discussions tend to end up..

      Grace and peace, Heidelbloggers.

  17. My grandfather doesn’t identify with religion. Or he dies, I guess it’s all a joke to him, he teases, about “many gods.” I fear for him. He likes the idea of “tired light” cosmology, link below. I don’t hold that, but find humorous the idea that light gets tired. Kind of how I feel after discussing theology online for too long.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

    I will say the So.Cal report of the OPC gave me support to take an uqualified, no exceptions vow to the WCF, to which I still hold, and belief my church supports me in not disavowing my ordination.

    Come get me. 🙂
    Peace..

  18. Having logged some miles on Early English Books in the summer of 1998 (when it was just microfilm!) for David Hall for that PCA study on creation (remember the prize offer? no one ever collected I gather?), I have to say I’m remain squarely of his conclusions and I’ve seen nothing to alter it since then as far as original intent on creation days. As to the OPC’s adopting intent in this regard, this is why I asked the question on an earlier blog entry (http://heidelblog.net/2014/01/when-subscription-isnt/#comment-271385). If they’ve declared tolerence subsequently the question is obviously moot but I’m skeptical of the intent argument.

    • Chris, any thought on Dr Strange’s new light notion, from his 2009 lectures on AI?

      Our children’s children’s children’s children’s children may simply know more about how old the earth is because of the virtue of when God brought them in.

      And so the church learns more in time.

      Or the could return before I hit post on this combox.

      Ain’t blogging theology grand?
      Peace

  19. Regarding Alan’s lecture (http://tinyurl.com/lrpq5co), since I am not sure he specifically addressed it, how is the length of creation days on which original intent of Westminster is clear,* equivalent to the examples he gives where modification or amendment of standards may not be needed, where there is a firming up, further clarifying, rather than something in conflict or contradicting original intent?

    *Clearer I think than even exclusive psalmody which Alan says is arguable. I would disagree and say that it is at least clear that EP in practice is original intent without saying all EP theory is in the intent. Though the central arguments are known at the time. See Thomas Ford’s piece on psalmody just a few years after (Ford was a W.divine) and Brown of Wamphray’s arguments (contemporary and pupil of Rutherford) several decades later; see also Matthew Winzer’s arguments for intent in The Confessional Presbyterian journal. Even earlier, the EP position is acknowledged in the Constance Hymnbook. See Matthew Winzer, Review: Nick Needham, “Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments?” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, volume 2, ed. J. Ligon Duncan (CPJ 4); In Translatiōne: John Brown of Wamphray: Singing of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs in the Public Worship of God From De Causa Dei contra Antisabbatarios, Part 1 (CPJ 3); Part 2 (CPJ 5). Ephraim Schäfli, In Translatiōne: The Preface to the Constance Hymnbook by Joannem Zwick (CPJ 7). All this by the way; I think with David Hall that when the Westminster divines wrote “day” all the evidence is that they mean a 24 hour day.

    • Chris,

      Sincere thanks for the reply. I took intro to geology at UCSB in 2001, and even Geology 30, class devoted to Evolution, entitled The History of Life, using Stephen Jay Gould as our textbook. There are many things i recall from that class, as the professor attempted for 10 weeks to put forth evolution as a professor of a leading US research university.

      I took the opportunity to Google your name, while I waited. You are not just another comboxxer, you have history and experience. I was ordained a deacon in the OPC in 2007, but now attend this church, you may find my visage under the staff section. http://www.cpcmb.org

      These matters fascinate me, although I’ve been thinking more about RCism lately as that is where DG Hart and his band (not sure if I am one of them or not) have been focusing for a while.

      Maybe we will run into one another before the new heavens and new earth. If in the Monterey CA area (goes for all yalls), pay us a visit.

      Cheers.

  20. Thanks Andrew; I don’t grace just anyone’s combox with my opinings. 🙂 If I ever find the need to go to the left coast nice to know friends are there. N.B. I have an undergrad degree in that subject also but went a different direction. You might enjoy Frank Smith’s study, also in The Confessional Presbyterian, “American Presbyterianism, Geology, and the Days of Creation” CPJ 4 (2008 issue).

  21. @Chris Coldwell, I’m honored to have Chris here — proof that this is not just any combox!

    I agree that the original intent of the divines was to rule out Augustine’s view or what they perceived to be a renaissance of his view (one his statements on creation; there were others) that the creation narrative was an artifice, that creation was instantaneous.

    @David Hall. Readers should know that David is one of my dearest and most faithful friends. He’s a true pastor and has been so to me. So, when we disagree, it is not personal at all.

    I agree that most of the divines held to something like 6/24 creation but we may disagree over the question whether there were some who did not hold to 6/24 creation exactly.

    Certainly everyone who subscribes the WCF is bound to “in the space of six days.” The question is what that must be taken to mean. We have two horizons, the original intent, for which I’ve given an account here and in RRC, and our horizon. The PCA has a report that allows for non-6/24 views. I don’t recall the status of the report. Was it adopted by GA? If so, that would seem to settle the matter, right?

    The OPC has a report that is, like other such reports, is helpful in various ways but not binding.

    If our reconstruction of the divines’ opinion is to be, in effect, original intent on creation, does that mean that we’re also bound to geocentrism? it’s clear to me that most all the Reformed were geocentrists through the 17th century and yet virtually none of us—including the most ardent defenders of 6/24 creation—are today. Why not? As I showed in RRC, it wasn’t biblical exegesis that caused us to abandon geocentrism. It was modern astronomy. Someone might object, but we don’t confess anything about geocentrism in the WCF. Agreed but we don’t confess 6/24 creation either. We confess “in the space of six days.” When the divines wrote those words it is virtual certainty that they were thinking that the earth is at the center of the universe, that days were defined by sun rise etc.

    Since the 1640s, we’ve changed our understanding of “day” in significant ways. We’ve changed our hermeneutic. We understand that when Scripture says “the sun rises” it doesn’t mean to teach us astronomy. I’m simply applying the same hermeneutic to Genesis 1-2 but others won’t because of the challenge of Darwinianism etc.

    I have a methodological question: If the original consensus opinion at the Westminster Assembly is binding such that everyone who does not agree with what we have reconstructed as the majority view on creation at the assembly must take an exception to the Confession, does that apply on worship? As I argued in RRC, it seems to me that the divines were quite agreed and very early on as to the exclusion of instruments and the singing of God’s Word alone. Shouldn’t those who use instruments and sing hymns take an exception to the confession on that?

    Why is there so much passion about fidelity to the original intent of the confession on 6/24 creation (assuming, for the sake of discussion that David is correct in his claims) but not for worship?

    It seems clear to me that the doctrine and practice of worship is much closer to the heart of Reformed theology, piety, and practice than the question of the length of the creation days and yet when I argue for original intent on worship mostly what I get in response is silence.

  22. Andrew Duggan wrote: “It’s not as though the church exegetically determined it had been wrong on the days of creation and uniformitarian geology was developed to explain rock layers in light of that new understanding of scripture, but instead it was just the reverse. Uniformitarian geology gave rise to the acceptance of other doctrines of creation other than 6×24, not the other way around.”

    GW: Brother Andrew, God’s Word is certainly infallibly true when it speak about the natural world (or on any other subject for that matter), but at the same time it does so in observational, phenomenological language, not in technical, scientific language. All of this is to say that while the Bible speaks to geological realities (for example, it mentions mountains, hills, rocks, etc.), God did not give it to us as a geological textbook intended to teach us scientific details about the formation of fossils, plate tectonics, stratigraphy, etc. In other words, the Scriptures were not given by God for the purpose of teaching us a “holy geology” (aka “Flood Geology”). Same can be said of the other sciences as well. Example: When Psalm 93:1 says, “…the world is established; it shall never be moved” (ESV), it does not deny the observational scientific fact that the earth actually does move all the time in its orbit around the sun, nor does it require that we reject this well-established scientific fact and continue believing in a flat, immovable earth. Rather, it is simply describing the world from an observational standpoint based on our perspective down here with feet firmly planted on terra firma. For that reason passages like Psalm 93:1 are not examples of “error” in the Bible, since the Bible is not intending to convey technical scientific data in such passages to begin with. In my opinion, much (though not all) of the “conflict” that exists today between mainstream science and orthodox, biblical Christianity is rooted in sincere believers losing sight of the fact that the Bible is not “the history book of the universe” (as claimed by the YEC “Answers in Genesis” organization). Rather, God’s Word is primarily concerned with redemptive history — God’s mighty acts of salvation within literal space-time history to redeem His people from their sins, both in the history of Israel and supremely in the Incarnation and saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Andrew, I would encourage you to consider that discoveries in science can be God’s providential occasions for the church to reconsider deeply entrenched but potentially erroneous interpretations of Scripture. The discoveries of science forced the church to re-examine its geocentric mis-intepretations of Scripture (which many of its defenders had sincerely believed was based on the “plain and obvious meaning” of certain Scripture texts) and to come to interpretations which were compatible with heliocentrism. Likewise, in the field of geology, a number of the founders of modern mainstream geology were devout Christians (some of them clergy) whose geological observations out in the field became increasingly difficult to explain based on the flood geology model. (No, there wasn’t some atheistic “uniformitarian” conspiracy to disprove the Bible, at least not among the earliest geologists.) Most geologists and other scientists were convinced of the antiquity of the earth years before Darwin published his “The Origin of Species,” so belief in an ancient earth does not necessarily entail belief in naturalistic evolution. Now, could the majority of scientists (including many who are professing Christians) be wrong? Of course. But, then again, maybe they are right and the church’s historic interpretation of Scripture as teaching a 6/24 day view and a global deluge needs to be reconsidered. This doesn’t make science more authoritative than Scripture. It is simply to say that we must interpret Scripture in the context of the world in which it was revealed — including the natural world studied by scientists.

