Answers in Genesis responds to Modern Reformation Magazine

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:

Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.

Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.

Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
 
Zenas said:
I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:

Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.

Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.

Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.

I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.
 
As someone who has yet to state any exceptions to the Westminster Standards regarding Creation (though I am more and more comfortable with the Framework Hypothesis), I have to say that I agree with those who get so discouraged by the "Creation science" crowd. Why can't we just state that we are taking an educated leap of faith and that Scripture doesn't necessarily make any specific claims about what timeline God used to create. All we are bound by is that Gen 2:4ff is literal history.
 
Austin said:
Why can't we just state that we are taking an educated leap of faith and that Scripture doesn't necessarily make any specific claims about what timeline God used to create.
Click to expand...

Because to obfuscate where Scripture is clear is bad exegesis and incorrect theology.
 
sastark said:
Zenas said:
I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:

Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.

Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.

Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.

I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.
Click to expand...

Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.
 
How Should God have had it written, for you to understand it as 6 consecutive 24 hour days with a day of rest at the end, if not the way it is put already?
 
For what it's worth, I was an old earth creationist for many years having come to that conclusion with ashamedly little exegesis of Genesis. When I was hired to be a high school science teacher in a Christian school 3 years ago, I figured I needed to get educated on this issue as it would likely come up at one time or another. So I spent a few weeks during that summer researching the claims of the various positions and came to the conclusion that old-earth creationism was not Biblically defensible. I consequently embraced the 6-day creation account and found my understanding of the Bible has grown.
 
I read the article in MR and thought that the main argument was really weak. Essentially this is how the argument proceeded:

1. We're the professional geologists unlike that committee the PCA formed that didn't have any of us experts on it.
2. We have interpreted the geological data to reveal that the Earth has been here a very long time.
3. Our model works therefore it is correct.
4. Either that is true or it only appears to have been here a long time.
5. If God made it appear to have been here a long time then that would make God unethical.
Conclusion: The earth has been here a long time because God is not a liar.

I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".

The geologists, however, only view the problem of "how dare God lie to what our scientific premises have yielded!" from only their myopic stance.
 
Zenas said:
Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.
Click to expand...

Scripture does take an explicit stance. OECs say it does not. Therefore, OEC denigrate Scripture.
 
Zenas said:
sastark said:
Zenas said:
I'm not a proponent of Old-Earth Creationism, but I am a proponent of consistency and turthfulness. As such, I find this statement by Answers in Genesis to be a probable mistatement of the position of Old Earth proponents and these geologists:

Instead, these geologists believe that science interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...

This is certainly not what Old-Earth proponents or these geologists would contend, nor, when considering their position, is it the result. Statements like this detract from real discussion and devolve the exchange, in one sense or another, into an exercise in accusation.

Whether this is the logical conclusion of their argument or not, I doubt that these geologists would agree with this statement. Moreover, if one considers their argument; that specific revelation is silent on the age of the Earth and, therefore, general revelation is an ample and reliable source, then the assertion falls apart.

Again, not a proponent of the system, but mischaracterizing others is a quick path to hitting a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Andrew, whether they admit it or not, their underlying presupposition is that general revelation tells us how old the world is, not Scripture. However, to reach this conclusion, you must believe either: 1. That the days of Genesis are not 24-hour days, or 2. That the genealogies of Scripture are inaccurate, or 3. Both 1 and 2. Whichever of those reasons you choose, you must denigrate the authority of Scripture to such a point, that general revelation becomes authoritative concerning the question of the antiquity of the earth.

I do not believe the Answers in Genesis piece (written by a PCA elder) misrepresents the authors of the Modern Reformation piece. He does expose their presuppositions, though.
Click to expand...

Believing #1 only denigrates Scripture if Scripture takes an explicit stance on the subject. Those of the Old Eath crowd don't, ergo it's not denigration. Their argument is that Scripture doesn't take a stance as to the legnth of days or the period of time constituting creation, ergo general revelation is a reliable source to tell us how long it took.
Click to expand...

What kind of day has a morning and evening besides a 24-hour one?
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I found it facile as the person who reads Scripture, on its plain face, could make the same argument about how God would be unethical for using the word "Day" when He really means "Age".
Click to expand...

