This is a good discussion. I want to preface my comments and questions by making it clear that I have not yet been convinced of one position over another, and am simply thinking through and comparing various issues as they relate to each side of the broad issue. That said, there are certain arguments within the issue that I am convinced are weak or flawed; but none of those so far are enough in themselves to fully carry the weight of the whole issue, one way or another.
Matthew and Lane, I'm curious as to how you would point out the language of WCF 4 ("in the space of six days") as specifically elaborating on the meaning of the direct Scriptural language (Genesis 1
and Exodus 20:11, "in six days") in one way or another.
Should one’s view of the length of the creation days be a test of orthodoxy? I think not. The exegetical questions are difficult, and I don’t believe that any other doctrinal questions hinge on them.
This is nonsense; if a plain historical account cannot be taken seriously in Genesis 1, then why should we take anything else in Biblical history seriously.
This is simply begging the question. Since you believe the Genesis creation account to in fact
be a "plain historical account," you can certainly make arguments for why that must be the case; but in saying that the error of those who disagree is chiefly seen in the further implications for biblical hermeneutics because they don't take "a plain historical account" seriously, you are completely assuming that the creation account is in fact "a plain historical account," which is the very question being asked in the debate.
So in the Reformed community, some have held to literal days, others to age-long days, and others to symbolic days. These positions coexisted fairly comfortably in Reformed churches until around 1980.
I think this is due to Calvinisms' love-affair with humanism. How any Calvinist cannot except literal six day creation is beyond me. A Calvinist should believe that God, not unbelieving science, is sovereign.
I can't honestly see how this is anything but an
ad hominem that again begs the question, since you are automatically assuming that any non-literal reading of the creation account is "unbelieving science." In other words, Reformed theologians who have held to a non-literal view would not logically respond with an implication that "No, unbelieving science, not God, is sovereign," but rather would simply respond by making a case that their view is
not, in fact, rooted in "unbelieving science." You can certainly argue otherwise, and indeed, that is where the very debate lies.
In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
it is worth the battle, since any other view is explicit heresy.
Keon, please clarify what you mean by "heresy." If you take the view that there is only one biblical definition of the word, and that that definition is damning error, then there is a definite problem with your post with respect to board policy. If, however, you take the view that there is damning heresy as well as a legitimate use of the word to refer to non-damning but serious error, and if you simply have the latter use in mind in this case, it would be best to simply refer to it as just that--serious error--so that the discussion can, again, remain civil and beneficial.
In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.
I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?
it is worth the battle,
since any other view is explicit heresy.
I'm NOT sure about this. I think and feel very strongly about a literal six days,
but I think that this error can be held for a time. God does not bring all of our views and doctrines to perfections so quickly. I know I have overturned many a wrong notion, as most of us have, with diligent study and the counsel of those more gifted than ourselves,and time. I do believe that faulty handling of Genesis 1 opens up a pandora's box to interpret the rest of scripture badly.
I likewise sympathize with definitely challenging and taking to task, and pushing for clear textual evidence for, the claim that the creation account easily has a different natural reading than the parts of Scripture we all agree to be literal history. But I'm curious as to your second sentence here (bold emphasis above): What about people who hold a non-literal position for a lifetime? What about Charles Hodge, or Meredith Kline?
Charles Hodge virtually ceded the ground to the scientists when he wrote:
"It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] 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, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other."
Notice how Hodge readily grants to naturalism the right to lay claim to ownership of the "facts." I would contend that the "facts" are only meaningful when put into some conceptual framework.
I have to give a hearty "Amen!" to this point; even if I were to become convinced of a non-literal view of the creation account, it certainly would not in any way rest upon a concession of scientific theories automatically being "the facts," an assumption with which I'd be willing to bet everyone here would take serious issue.
I 100% agree with your condemnation of the capitulation of Hodge and I am presup myself, but I do believe that there is room for the "day as age" interpretation without capitulating all to naturalism.
Exactly. As a sort of corollary or logical "other side of the coin" to my preceding statement, even if I decisively adopted a literal six-day view, it would
not rest upon a mere assumption that a day-age view in itself logically necessitates a naturalistic perspective, but rather on the basis that a day-age view simply does not square with an accurate reading of the text.
That is - I do not think the last day will last a literal 24 hours. What is time measurement to God? He does not measure it as man does, anyway. The Sabbath was made for man for a purpose and it was not to be about measured time or measuring out God's rest.
Man is bound by time, not God. "Objective" time measurement (ex:an exact 24 hour day) is an invention of Man.
How long do you think the "last day" of judgment will be?
Answer: As long or as short as the Lord wills it.
This seems like a good point to me; certainly one worthy of further consideration and interaction, if nothing else. So, how would the literal six-day creationists on the board interpret the last "day" of Judgment; and as a follow-up question, if you would say it is something other than 24 hours, why would you read it differently than Genesis 1?
One possible response I can think of to the latter question is that I have heard that while Scripture does use the word for "day" found in Genesis 1 in non-literal ways in some passages, there are no other passages in which it is used in a non-literal way
when it is used repetitively in a back-to-back way.
1. We should engage in battles over it when the Gospel is at stake. Battling over it in order to supposedly demonstrate who is more faithful to God is more prideful and arrogant than any view of the creation account.
2. We should not assume that an alternative view of any portion of Scripture necessarily makes one "less serious" about God's word than we good Reformed folks. To be sure, there are positively wrong interpretations...however, deeming an old-earther to be less serious than us about the things of God is a non sequitur.
3. There is a double-edged sword factor here. Many of our premill brethren could use your same argument to say that unwillingness to accept Revelation at face-value is heretical and should exclude one from becoming an officer.
Excellent observations here, Joel. I would only seek clarification or possibly suggest otherwise on your first point: Are issues where the very Gospel itself is at stake really the
only issues worth fighting for? What about issues concerning the sacraments? Ecclesiology? Confessional subscription? Although I would never claim the Gospel itself to be threatened by any of the orthodox yet differing positions on those matters, yet would certainly say they are worth fighting for, since they have great implications for the life of the Church and the believer.