    While I don’t necessarily endorse everything this teaches, I’d encourage you to watch this thought-provoking 30 minute video entitled, “Where Young Earth Creationism Gets the Bible Wrong”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2InalJfkEo&feature=youtu.be

    I’d also like to challenge (even “dare”) you (and others who want to make the 6/24 view a “boundary marker” of confessional orthodoxy) to read “The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth” by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley (InterVarsity Press). Drs. Young and Stearley are mainstream geologists who also happen to be Bible-believing, Reformed Christians. I don’t agree with everything they write, but they are very thorough (and fair) in exposing the weaknesses of the YEC flood geology literature and demonstrating the massive, well-established evidence for the antiquity of this amazing world that God has made. Their book really “rocked my world” (pun intended). 🙂

  23. I’m still researching. Can anyone in this discussion help me. Has anyone unearthed a Westminster divine who advocated an Exegesis of Gen 1 other than for 6/24 days? I’m aware that others may hold differing views but as to the W divines and the topic of creation days, where in the sources were those other views written? Where again is that open minded pluralism? And do we really wish to revise exegesis of either confession or scripture to the shifting tides of scientific theory?

    • David,

      Will Barker, WTJ 62 (2000): 115?

      I’m reasonably sure that you are not a Geocentrist. I am guessing that it was science and not exegesis that drove you to your heliocentric astronomy, correct?

  24. David Hall,

    Those of us who are ordained in the OPC don’t subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith. We subscribe to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church ( Really – https://store.opc.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=WCF-with-proofs) We are therefore, I think understandably, more concerned about what our denomination says our subordinate standards are defining than what the Westminster Divines believed when they wrote the WCF and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

    I’m not suggesting that historical research into the Westminster Assembly is not both interesting and at times quite helpful. Yet, establishing what the majority of Divines at the Westminster Assembly believed is not binding on me the way that establishing what Paul meant when he wrote Romans is.

    Best wishes,

    David

  25. The use of nephesh in Genesis used for both man and animals; not on plants It is significant that the word “create” (Hebrew bara) is applied to the introduction of animal life, but not to plant life. Plants are highly complex replicating chemical systems, as are animals, with reproductive programs based in the remarkable DNA molecule in both cases. However, animals possess another entity–that of consciousness–which plants do not possess, and this required a second act of true creation (the first was in Genesis 1:1, the creation of the basic space/mass/time universe). Such “consciousness” is the essential meaning of the Hebrew word nephesh, commonly translated “soul,” but in Genesis 1:20 (its first occurrence) translated “life,” and then in Genesis 1:21 “living creature.” In Genesis 2:7, referring to man, it is rendered “living soul.” Thus, both men and animals possess the specially-created nephesh.

    “When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.” (Exodus 20:11) – from Martin Luther, What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian.

    The consequence of Adam’s disobedience is death (Romans 5:12) and the whole of creation groans because of the sin of one man (Romans 8:22). The Bible goes on to explain that there will be no more death and suffering at the end (Revelation 21:4). If God stated that he will remove death from the picture permanently, why did he put it there in the first place? That’s food for thought.

    Another question, if evolution is true the please explain something in regards to “beneficial mutations” that have been claimed by secular scientist. Let me start with Huntington’s disease (as an example)Huntington’s disease is a “progressive brain disorder that causes uncontrolled movements, emotional problems, and loss of thinking ability.” This is definitely not an increase in information if it destroys part of the brain yet increases muscle build up. It causes CAG trinucleotide repeat and this argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. It does not extend friendly numbers to the theory of evolution and math’s done on this study show an issue of running into the walls of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes.

    The irony is that all the mutations that cause harm are “thought” to be beneficial yet it’s okay to “destroy” other beneficial units. This is not an increase in information. The “can mutations create new information” argument is really about the bridge between the special and general modes of evolution.

    Another point is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating involves more than radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is not used on rocks, because they don’t contain carbon, usually. However, most people have heard of radiocarbon dating and so it often makes it easier to talk about.

    Radiocarbon dating is only accurate back to about 1000 BC when it is used to date objects of known historical age. After that it is out of step with known ages and then it gets worse the further one goes back in time, particularly when there aren’t already dated materials to cross correlate the radiocarbon with. It tends to be very quickly a few hundred years too old and gets worse the further one goes back.

    The problem with correlating radiocarbon with tree rings is that tree ring dating assumes a single ring couplet each year, but that is easily shown to be wrong. Monitoring of trees in forests in Australia has shown that the rings grow in response to wet and dry periods more than they do with regard to the seasons and thus multiple rings can be added in a calendar year. So counting tree rings overestimates ages even more than the radiocarbon, which is why cross-correlating radiocarbon with tree rings gives ages that are too young. However, as I said before, radiocarbon is already giving ages too old for historically dated materials beyond 1000 BC.

    The radiocarbon production rate in the atmosphere has not been constant, even in recorded history due to changes in solar radiation. For example, back in the 1700s there was a minimum in sunspot activity called the Maunder minimum, and during that time radiocarbon production decreased. This is reflected in the radiocarbon content of materials such as woods from that period. We also know that the radiocarbon production rate is affected by the earth’s magnetic field which was stronger in the past and therefore shielded the earth from the cosmic radiation responsible for the production of radiocarbon, so a stronger magnetic field reduces the radiocarbon production rate. In any case, while the radiocarbon was definitely affected by the global Flood all the materials usually dated with radiocarbon are all post-Flood materials.

    The reason radiocarbon dates recorded in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned is not so much because radiocarbon dating hadn’t been calibrated with other dating methods, but more because of the Beta counting technique they were using to do the radiocarbon dating. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique began to be used routinely, and it is a far more accurate technique because it actually counts radiocarbon atoms rather than depending on radiation detectors accurately measuring the radiation from radiocarbon decay against the background of other radiation in the environment.

    Nuclear weapons testing has affected the composition of the atmosphere because a by-product of bomb explosions is extra radiocarbon so that has contaminated the atmosphere with extra radiocarbon not derived from cosmic ray production in the upper atmosphere. On the other hand, such contamination does not affect materials that were living prior to the 1950s. In other words, wood from the Middle Ages or, say, from the time of Christ, would not have been derived from trees contaminated by nuclear weapons testing, so the radiocarbon dating of those materials would not be affected.

    However, while we can say the period of the radiocarbon was good before the nuclear weapons testing, we can’t be certain about the radiocarbon production rate which has fluctuated in the past, as I said before, so that affects the interpretation of the radiocarbon analyses of testable materials. It has nothing to do with the composition of the radiocarbon in that sense.

    If you want information about the radiocarbon dating method, then you need to go to textbooks, such as Dickin, Radiogenic Isotope Geology, published by Cambridge University Press and Faure, Principles of Isotope Geology published by Wiley. There is also a little book on radiocarbon dating put out by the British Museum.

    Read this if you have the time:

    1) Luther on evolution: creation.com/luther-on-evolution
    2) Calvin on Genesis: http://creation.com/calvin-said-genesis-means-what-it-says
    3) Feedback: Simple Complex Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/04/13/feedback-simple-complex-genesis

  26. “Even applying the hermeneutical principles on which we all agree, it is harder to see that Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended to teach us the exact length or nature of the days of creation. Certainly we are to think in terms of days, but does God’s Word intend to teach us that each of the days was twenty-four hours? When we ask this question of Genesis 1, are we asking a question which arises from the text itself, or are we asking a question Scripture never intended to answer? This seems likely to me.”

    Basically, the only impactful argument against 6/24 is the claim that the word for day doesn’t mean a 24 hour day. I honestly don’t really know what the point of this essay is. It either comes across as a postmodern claim to the impossibility of the knowledge of intent (see above paragraph), or as an offhand dismissal of any confidence at all in the 6/24 position. Even if Moses didn’t write Genesis with the first order of business being “MAKE SURE ALL CHRISTIANS KNOW THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING IN 6 24 HOUR DAYS”, how is it presumptuous to think that he meant one thing and not another?
    I call presumptuousness on the claim that the Holy Spirit can’t communicate effectively.

    Someone posted a Wikipedia link to EAAN. EAAN isn’t an argument FOR evolution/long ages. It is simply a stipulation that, GIVEN evolution (and humanity), naturalism is an inane conclusion. So it doesn’t really get you anywhere on its own.

    So, is the Framework interpretation considered the theistic evolutionist’s go-to reading? Can anyone explain how Framework fits into the context of the Fall, the goodness of creation pre-Fall, Jesus’ statements about man being made in the beginning, etc.? Isn’t this all part of hermeneutics? Context of language, context of authors, context of readers (Jesus being both an author AND reader… I hope he didn’t misinterpret his own book…)

    • Someone posted a Wikipedia link to EAAN. EAAN isn’t an argument FOR evolution/long ages.

      That someone is the man behind this keyboard typing. I’m available to talk at the outlets provided.

      Also, here’s more thoughts on Ham v. Nye, for the general readership here.

      http://geochristian.com/

      Peace.

    • Jon wrote: “Basically, the only impactful argument against 6/24 is the claim that the word for day doesn’t mean a 24 hour day.”