:applause:

I would also add that this discussion/debate is not only about the length of days in Genesis 1, as the article makes clear. It affects the interpretation of other parts of Genesis 1-11 -- e.g. a global flood is denied.
 
With a debate more than two centuries in the making, one might reasonably expect that Reformed scholars long ago resolved the issue.
Click to expand...

...yup. Isn't it amazing that there was no consensus of Reformation and post-Reformation orthodox divines regarding this issue? I mean, you'd think that some important Reformed confession would make an explicit comment on the timeframe of creation...



....;)
 
Last edited:
Dearly Bought said:
I mean, you'd think that some important Reformed confession would make an explicit comment on the timeframe of creation...
Click to expand...

I regard the Westminster Confession as an important Reformed confession and it certainly makes an explicit statement relative to the time-frame of creation when it limits the work of creation to "the beginning" and "the space of six days."
 
Bookmeister said:
There was no "evening and morning" for day 7.
Click to expand...
Scripture doesn't explicitly use the words "evening and morning" for each "day" mentioned in Gen. 2:17, 3:5, 3:8, 4:14, and, well, just about every other time the word "day" occurs in the rest of Scripture (including the Fourth Commandment). Are you going to conclude that those days don't have mornings and evenings? If the text actually said that the "seventh day had no morning or evening" you'd have an argument.
 
Poetry can tell history, no one is denying that. But you have to admit that the Framework hypothesis is a very exegetically sound position for a Reformed person to take. Of course, to hold it one must state exceptions to the WCF, WLC, & WSC. But that said, I would rather avoid the issue most of the time. In my experience in the ministry over the years I have concluded that most people who aren't believers who want to argue this point are throwing up a smoke screen, trying to avoif the real issue, which is "Who do you say I am?" when the issue comes up, I like to say that while I have stated no exceptions to the Standards on this issue, I find the Framework Hypothesis quite compelling. Indeed, I always make a point to include it when I am teaching on the subject, if only as an alternative, exegetically sound position that many solidly Reformed folks hold. For many people investigating Christianity, I would prefer that the issue of 24 hour days be taken off the table so that they can chew on the real issues of the faith: Christ and Him Crucified. This isn't 'bait & switch,' nor is it playing fast & loose w/ Scripture. Rather, it is putting 1st things 1st.

Thoughts?
 
I have never understood the desire.to.make. any of Genesis 1 poetry. What is the reason.for using anything other than a plain reading? And if the word.day is poetry, then why not.the other words.... why not create, or man, or animals, or.water or.any other word or.concept in Gen 1. Why is the word "day" the only word here that anyone wants to make a poetic concept?

....please ignore any stray typos or weird punctuation, I typed this on my phone

Take Care,
Rob
-----
REAL men practice Biblical Hermeneutics
...even on Tapatalk!
 
We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.
 
Water is used.in.ways other than literal.water elsewhere as.well.... but i don't see anyone making that application here. It is.ONLY the word "day" that anyone feels.the need.to.assign a poetic or.symbolic.meaning. Why is that? There is nothing in the text that asks.for.a.symbolic reading... yet one.is offered. I sincerely can't help.but think that at least on SOME level it is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with mainstream science.

Take Care,
Rob
-----

Please ignore any weird spelling, grammar or punctuation errors... or typos. I typed this on my cell phone.
 
I would argue the text is clear that earth is young and that the days were real days. God says day, the word often used for a regular day in Scripture, and then God emphasized that it was an actual day by saying there was morning and evening.

We can compare Scripture with Scripture:
In Mark 10:6, Jesus said "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Human beings were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. also see Mark 13:19 & Luke 11:50-51

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
We can see that our very work week is based off the literal historical event of the 6 day creation.

---------- Post added at 02:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 AM ----------
Bookmeister said:
We do not make the word day poetic but scripture does use the word day in other than 24 hour "days." the framework theory does not say it is NOT 6/24, it says that is not the issue. The days of creation are set up in 2 sets of 3 parallels. Day 1 creation, day 4 filling, day 2 creation, day 5 filling etc. It very well may have been 6 literal 24 hour days, but that is not clear from the text.
Click to expand...

If Framework says that 6/24 is not the issue and they see a "framework", why don't they just believe that in the framework and accept 6/24?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top