      GW: No, that’s not the case (although the issue of how to interpret “yom” gets a lot of press, perhaps more than it should). There are other contextual, historical and exegetical factors that have led godly, learned biblical scholars to question a woodenly-literal reading of Genesis One. For example:

      (1) The meaning of bara (“create”): While the Bible clearly assumes and teaches throughout the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) in the very beginning, the word “create” as used in Genesis One does not of itself necessarily mean “create out of nothing.” It can also mean “form from pre-existent stuff.” John Walton (“The Lost World of Genesis One”) says, “…the verb could be broad enough to include either material or functional activity.” (p. 39) The point? In the context of the six days of Genesis One, the “creation week” could be more concerned with the forming of creation and assigning of functions to the creatures than with material origins per se. Walton suggests that the author of Genesis One (whom I believe to be Moses, by the way) was showing how God shaped the universe into a “cosmic temple” for His dwelling, and that His “creation” involved assigning functions to the creatures. (For this interesting proposal, see evangelical Old Testament scholar John H. Walton’s book “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate” (IVP).) In addition, “create” does not in itself necessitate “instantaneous production.” God “created” Israel as His covenant nation, but this was a process that required significant time. It is not “instantaneousness,” but “inevitability” that is implied by the term.

      (2) The meaning of “earth/land” and the phrase “the heavens and the earth/land.” Dr. John Sailhamer in his book “Genesis Unbound” (Multnomah) argues that we must understand the primary purpose of the opening chapters of Genesis is not to give us scientific knowledge of the cosmos, but to introduce the story of Israel and its redemption (i.e., the opening chapters of Genesis are intended as an introduction to the Pentateuch). The word most English translations translate as “earth” is misleading. When we think of the “earth,” we think of a globe hanging in the heavens. When ancient Hebrews thought of the “earth,” they thought of the soil, the “land” — in particular, the promised land. Dr. Sailhamer accepts a “literal six day” view, but he argues that the creation week of Genesis One is chiefly concerned with God preparing the promised land for His people (originally the first Eden, and then eventually the “new Eden,” the promised land of Israel), not cosmic origins.

      (3) The ancient near eastern context: Seven-day literary structures were common in the ancient near east among Israel’s pagan neighbors, often used symbolically for the concept of completeness or perfection. (See Yound and Stearley, ch. 7, pp. 184-210 in “The Bible, Rocks and Time” (IVP).) The seven-day structure seemed to have been a highly-stylized literary convention in the ancient near east, one which would have been familiar to Moses and the ancient Hebrews. Perhaps the Holy Spirit led Moses to adopt this literary device to communicate the orderliness and completeness of His creative work.

      (4) No article in front of numeric sequences: Unlike some English translations which read, “the first day,” “the second day,” etc., there is no article in the Hebrew. Thus, a more literal translation would be something like “day one,” “day two,” or “a first day,” etc.

      (5) Genesis Two seems to be a more detailed description of what God created on the sixth day. The vegetation had not grown because God had not caused it to rain. Implied is the ordinary providential process of seed growth, which takes more than 24 hours. In addition, the naming of all the animals, and Adam’s reaction to the creation of Eve, “now at last this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (indicating Adam had existed long enough to feel lonely) would seem to indicate that he had been around for more than just 24 hours.

      Jon writes: “I honestly don’t really know what the point of this essay is. It either comes across as a postmodern claim to the impossibility of the knowledge of intent (see above paragraph), or as an offhand dismissal of any confidence at all in the 6/24 position.”

      GW: Denying or questioning a literalist 6/24 interpretation of the days of Genesis One, or holding to one of the non-literal views, does not make one a “postmodernist,” nor does it entail denying the essential clarity of God’s Word. But it is a recognition of the principle laid out in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

  27. First, to Scott. I’ll check but I think Ptolemy held to heliocentrism prior to the NT. Sorry, but neither Scripture nor astronomy demands geocentrism. So that’s hardly the issue and little more than a side attempt to find fault with classic creationism.

    As to Will Barker’s article, first a personal note. There is no one who taught me to love church history like Dr. Barker. He was and is an esteemed teacher. And the student is not above the teacher.

    However, from excerpts below, you may find some helpful discussion on this topic. Despite the flattery of being cited by critiques in WTJ (both by Dr. Barker and by Dr. Fesko), I was not persuaded by the argumentation. Below is a short footnote on those sources–far from thinking the case proved, and Dr. Barker a Supreme Cardinals fan would have loved to claim the baseball tickets offered (close but no cigar)–and how my offer still stands: Where did a W. Divine assert a cosmology other than 24×7?

    As a rebuttal to Dr. Barker (interestingly, WTJ did not wish to publish a critique of the critique), I noted the following:

    (1) William Perkins “may have had more direct influence on the Assembly than Ussher, although Warfield and others weight Ussher’s Irish articles more heavily. Notwithstanding, Perkins affirmed the traditional view as “six distinct days.” His own works fail to support that he might have advocated long days for creation; to the contrary, he adopted a view almost identical to Ussher’s. (2) An appeal is made to the non-canonical Book of Jubilees (4:29-30), suggesting that Adam’s 930 year lifespan was 70 years shy of 1000 years “because 1000 years are one day in the testimony of heaven.” Note that, besides being apocalyptic and non-inerrant, the context makes no claim about the length of creation days—instead referring to actual chronological years; (3) Hermann Venema (d. 1787) “opposed the view ‘that Moses speaks not of ordinary days but of years and of centuries,’” indicating, as Barker suggests that ‘such a view was held by some in his circles in the 18th century; (4) William Whiston, an Arian Mathematician, is claimed as regarding the days as years in a 1698 work (which, I believe, would be the initial known formulation of this view, making this both novel and in opposition to the views of Isaac Newton and the Westminster Assembly); and (5) John Milton and Thomas Browne, neither members of the Westminster Assembly, are reported as holding to the Augustinian ‘instantaneous’ view—even though both were known to exhibit some antipathy toward the Assembly. Barker notes that contemporaries of the Assembly rapidly critiqued the views of Browne, and may be correct that “belief in instantaneous creation was being fostered contemporaneously with the Westminster Assembly.” Lacking is any explanation for why the Westminster disciples would so rapidly critique Browne and Milton in the 1640s, only to allow William Whiston’s putative view to become an acceptable view a mere 50 years later. What remains unproven is: (1) that any of the Assembly members held to any view other than the 24-hour view, and (2) that any of the Assembly members held to either a long-age or framework view. As Dr. Barker has been helpful to remind me, in a study of the original intent, only those commissioned, sitting, and voting (none of the above meet this rigorous standard for original intent) should be considered indicative of the views of the Westminster Assembly; for there are far more other contemporaries (which are properly disallowed) who hold to a 24-hour view than to similar 17th century contemporaries who hold to a long-age, framework, or instantaneous view.

    This follows on the heels of the evolving seminary statement on the subject (1999). That Mar. 1, 1999 revision, probably in an attempt to conform more closely to the cascading historical documentary trail, conflates several ideas in a single, not altogether clear sentence: “Though the framers of the Standards for the most part held personally to the 24 hour day view, that view, to the exclusion of all others is not the point of their confessional affirmation.” One wonders what the point is, since Augustine has already been clearly repudiated.

    Isn’t the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Tolerance (QIRT) working overtime again and coming up pretty empty? Why not just be confessional? About the worst that would happen is that certain academic disciplines might look down on us? Oh wait, that already happens and the experimentation with exhibiting our tolerance is not exactly converting scientists in droves.

    For more, feel free to read chapter 9 in:
    http://www.amazon.com/Holding-Fast-Creation-David-Hall-ebook/dp/B005GWO8ZA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391775133&sr=8-1&keywords=Holding+Fast+David+Hall

    • David,

      I had a longer reply that was lost so a briefer one must do.

      1. I’m sorry that your reply wasn’t published.
      2. I agree that most of the divines assumed/believed in something like 6/24 creation.
      3. Take a look at RRC again on the history of geocentrism/heliocentrism. Ptolemy was a geocentrist. Everyone was prior to the new astronomy. The fact is that we abandoned geocentrism and stopped interpreting Scripture to teach it when our astronomy changed. It wasn’t biblical exegesis that changed our minds. We decided that Scripture doesn’t intend to teach us astronomy, that it uses observational language (“the sun rises”) and, in the 19th century,that approach was applied to Gen 1-2. Old Princeton and Old Westminster realized that Gen 1-2 doesn’t intend to teach us the age of the earth or the exact length of all the creation days.

      E J Young, in the 1940s, in the Introduction to the OT, took the Old Princeton position and even (if memory serves) wrote that the days were stylistically arranged by rulers/realms, i.e., the Framework. In 1964 he reacted to Kline and reversed course but even in his reaction he conceded that the 1st three days were not solar days and cannot be said to be 24 hours. So, even the later E J Young didn’t hold 6/24.

      4. I think I remember reading that the divines had an opportunity to be more specific on the nature of the creation days but chose not to do so. Is that incorrect?

      5. It’s QIRTy to think that Charles Hodge (1797–1878), B. B. Warfield (1851–1921), Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937), and E. J. Young (1907–68) were orthodox on creation?

      6. Isn’t the truth that my views on worship closer to the original intent of the divines than yours and your view of creation is closer to the original intent of the divines?

      7. My case is that Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Young each, in different ways, rejected the older reading of Genesis with no discernible consequence to the system of doctrine. The same cannot be said regarding the revision on worship. I don’t want to re-write 50% of RRC in a combox (and you don’t want to read all that in a combox!) but it seems clear to me that the slide on worship in the ostensibly confessional Reformed world has done much more damage (lex orandi, lex credendi) than the revisions adopted by Old Princeton and Old Westminster on the creation days.

      With Old Princeton and Old Westminster I believe God’s Holy Word to be inspired, inerrant, and infallible. I also doubt that either God the Spirit or his instrument Moses, intended to teach us the length of the creation days. It’s clear to me that the move to go back behind Old Princeton and Old Westminster on creation, is fueled by a reaction to the pressure created by the theory of evolution at the same time I came to this conclusion I was also coming to my conclusions about the RPW. Clearly, in my case, questioning 6/24 exegesis did not lead to doctrinal infidelity but insofar as our practice of worship is logically and inextricably bound to our view of God, man, and even salvation, changing it the way we have done has had unhappy effects on our theology and will continue to do.

      The child who grows up in informal, worship, without a due sense of reverence and awe for a God who is a consuming fire, will likely develop a consonant view of God, man (including sin), salvation, and the church.

      In other words, I can demonstrate a direct relationship between our revisions on worship and the system of doctrine (with consequent effects) but I doubt that such can be shown regarding the revisions to our view of the creation days. Old Princeton’s and Old Westminster’s view of the creation days did not lead them away from or to corrupt the system of doctrine.

    • Scott:
      3) Yes, science changes. Who’s to say that evolution/long ages won’t fall out of scientific favor? The over-repeated geocentrism saga is no argument against trusting science too little. If anything, it’s an argument against trusting the scientific establishment over and above the Scriptures.

      I esteem science very highly, but the claim that “nothing in science/biology [can’t remember what the quote is exactly] makes sense without evolution” is complete crap. In my own educational experience evolution has been little more than a narrative canvas on which to paint the facts of science.

  28. Y’all read this artice at ordained servant online, right?

    http://heidelblog.net/2014/02/hermeneutics-and-the-creation-wars/#comment-273339

    We have scientists, geologists, singing hymns with us, brothers. What are we do to with these people?

    What are some of us to do if we are married to a geologist?

    There is real training these people have received. I trust my pastor with a seminary education, to be a theological educator, among other things. Are we not to accept the scientist who believes the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and even allow for “officer-ship,” for the same?

    That’s all. Peace.

    • We have scientists, geologists, singing hymns with us, brothers. What are we do to with these people?

      What are some of us to do if we are married to a geologist?

      There is real training these people have received. I trust my pastor with a seminary education, to be a theological educator, among other things. Are we not to accept the scientist who believes the earth is 6000 years old, and even allow for “officer-ship,” for the same?

      Excuse me, but the article you pointed to simply implies that real scientists cannot be young earth creationists by definition.

  29. Young and Stearley on the threat of young earth creationisn and “creation science” to the faith of covenant youth and young Christians:

    “Many young Christians have been reared to believe that this concept of creation is a virtual article of faith that represents ‘the’ biblical teaching. Those young Christians then go off to college, to a museum or to another source of knowledge where they may be exposed to legitimate geology and are stunned by the force of geologic evidence for Earth’s antiquity. They have been personally confronted with an intellectual and spiritual fixed great gulf that is far wider than the Grand Canyon, between their newfound scientific understanding and the religious views of their youth. Not having been equipped to handle the resulting intellectual and spiritual stresses, they all too often conclude, because the geologic evidence is so persuasive, that what they were taught about creation must be incorrect. To them, the Bible now becomes a flawed book. Sensing that they have been misled about creation by the religious authorities of their youth, they lose confidence in the rest of their religious upbringing. Such students may suffer severe shock to their faith. They were not properly taught the truth about creation, nor were they equipped to deal with challenges to their faith. Christians who are professional scientists have all heard far too many accounts of individuals whose spiritual journeys sound much like the scenario just described. Let’s have no shipwrecks of the faith of young, vulnerable, unprepared Christian youth that can be laid at the door of the pseudo-science promoted by Christians.” (pp. 476-477, “The Bible, Rocks and Time”)

    ” “Proving” the Bible or Christianity with spurious scientific hypotheses does not honor God and can only be injurious to the cause of Christ. We must not defend God’s truth by arguing falsehood on its behalf. In fact, Christians must be very cautious in using even legitimate science as an apologetic device. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that Scripture is more reliable or trustworthy if it is backed up at every point by scientific evidence. Nor should we suspect that Scripture may be untrustworthy if science does not back it up at every point. Scripture stands on its own self-attesting authority.” (p. 481, ibid.)

    • Geoff, this supports you:

      http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html

      But then there arises the question as to the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”(9)

      In adopting this view, Young followed his own teacher, O. T. Allis.

      The current faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary is profoundly conscious of the inroads of secularism and of the endemic influence of evolutionism. It is conscious, too, of the perennial dangers of regarding the current opinions of secular science as canonical for Christian belief. But to assume that Scripture yields more clearly-defined information with respect to creation than its exegesis may allow, or worse, to demand that it does, is to mold Scripture to our own concerns and fears rather than to come to it as our “guide and teacher” (Calvin).(10)

    • Young and Stearley blame YEC for people losing their faith? Why not blame poor (or nonexistent) catechesis? Why not blame secular humanism, the official state religion?

      It is not my perception that people are reared on YEC ANYWAY. There is literally zero support for any such belief in our culture unless you look for it.

      Evolutionary long ages are quite embedded in the culture at this point.

  30. I’m not going to keep up I see. I’ll just make this point; sorry if not complete satisfactorily. Someone made a good point about what confession is being subscribed. My concern is with the original intent of the WDs to guard against treating their words as a wax nose. Once that intent is established (or has been established as I think this is a moot point in OPC and PCA) then deal with the matter constitutionally if a broader meaning is what a church desires. As to the examples of worship. The PCA and OPC hold to the PCUSA confession of faith. That tradition negated the psalmody issue in 1788, albeit “messily, in the directory for worship rather than in the WCF. The issue was still hot and I suspect that was the politic thing to do. Instrumentation was not addressed in the Westminster Standards. It was never a constitutional issue in the PCUSA churches (at least my impression is that it was a war in the press at least in the PCUS, but that no judicial cases sought since the issue was never addressed in the PCUSA stds). Scotland may have a different history if cases came up so a different history on the issue. That’s all I have time for; sorry to leave you David to carry the water.

    • Chris,

      This is helpful. It comes as close as anything anyone to a substantive answer as how Reformed/Presbyterian churches aren’t simply ignoring their confessions, especially if original intent is all determinative.

      1. Clearly you don’t regard original intent as all-determinative. On this you and I agree.
      2. Ecclesiastical assemblies have the right to receive the confessional documents and to say expressly through them what they want to say.
      3. You and I agree that the standards should not be twisted as a wax nose, i.e., there are limits on how they may be interpreted.
      4. You seem to support here the idea that later assemblies (after the divines) may also do so implicitly. If so, then, the creation debate would seem to be over in the PCA, since that assembly’s intent is quite clear regarding creation.
      5. Are you suggesting that the 1788 Directory for Worship gave permission to Presbyterians to introduce instruments into public worship? I don’t remember any secondary sources (e.g., Melton et al) saying this. I cannot find any place in Hodge’s Constitutional History saying this. I’m looking at the Directory for Worship as published in 1894 and I see that it clearly revised the 1644 Directory for Publick Worship by adding the word “hymns” next to the psalms in ch. 4. I cannot tell from this edition when that revision was made, i.e., was it in 1788 or in one of the later revisions? Either way, here is chapter IV as it appeared in that edition:

      Chapter IV
      Of the Singing Of Psalms

      I. It is the duty of Christians to praise God, by singing psalms, or hymns, publicly in the church, as also privately n the family.

      II. In singing the praises of God, we are to sing with the spirit, and with understanding also; making melody in our hearts unto the Lord. It is also proper, that we cultivate some knowledge of the rules of music; that we may praise God in a becoming manner with our voices, as well as with our hearts.

      III. The whole congregation should be furnished with books, and ought to join in this part of worship. It is proper to sing without parceling out the psalm, line by line. The practice of reading the psalm, line by line, was introduced in times of ignorance, when many in the congregation could not read: therefore, it is recommended that it be laid aside, as far as convenient.

      IV. The proportion of time of public worship to be spent in singing, is left to the prudence of every minister: but it is recommended that more time be allowed for this excellent part of divine service than has been usual in most of our churches.

      I don’t see any permission to use instruments.

      The word “hymn” in ch. 4 may also be picking up the paraphrase of Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 in an earlier section.

      I’m not sure this constitutes a negation of psalmody in principle even if it had been negated in practice.

      The point about instruments is that everyone, all across the Reformed world, had rejected the use of instruments by 1644. They didn’t have to address it. For them it would have been akin to addressing the slaughter of lambs in public worship. It was obvious. Instruments were removed in the 1540s and following. The Dutch were struggling with it and the orthodox ministers would ultimately lose the battle but they were strongly opposed to instruments at the same time the Divines were meeting.

      That it didn’t come up supports the point I tried to make in RRC, that we just gradually slid back into medieval practice, albeit aided and abetted by 18th- and 19th-century revivalism.

  31. Andrew Buckingham wrote: “The current faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary is profoundly conscious of the inroads of secularism and of the endemic influence of evolutionism. It is conscious, too, of the perennial dangers of regarding the current opinions of secular science as canonical for Christian belief. But to assume that Scripture yields more clearly-defined information with respect to creation than its exegesis may allow, or worse, to demand that it does, is to mold Scripture to our own concerns and fears rather than to come to it as our “guide and teacher” (Calvin).(10)”

    GW: Thanks for this, Andrew. I agree with this statement. It seems to me that when it comes to issues of both protology (“the doctrine of first things”) and eschatology (“the doctrine of last things”), there should be great liberty allowed when it comes to details outside of the essential truths confessed in the catholic and reformed faith. (These “essential” truths include such things as “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible” and “He will come again, in glory, to judge the living and the dead.”) Just as I would regard a church communion which makes premillenialism a “boundary marker” of biblical orthodoxy to be schismatic, divisive and uncharitable in its premillenial policy, so I would regard a church communion to be likewise schismatic, divisive and uncharitable if it makes holding the 6/24 literal view a requirement for ordination. Setting up pharisaical “boundary markers” does not guard the orthodoxy or doctrinal integrity of the church any more than the oral traditions of the rabbis set up as “fences around the law” maintained fidelity to the law of God among God’s people in the first century.

  32. Scott,
    Briefly; On instruments I would argue the WA should have put it in the standards if it was to be part of the official doctrine, unless you want to open the door to anything else that was universal at the time but not addressed in the standards. I don’t recall if the arguments opposing the introduction of the organ in the 19th century included a constitutional argument or not. In 1788 the PCUSA would have still not been using instruments and would not have seen any more need to address the issue than the WA. It only became a practical issue when organs became within budget of churches (wealthier ones initially); but as I say, there was not confessional “hook” on which to address it. Frank Smith did his thesis on wine, women and song (as he puts it) in 19th century American Presbyterianism; may have to see if he can provide any more on how and why the debate unfolded as it did.

  33. Dear Geoff,

    While I appreciate that, I have to ask what does any of that have to do with the quotation of mine you cited? You didn’t answer it. I didn’t mention evolution except tangentially with regard to those who would like to push the idea of the special creation of Adam to the point where it doesn’t exclude those who believe that Adam had hominid ancestors.

    Perhaps the reason why young people are undone when confronted by the “evidence” presented by the geologists and other scientists is because they haven’t been taught a proper Christian epistemology.

    The problem is that the evidence scientists like to cite regarding the age of creation is really just speculation, based on the assumptions of uniformitarianism. Answering specifics of arguments built from bad presuppositions is pointless.

    There are limits to the natural sciences. The major flaw is they assume all sorts of things for which they have no way of knowing whether those things may or may not (or how much they may) actually contribute the conclusion.

    I know you find their conclusions compelling (rocking your world as you say) but people who don’t share your epistemological/philosophical/theological method, don’t find them compelling at all.

    While we agree that all things in Scripture are not all equally clear, we disagree quite a bit on what the easy vs the hard things are.

    • “While I appreciate that, I have to ask what does any of that have to do with the quotation of mine you cited? You didn’t answer it. I didn’t mention evolution except tangentially with regard to those who would like to push the idea of the special creation of Adam to the point where it doesn’t exclude those who believe that Adam had hominid ancestors.”

      GW: My point was that scientific study of God’s creation was a providential occasion for the church to reexamine its interpretation of the creation account of Scripture, and that that is not necessarily a bad thing. (By the way, if you interpret passages like Psalm 93:1 in a manner that does not require you to affirm a flat, immovable earth, then, like it or not, scientific study has influenced your understanding of Scripture.) Just to be clear: I do not believe Adam had hominid ancestors, nor do I accept the theory of biological macroevolution.

      “Perhaps the reason why young people are undone when confronted by the “evidence” presented by the geologists and other scientists is because they haven’t been taught a proper Christian epistemology.”

      GW: First, by putting “evidence” in quotes and by trying to turn this into an epistemological/philosophical issue, I believe you too quickly dismiss the careful, painstaking work of generations of field geologists (many of whom have been believing Christians) and divert attention from the issues at stake. (In effect you also insult mainstream geologists by implying that such geologists lack professional integrity and therefore are basically driven by a humanist agenda to force the “facts” into their atheistic scheme in order to come up with their “evidence.” That may not have been your intention, but I believe that is the effect of your statement.) I would argue that it is quite possible for one to hold to a fully consistent Reformed epistemology and at the same time, (1) reject the 6/24 interpretation of Genesis One; and (2) accept the geological evidences God placed in creation as interpreted by mainstream geologists. With respect to myself, epistemologically-speaking I believe the Triune God revealed in Scripture must be presupposed as the necessary precondition of all intelligibility, and I believe that the God-breathed Scriptures are His absolutely authoritative, inerrant, infallible, self-attesting Word, our only infallible rule for faith and practice. (I.E., I strive to embrace a consistent Reformed epistemology.) The 6/24 interpretation is an exegetical (not of itself an epistemological) issue; and, in my opinion, acceptance of standard geological evidences is perfectly compatible with belief in the sovereign Triune God of providence who created and upholds an orderly universe where predictable cause-and-effect are His ordinary (though not sole!) way of running things.

      “The problem is that the evidence scientists like to cite regarding the age of creation is really just speculation, based on the assumptions of uniformitarianism. Answering specifics of arguments built from bad presuppositions is pointless.”

      GW: Just “speculation”? Really? Dismissal of mainstream geology as being based on the “assumptions of uniformitarianism” and the YEC claim that only scientific creationists embrace “catastrophism” are common YEC canards. These are claims that, if not based upon ignorance of mainstream geological science, border on dishonesty. Mainstream geologists today are NOT absolute “uniformitarians,” nor do they deny that the geological record provides evidence of great catastrophes in earth’s past (including devastating floods, volcanos, earthquakes, meteors impacting the earth, etc.), some of which have had far reaching, even global, ramifications. What they would deny is that all or most of the stratigraphic and fossil record can be explained by just one, global catastrophic event (namely, Noah’s Flood). Again, if you study the history of modern geology, most of the founders of modern geology were not unethical pseudo-scientists driven by a humanist-ideological agenda; rather, many were devout Christians who simply could not “fit” the evidence on the field into the framework of a global deluge. Did that force them (and should it force the church today) to re-think the extent of Noah’s flood and the globalist interpretation of that historical event? Yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I woud say, no, not necessarily. (I would argue there are good exegetical reasons for viewing the Noahic flood as a devasting, though local/regional, deluge that occured in the Middle East and which wiped out the entire human race living at that time, except for Noah and his family.)

      “There are limits to the natural sciences. The major flaw is they assume all sorts of things for which they have no way of knowing whether those things may or may not (or how much they may) actually contribute the conclusion.”

      GW: I completely agree that there are limits to the natural sciences. When “science” tries to offer us a “theory of everything” it ceases to be sound science. And, I think we would also agree that there is a segment of contemporary scientists who have co-opted the scientific enterprise to promote an atheistic, naturalistic metaphysic (an obvious example would be the infamous Richard Dawkins). But at the same time, dismissing the conclusions of generations of hard-working field geologists – conclusions, by the way, which underlie the oil industry (thus giving the geological community an economic incentive for not distorting their results) – is simply too flippant and dismissive, in my opinion.

      Read the Young and Stearley book, and then let’s dialogue some more.

    • Geoff: You just stated that a geologist’s word is above God’s word. Unless you want to do some extreme semantic gymnastics (or argue that somehow my English translation is lying to me and has nothing to do with the Hebrew), you can’t say Noah’s flood was merely a Middle Eastern local event. It’s these kinds of claims that makes it literally impossible to even discuss the merits of the YEC position, because every bible verse a YEC would use to support their position can be denied, not by other, clearer bible verses, but the conclusions of a scientist. Not the work, mind you, but the conclusions of his science work.

      Do you really expect anyone to get anywhere with that assumption (reinterpret God’s word based on not-God’s-word)?

  34. Frank Smith sent me the follow by way of disagreement/agreement and gave permission to post it.
    “As far as I know, the arguments in favor of musical instrumentation (such as by Thomas Smyth of Charleston, S.C.) were based upon Scripture rather than upon a Constitutional basis. As to whether or not instrumentation is Constitutional, I would argue that it is not, for at least a couple of reasons. One, the Westminster divines understood that musical instrumentation was part of the ceremonial law that was totally abrogated (WCF XIX). Two, the listing of elements of worship in WCF XXI must, by definition, be considered exhaustive, because of the regulative principle of worship.

    I agree that the matter, to the degree to which it was fought, was fought out in the church press (journal articles, and, of course, Girardeau’s classic Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church). However, it mostly wasn’t fought, so much as it just happened. Thomas Cary Johnson, a professor at Union Seminary in Richmond, would argue that “the increasing emphasis on liturgy was a return to medievalism” and that ministers and churches “who introduced into their worship things against the nature and genius of the Directory of Worship, he charged, violated the constitution and were guilty of covenant-breaking” (E.T. Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, III, 346). The footnote refers to an 1897 article by Johnson. While it is true that Johnson may not have directly had organs in view, nevertheless, the point remains that even though innovations were viewed as “covenant-breaking”, no charges were ever brought. In this regard, Johnson’s position is similar to that of Machen, who also did not pursue judicial process against the modernists.

    I am in the process of getting my dissertation into publishable shape. By the way, it was NOT on wine, women, and song–though I do relate all of those things to the prevailing scientific approach, and the rejection of sensualism. The title was “The Philosophy of Science in Late Nineteenth Century Southern Presbyterianism.” After dealing with sensualism and the implications for worship, I conclude one section this way:

    [James] Woodrow [the evolutionist] had old Scottish Covenanter roots, and he apparently did not, at least in the nineteenth century, abandon belief in Sabbatarianism or the simplicity of worship. His concern, in order to preserve the old order, was that the church not look foolish before a watching world or before the church’s youth. His antagonists, particularly Girardeau and Dabney, were likewise concerned to avoid the folly of superstition. But while their goals were the same, their methodologies differed radically. The former approached matters scientifically, while the latter did so philosophically.[1]

    In the end, Woodrow’s approach failed. Unwittingly, he had abandoned the genuine inductivism of Lord Bacon. Without being aware of it, he had helped to set in motion a series of events which would lead to the eventual destruction of Puritan worship in the Presbyterian Church in the United States.[2]

    And yet, it is also true that the church as a whole rejected traditional views of worship before it rejected traditional views regarding the creation of man. One could therefore argue that, although we cannot discount the effect of Woodrow’s approach on how the church came to perceive worship, it was the acceptance of sensualism in the sanctuary that eventually guaranteed the acceptance of sensualism in the church’s laboratories.

    [1] William Childs Robinson hinted at this, with regard to evolution; see his Columbia Theological Seminary and the Southern Presbyterian Church, 190ff.

    [2] It is also possible that he himself changed some of his views. For instance, compare his anti-Romanist sentiments in “A Further Examination of Certain Recent Assaults on Physical Science,” Southern Presbyterian Review, Vol. XXV, n. 2 (April 1874), 250, 259; with the sentiments expressed in the retiring moderator’s sermon before the Synod of South Carolina in 1902 (cited in Thompson, op. cit., 488).”

  35. From lecture 7&8:

    Secondly, exegetical observations. First, let me say that I believe that the Genesis account is historical. A historical narrative. Adam and Eve are real people, there were real events, there is a real serpent that spoke – all of those elements I want to affirm up-front just to allay any fears. But, the second thing that we should observe about the Genesis creation account is that I think that in many respects it is like the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation looks into the distant future. There are no human witnesses for those future events. God has to reveal those events to man and He does so somewhat in a fuzzy manner. It is not an exact roadmap as all of our millennial views would attest. Well, remember, there are no human eyewitnesses to the events of the Genesis creation account up until ostensibly Genesis 1:26 when man is created and Adam and Eve are first there – or up until maybe Genesis 2:7, in chapter 2. So, in that sense, just as Revelation looks into the distant future, and we see what will happen in the end, I believe that Genesis 1 and 2 looks into the distant past and God reveals, and I think somewhat in a cloudy manner, how things originated, how things began. If you were to ask Jewish interpreters, and this again comes from Midrash Rabbah, in the grand commentary on the Old Testament, if you were to ask them where they believe that the Scriptures address the “how” of creation, they believe that Genesis 1 and 2 do not describe the “how” of creation but that instead Job 38 addresses the “how” of creation and interestingly enough when God addresses the “how” He doesn’t explain it. He just asks a series of questions, and I can’t remember – maybe 60-some odd questions – to Job. He says were you there? Did you do all of these things? And, of course, Job’s answer is to say nothing. Moreover, I think we also have to recognize that can a historical account be topical and still be historical? I think that’s an important consideration. Must a historical account be chronological in order for it to be historical? Certainly, the temptation narratives in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 they record – go back and read those – Matthew has a different order of events than Luke. But, just because they have different order of events in those temptation narratives does not therefore negate its historicity or the reality that it actually occurred, but rather they are giving topical accounts and emphasizing different things for different reasons. Another exegetical observation to make is that I think it’s important that we read the Old Testament the way that the New Testament reads the Old Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament raise the question of the length of the days. Rather, the Genesis creation account is seen as the entry point to the person and work of Christ in terms of the first Adam, and the last Adam – this is especially evident in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. That, I believe, should be the test or litmus test for orthodoxy in terms of does a ministerial candidate, does a candidate read the Scriptures, the Old Testament Scriptures the way that the New Testament reads them. I think a third exegetical – or perhaps maybe it’s a slightly theological if I am mixing my categories here then please forgive me – but I think that it’s important – is that in having discussions with people about this they always talk about the importance of six 24-hour days, the beginning is very crucial and if we misunderstand the beginning then we get everything wrong, and I always want to say well, is not the end just as important as the beginning? And, if in terms of the end we allow diversity of opinion in terms of how long it unfolds, does that not say something about that this explains at least historically why there has been a diversity of opinion in terms of how long it takes for the beginning to unfold? Somebody asked me, well what view would you teach, your know, your child because isn’t it simply easier to teach him six 24-hour days? I said, well, let me turn the question around to you- isn’t it simpler to teach your child that it’s a literal 1,000 years? Now, I know to my right Dr. Knight would say- yes, it is. But, nevertheless, there are those questions. Another observation to make in terms of the beginning and the end – I don’t understand why evolution plagues views of creation and it does not also plague views of the
    end. I don’t know if you heard this, and it really peaked my curiosity, because in the quote that John Muether read from Paul Woolley, I believe, he had to say “supernatural post millennialism.” The liberals historically have affirmed “evolutionary postmillennialism” yet when somebody says I’m postmillennial, the automatic thought isn’t “are you an evolutionary postmillennialist?” No, we assume that, of course, you are a supernatural postmillennialist in our context. So, if that’s the case, if someone says I affirm day-age, or I affirm analogical, our automatic immediate assumption should not be – “Gasp! Oh, you must be compromised on the doctrine of creation.” I don’t think that that’s the case, nor should I think we look at our brothers in that light.

  36. I had written: “Dismissal of mainstream geology as being based on the “assumptions of uniformitarianism” and the YEC claim that only scientific creationists embrace “catastrophism” are common YEC canards. These are claims that, if not based upon ignorance of mainstream geological science, border on dishonesty.”

    Just to be clear to Andrew Duggan: By this comment I am not intending to accuse you personally of bordering on dishonesty (and hope you did not take it this way). Please understand this comment was not intended as a personal attack. Rather, I am critiquing the oft-repeated YEC claim to have a corner on “catastrophism” as bordering on dishonesty. It is the position, not the persons associated with it, that I am critiquing.

    • If a scientist conducts sound experiments, but comes to the wrong conclusion regarding the facts, is his work not useful? Further, I don’t know where you got the idea that YECs claim that only scientific creationists embrace “catastrophism”. Personally, I don’t ever remember any sort of impactful catastrophism being discussed in my earth sciences education (beyond volcanism and such “smaller” scale things). But in any case, the point is simply that YEC treats catastrophism quite differently than “mainstream” geology.

  37. Jon wrote: “Geoff: You just stated that a geologist’s word is above God’s word.”

    GW: I completely deny your charge. What specifically in my comments above puts a geologist’s word “above” God’s Word? (All I said is that scientific theories may be providential “occasions” that impel the church to re-examine its interpretation of Scripture. I am not saying those theories have more authority than God’s Word; and to miscontrue my comments in such a way that suggests I am placing science “above” Scripture reveals that you either did not understand the point I was making, perhaps because you didn’t read it carefully enough; or you are uncharitably giving my words the worst possible “spin.”)

    Jon: “Unless you want to do some extreme semantic gymnastics (or argue that somehow my English translation is lying to me and has nothing to do with the Hebrew), you can’t say Noah’s flood was merely a Middle Eastern local event.”

    GW: Careful, contextual interpretation of passages which takes the original languages, literary genre and ancient near eastern context into consideration is not “extreme semantic gymnastics.” It is responsible, faithful exegesis (as opposed to a biblicist “proof texting” approach to Scripture). No one is saying that English translations are “lying” (a misconstrual of my position); but translations vary in their faithfulness to the original, and no translator is completely free from bias (which, by the way, is why it’s good to have translation committees made up of scholars representing various denominations and confessional viewpoints).

    Regarding the issue of the extent of Noah’s flood: Read http://www.oldearth.org/genesisflood.htm

    Jon: “It’s these kinds of claims that makes it literally impossible to even discuss the merits of the YEC position, because every bible verse a YEC would use to support their position can be denied, not by other, clearer bible verses, but the conclusions of a scientist. Not the work, mind you, but the conclusions of his science work.”

    GW: Brother Jon, I am well aware of the YEC position, having been converted to the YEC position in high school through the reading of Duane Gish’s book “Evolution: The Fossils Say No!” and having held that position for many many years until relatively recently. I have read lots of YEC literature, have much of that literature in my library, and am quite aware of the YEC position and its “merits.” I believe that many of the biblical arguments that YECs use to support their position are based on careless or superficial exegesis. I believe that when we studiously compare Scripture with Scripture, the YEC position simply does not hold up in the light of God’s Word. Yes, the study of geological information did serve as an impetus for me to re-examine my interpretation of Scripture, but geology is not my final authority; God’s Word is. In the end I have come to reject the YEC position because I believe it does not square with a correct interpretation of Scripture, not because I’m trying to place science above Scripture.

    Jon: “Do you really expect anyone to get anywhere with that assumption (reinterpret God’s word based on not-God’s-word)?”

    GW: Again, it is not a question of “re-interpreting” God’s Word, but of correctly interpreting God’s Word based on principles of sound exegesis.

    Jon, discoveries in the natural world can serve a “ministerial” (as opposed to a “magisterial”) role in motivating us to re-examine pre-conceived assumptions about what certain passages teach. It’s my understanding that in the past some in the church used Psalm 93:1 (which states that “Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved” – ESV) and similar verses to defend the idea of a flat, immovable earth (with foundation pillars and all). Jon, do you hold to a flat, immovable earth? After all, isn’t the “plain meaning” of Psa. 93:1 is that the earth immovable? What about those passages that speak about the “four corners of the earth” and the “pillars of the earth”? If you believe that the earth is a globe that moves through space, rather than a flat structure with four corners held up by literal pillars, then (like it or not), “science” has influenced your reading and interpretation of Scripture. And, I would argue, in the case of passages like Psa. 93:1, that’s a good thing, since the Holy Spirit is not intending in that passage to give us scientific data about the structure or cosmological place of the earth in the first place, but rather is describing the stability of the earth from our vantage point down here on earth.

  38. My initial reaction to oldearth.org is that their opinion of English translations is dismal. I understand the potential issues, but it’s as if I need that website just to understand what’s written.

    They also spend a great deal of effort directly addressing people like Ham and Sarfati. Personally I am not a big fan of Ham, but I tend to appreciate Sarfati and a handful of other names at CMI.
    What this shows is that it’s awfully hard to be neutral on these issues. Whether it affects your faith or not, it’s simply not possible for both positions to be true. That’s partly why I get upset when people try to take the nonexistent position of “oh, these things are difficult to determine for sure, so let’s not be too confident”, yet that same person most certainly believes *something*, and in fact denying one or the other position.

    Once again, I am aware of the multitude of problems that can arise from poor translation, but I get nervous when passage after passage must be completely turned inside out. Start doing that in and around Jesus’ time on earth and you’re done for.

    I don’t believe everything from CMI either. (Their take on the Nephilim is not very sound as I recently saw, and some of their theology is sometimes questionable, as is oldearth.org’s)

    I didn’t even know a formal YEC argument existed before I was exposed to it. The fact of evolution was all I really had through half of high school. My biology teacher was a Christian, and I had read Christian authors who advocated theistic evolution. But after all that, I find the narrative of evolution to be incredibly inconsequential to science itself.

    But I guess I’m just not smart enough to grasp the finer points of the long ages hermeneutic. I can’t trust anything I read in the bible at all because I don’t know Hebrew or Greek and these English translators have duped me into thinking I can comprehend what God wrote. It’s depressing honestly.

    • Jon: “I didn’t even know a formal YEC argument existed before I was exposed to it. The fact of evolution was all I really had through half of high school. My biology teacher was a Christian, and I had read Christian authors who advocated theistic evolution. But after all that, I find the narrative of evolution to be incredibly inconsequential to science itself.”

      GW: Jon, I just want to be clear that I don’t accept macroevolution, though I do believe the evidence for an ancient earth is pretty compelling. I do think that some of the YEC scientific objections to biological macroevolution are valid, and ID (“Intelligent Design”) scientists (which includes both Christians and non-Christians) make similar arguments. While macroevolution requires and old earth, an old earth does not require macroevolution. The issue of the age of the earth and the issue of biological evolution are separate issues. What I find fascinating (and faith strengthening) is that the fossil record attests to life showing up fully formed, with no proven “transitional forms.” (I know the evolutionists claim a number of such transitional forms, but such are highly questionable, in my opinion.) This is what the Bible’s teaching on special creation would lead us to expect, and it bears witness to the Bible’s truthfulness.

      Jon: “But I guess I’m just not smart enough to grasp the finer points of the long ages hermeneutic. I can’t trust anything I read in the bible at all because I don’t know Hebrew or Greek and these English translators have duped me into thinking I can comprehend what God wrote. It’s depressing honestly.”

      GW: Jon, just because there are certain passages where knowing something about the original languages can help in properly interpreting the Word doesn’t mean that you “can’t trust anything” in the English Bible, or that English Bible translators have “duped” you. That’s not what I was trying to communicate. There are numerous good English translations (personally I like the more literal ones, like the ESV and NASB), and anyone who studies a good translation of the Bible in English can gain a sufficient knowledge of the truth of God’s Word, especially a knowledge of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ. No one is saying that you have to have a Ph.D in biblical studies to understand the basic message of Scripture. Bible-believing Christians may have differences on how to interpret the days of Genesis One, just like they may have differences on how to interpret the millenium of Revelation chapter 20 and details surrounding of our Lord’s return; but the Bible is clear enough for all of us to agree that God created all things out of nothing in the beginning, created mankind specially in His image, and that Jesus will one day return in glory to judge the living and the dead and to usher in the eternal state. Once again, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 puts it well:

      “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

    • Jon,

      What may be known from English translations of Scripture is what must be known for the Christian life and salvation. I doubt that it’s necessary to know the length of the creation days either for salvation or the Christian life.

      As my colleague Steve Baugh says, reading Scripture in English translation is like wearing gloves while holding hands with one’s wife. It’s nice but it’s not quite the same. There’s a reason why our tradition has always stressed the importance of ministers learning the original languages.

      This is why WCF 1.8 says:

      8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

  39. Jon:

    I suspect that those sites that disparage your English translation of the Bible would also suggest that you wouldn’t really understand their “sophisticated scientific models” or tools (radiometric dating, etc.) either. Unless of course you were to first of all raise your right hand and pledge allegiance to their views.

    It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that someone without training in the original languages cannot understand a Scriptural passage. There are lexicons, commentaries and language scholars with email addresses, widely available. Of course if you happen to contact one of them, you’ll find out exactly how little your detractors actually know of the languages themselves.

  40. “The geological objections to the Mosaic record are apparently the most serious. According to the commonly received chronology, our globe has existed only a few thousand years. According to geologists, it must have existed for countless ages. And again, according to the generally received interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, the process of creation was completed in six days, whereas geology teaches that it must have been in progress through periods of time which cannot be computed . . .

    . . . It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.” — Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pages 570-571.

    In other words, the Westminster Divines did not have the same “facts” that Charles Hodge had. His hermeneutic was shaped by the “facts.”

  41. And isn’t it a shame that today, we don’t even have the same “facts” today. In fact, today, we have fewer transitional forms than Darwin did!

    • Dear Paul,

      You don’t need to know any Greek or Hebrew to read through the comments on this blog post and discover that six-day creationism was not the uniform view of the Church prior to Darwin. Yet, you continue to post as though that were the case. Why?

      You could of course blame Augustine’s interpretation on the fact that he wasn’t competent in Hebrew – but that would put you in a pickle. You would also have to explain why so many of the early Church fathers (including those before Augustine) seemed to hold views other than six day creationism.

      BTW – I write this as a six day creationist myself. The type of ad homimen “arguments” you are using makes six day creationism look bad – as though we need to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the evidence in order to hold our view.

      Please stop.

      David

  42. My point to Jon earlier was that he needn’t be put off by someone who professes to have a superior handle on the original languages. As you well know, there are loads of study helps and folks on translation committees who I have found more than helpful when it comes to a good translation of a text. Of course, interpretation is another matter.

    Re: Hodge, it seems to me that he may have once held to a literal six day creation pattern but felt that scientific discovery made the position untenable. I’m uncertain as to what material he observed but it is certain that some scientific evidence from the 19th century is interpreted differently today.

    • Paul,

      With all due respect “study helps” and knowing the biblical languages are two very different things. If you were traveling in central Mexico, got lost, without a translator, and all you had were the equivalent “study helps” you would be a real pickle. There’s nothing like speaking/reading the biblical languages and interpreting the Scriptures in the original context.

      Another analogy. You wouldn’t do surgery by following Gray’s Anatomy (the book, not the TV show spelled Grey’s…). Why not? Your patient would bleed to death before you finished as you looked up to find out which artery you just nicked.

      You wouldn’t appear in court pro se and ask the judge to wait while you paged through Blackstone.

      In the same way, we cannot say that using “study helps” is the same thing as spending decades learning and reading the biblical languages. If we accept such an attempted equivalence we will find ourselves back in the dark ages.

      Sometimes scientific discovery does present overwhelming evidence which causes orthodox, Bible-believing people to reconsider their interpretation of Scripture. Once more: geocentrism. Virtually no one today is a geocentrist and yet it wasn’t biblical exegesis that drove the change. It was science. That is a fact. We must deal with facts or we make biblical orthodoxy ridiculous.

      To be sure, not every claimed fact is a fact but geocentrism has been abandoned by everyone except a micro-seminary in Florida and, I’m told, one astronomer in Ohio somewhere (but even he doesn’t hold the the classical geocentric view).

  43. >>>>In the same way, we cannot say that using “study helps” is the same thing as spending decades learning and reading the biblical languages. If we accept such an attempted equivalence we will find ourselves back in the dark ages.<<<<

    This was directed to Jon who evidently was not able to interact with a website because his english translation was not good enough. My suggestion is that if you don't know the language, find a few people that do. They will probably refer to their tools such as BDAG and Louw and Nida.

  44. R. Scott Clark wrote: “Another analogy. You wouldn’t do surgery by following Gray’s Anatomy (the book, not the TV show spelled Grey’s…). Why not? Your patient would bleed to death before you finished as you looked up to find out which artery you just nicked.”

    GW: Good analogy. Most of us won’t turn to a friend with a layman’s interest in dentistry for help if we need dental work, even if he’s very well read on the subject. Instead, we go to someone with professional dental training. Several years ago when our son needed an emergency appendectomy I didn’t go to the library, check out a few books on anesthesiology and human anatomy, purchase some surgeon’s instruments, and then perform the surgery myself. Instead, we got our son to the hospital ASAP, and thankfully his surgery was performed by one of the top pediatric surgeons in our area (a gentleman who I believe was a Muslim, by the way). But when it comes to performing “surgery” of an even more eternally-significant kind, namely, expounding and applying the Word of God to the souls of sinners, American Christians today seem to think any average Joe who graduated from high school with a D average is up to the task.

    We expect our soldiers, policemen, plumbers, doctors, surgeons, lawyers, etc., to be professionally trained and tested, properly screened, and certified/licensed by the proper agencies or authorities before we will trust them. But in American Christianity any untrained, self-appointed and self-anointed Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to understand the deep things of the Word and to be “called” to preach or teach that Word expects God’s people to take them seriously (and, sadly, many Christians do; Harold Camping, anyone?).

    All believers (including those lacking in formal education), through “a due use of the ordinary means” (with diligent study and effort) can attain a sufficient understanding of Scripture for salvation and holy living. But at the same time, the Word of God is a mighty “sword” that can do great damage if it is mishandled by the unlearned and uncalled. While this may sound like snotty elitism and clericalism in the context of our “democratic” church culture today, I would contend that only those men with a Divine call (confirmed by the visible church), and with adequate training and testing, have a right to wield the sword of the Spirit in an kind of official capacity in the church. To expect less in the church is to dishonor the Word.

  45. Dr. Clark wrote: “With all due respect “study helps” and knowing the biblical languages are two very different things. If you were traveling in central Mexico, got lost, without a translator, and all you had were the equivalent “study helps” you would be a real pickle. There’s nothing like speaking/reading the biblical languages and interpreting the Scriptures in the original context.”

    GW: I agree with you that a basic knowledge of the biblical languages is very important, as are all the other areas of ministerial training (hermeneutics, systematic theology, church history, homiletics, counseling, Christian Education, catechetics, Christian ethics, etc.). But, truth be told, let’s face it that many of us Reformed pastors (at least many of us pastors who are not also seminary professors), who passed our biblical language courses in seminary and our language exams for presbytery or classis, are still not proficient enough in the biblical languages to be able to just pick up our Hebrew and Greek Bibles and read them without any study aids (lexicons, grammars, etc.). (An honest confession on my part: I struggled mightily with the languages in seminary, and had to get private tutoring to pass them. My Greek and Hebrew are quite rusty, though I do strive to review them regularly, especially Greek.)

    I suppose in an ideal world every Reformed pastor would be just as fluent in the original languages as his seminary professors. But, alas, the call to the pastorate is a call to be a generalist in a lot of different subjects. Which often means he will not be a specialist in any one of them; which in turn means he will often need to rely on the scholarly gifts and expertise of others, and thus will need to consult scholarly helps. I’m not trying to criticize your stress on the importance of the biblical languages; I just think we need to be careful not to give the impression that total fluency in the original languages (without the need for any scholarly helps) is an absolute prerequisite for serving in the pastoral office. (If it is, then many faithful pastors would have to be adjudged unqualified to serve in their office.)

  46. Geoff, your comment “While macroevolution requires an old earth, an old earth does not require macroevolution.” Well said. You also stated you are not an adherent of macroevolution.

    Fwiw, as a non-scientist, I am agnostic on what the age of the earth is. But, I think I am with you in opposition to the notion of macroevolution, and wonder if you can comment on my reasoning here:

    The problem with macroevolution seems not to be so much with understanding the day-vs-age thing, as much as macroevolution runs (seemingly) counter to Romans 5 and Gen 3. That is, Rom 5 and Gen 3 depict a cataclysmic event (Adam’s sin) which resulted in ‘death’. If ‘death’ is indeed a physical, not just spiritual, death, then presumably the survival-of-the-fittest notion implicit in macrevolution (which presumes a lot of deaths prior to homo sapiens appearing) has some troubles with Rom 5 and Gen 3.

    Is this a legit basis for opposition to macroevolution, or do you have other rationale? Many thanks.

    • Petros,

      I recognize your name from OLTS. Greetings, and peace of the Lord.

      A fasconating thing, if you’ll permit me, one non-scientists to another. In UCSB evolution class in 2003, the professor acknowledged the challenge faced by macro evolution. He used the phrase punctuated equilibrium to explain the discontinuity we see amongst the differnet species. Google that and find it on wiki.

      I like the theory of evolution, but come down with my denomination, the OPC, in affirming no animal ancestry for Adam. Our first last Adam (Romans 5, 1 cor . 15) must be upheld. So the question is , how much of evolution theory might we as a church allow? I’m a friend in this. Not trying to create trouble. We can have an adult conversation,both sides, in this issue.

      Peace, I say.

  47. Petros wrote: “The problem with macroevolution seems not to be so much with understanding the day-vs-age thing, as much as macroevolution runs (seemingly) counter to Romans 5 and Gen 3. That is, Rom 5 and Gen 3 depict a cataclysmic event (Adam’s sin) which resulted in ‘death’. If ‘death’ is indeed a physical, not just spiritual, death, then presumably the survival-of-the-fittest notion implicit in macrevolution (which presumes a lot of deaths prior to homo sapiens appearing) has some troubles with Rom 5 and Gen 3.”

    GW: Good question. I think one of the flaws of the YEC position is that it understands Scripture to teach that animal death is the result of Adam’s sin, and that all creatures were vegetarian before the fall. (I have trouble picturing what a vegetarian shark or a vegetarian spider would look like, but we won’t go there.) The passages you refer to above make it clear that human death is the wages of sin. Animals are not in view in either passage. (Besides, when God threatened Adam with death for disobedience, one wonders how Adam could have known what God was talking about unless he had witnessed death occur in the natural kingdom.) So I don’t think these passages speak one way or another to the question of macroevolution.

    As an interested layman I am skeptical of the macroevolutionary scheme primarily due to my understanding of the scientific data, not due to any Scriptural considerations (although I think Gen. 2:7 does seem to teach that Adam was an immediate, special creation of God, which would be contrary to the notion of Adam having animal ancestry). When YECers point out that Genesis ch. 1 speaks of God creating the different “kinds” of animals, they wrongly assume that the term “kinds” is like a scientific category (like genus or species). But the term “kind” seems to mean simply “category”; it says nothing about the process God used to produce such “kinds” (whether by immediate special creation or a providentially guided evolutionary process). But in terms of scientific weaknesses in the macroevolutionary scheme, I recommend Phillip E. Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial” (InterVarsity Press) and “Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Stephen C. Meyer (HarperOne). (I’ve read the former and look forward to reading the latter.)

    • Pastor Willour, though you are not addressing me, I just want to say thank you for writing this here. It’s clear, points to places where one might find further resources on the topic, and very even handed and sincere.

      I have much to learn.

      Peace.

  48. Andrew:

    Something the reviewer you linked to did not mention, Bill Nye suggested on multiple occasions that young earth creationists are not scientists.

    Ken Ham did not present any new material so if you are remotely familiar with his arguments it may make for a long debate.

    I asked the question about who watched out of curiosity because Dr. Clark used the promotional photo for this thread.

    • Thanks Paul. My ordination as a deacon in the OPC means I wrestle with this issue. We have a creation report which was accepted by our general assembly. More than that, would require overtures in our church. I’m interested in little else, but upholding the view that old earth views are not an indicator of heterdox Christian theology.

      That’s what I’m about.

  49. Gen. 6:19-20
    “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”

    How long ago did this take place?

  50. Thanks, Geoff. Good points to consider.

    For those of you interested in the meaning of “yom”, and for very scientifically inclined folks, you may be interested in the writings of Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder is a Phd in Physics at MIT and is also an Orthodox Jew. Through quantum physics, he’s done some fascinating work which harmonizes 6-day creation with an old earth view. Ck out amazon for his books.

    When it comes to topics like this, quantum physics – mindbending that it is — gives me a healthy dose of humility. How can light be both a “wave” and a “particle”? So who knows, maybe Schroeder’s quantum physics, which may reconcile 6-day creation with an old earth, is onto something?

    • Petros, further,

      Since I’m the first to chime in on my own linking here, here I go:

      I believe Feynman’s peice is provocative, if albeit, wrong on the whole. Check this out, for example:

      Of course, as a result of this doubt, the pattern of doubting is turned next to ethical problems, because, in the religion which he learned, moral problems were connected with the word of God, and if the God doesn’t exist, what is his word? But rather surprisingly, I think, the moral problems ultimately come out relatively unscathed; at first perhaps the student may decide that a few little things were wrong, but he often reverses his opinion later, and ends with no fundamentally different moral view.

      I actually don’t believe we can affirm this as Christians, see Romans 1.

      I’m not trying to drop theological hand grenades on the kind readers of Heidelblog. Just food for thought, is all.

      Grace and Peace.

  51. Re: Gen. 6:19-20, I going to suggest that it took place somewhere around 279,000 years ago — about the time that men began hurling spears.

    • That’s interesting.

      I’ve read bits and peices of this book, Paul.

      But yeah, over my paygrade. I’ll leave it to the scientists and theologians. I crunch numbers, and sometimes, my pennies are off. Don’t tell anyone (insert emoticon).

      Later, and thanks for the public interaction. I hope from your side, you feel it’s been civil. I feel so from my side.

      Peace.

  52. Hi Scott, you asked:
    If our reconstruction of the divines’ opinion is to be, in effect, original intent on creation, does that mean that we’re also bound to geocentrism?

    Only if it can be established that the divines’ opinion on 6-day creation was, at least partially, based on geocentrism. If their opinion was based on Scripture alone then whether they were or weren’t geocentric seems to be only a correlative footnote. Do you have any historical evidence that would directly linked geocentrism to the 6-day creation view of the divines?

    The fact that today a large percentage (majority?) hold to a 6-day view and are also heliocentric would show that one’s understanding of astronomy is not determinate of one’s Gen. 1 opinion, at least for 6-day creationists.

    Jack

  53. Hi Andrew,

    You have lots of questions and opinions to offer, including an opinion on ‘punctuated equilibrium’ which states that evolution happened so fast that nobody saw it happen.

    If you would like to take this up further, I’d invite you to visit this site, http://www.bylogos.com. Feel free to search ‘Framework Theory’ there

  54. Jerry,

    I edited your post because the article linked is false at a number of points.

    1. I am an Associate Minister at Escondido United Reformed Church.

    2. I heartily affirm that God created the world in six historical days. If “historical” is opposed to eternal, then of course I affirm historical creation. The creation days aren’t eternal. That is the pagan view. I believe every syllable of God’s Holy Word and I try to read it carefully and in context and in the original language. I notice that there is no sun until day 4, so if “historical” is meant to = “24 hours” then things are a little more complicated. Even E J Young, in his 1964 (I think) critique of Kline, admitted that the first three days aren’t solar days so it’s hard to say what it means to talk about 24-hour days in the absence of the sun. We have biblical warrant to speak of 24-hour days for days 4-6. Day 7, of course, never ends in the narrative so that is a complication. The creation days are revealed as mornings and evenings, so that pattern is like our days.

    I agree heartily with Synod Escondido (2001), art. 43:

    Synod affirms that the Bible teaches that 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.

    The post you linked effectively condemns this synodical statement.

    Further, though it is formally correct to say that I am “strongly opposed to those who affirm creation in 6 historical days as the only valid Reformed interpretation of Genesis 1….” (emphasis added). I understand that some of those who hold 6/24 creation believe that it is the only correct view. I support their right to think that way. What I have argued is that it is not of the essence of the Reformed faith and that it is a poor boundary marker for Reformed orthodoxy. I’ve made this argument at length in Recovering the Reformed Confession. There’s little evidence that the writer of the post has read this book or understood what I’ve written.

    I am concerned about setting up a definition of Reformed orthodoxy that would exclude J. Gresham Machen and B. B. Warfield. The linked post is a great example of the very thing I was trying to explain with the acronym QIRC.

Comments are closed.