To which view of the Creation days do you hold?

To which view of the Creation days do you hold?

  • The Day of Ordinary Length View

    Votes: 95 87.2%

  • The Day of Unspecified Length View

    Votes: 3 2.8%

  • The Day-Age View

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Framework View

    Votes: 10 9.2%

  • The Analogical View

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (specify in comments)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Total voters
    109
pgwolv

pgwolv

Puritan Board Freshman
I have just finished working through the PCA and OPC Study Committee Reports on the Creation days. Before becoming reformed in my thoughts, I was a theistic evolutionist. I became agnostic on this issue over time and have recently realized that I definitely believe, as these reports say, that when God created man, it was God’s inbreathing that constituted man a living creature, and thus God did not impress his image upon some pre-existing living creature; thus the evolution of man out of lower life forms is out of the question.

I would like to get an idea how the PB members think specifically on the issue of Creation days. I have used the 5 main categories as defined in the OPC report, and added an "other" option for other views.
 
The young-earth views affirmed in the OPC report seem to me to fit the plainest readings of the biblical texts, and therefore are most likely. But the older-earth views have some strong support and Scriptural reasoning, and it may turn out that one of them is correct, though this seems less likely to me. Theistic evolution (not included in your list) seems least likely of all and comes with significant concerns when compared to the other views.

The age of the earth is not a matter the Bible seems very concerned to specify. Rather, it is a culture-wars issue. Scripture wants us to know that God made the heavens and the earth at a point in history, out of nothing, by the power of his word. It wants us to trust that God's word in the Scriptures is absolutely true and sufficient. It wants us to see that God's plan of redemption in Christ was in the works from the beginning. As long as these truths are upheld, I don't get very concerned about what position a person favors on the length of days.

As a guy who teaches Bible lessons to kids, I sometimes encounter parents who are strongly attached to certain positions in the culture wars. They have come to believe that a particular theory put forth by Answers in Genesis or some other creation explainer is critical Bible teaching. The most recent was a parent who was very insistent I teach that all snakes had legs before the fall. It's not usually an issue I bring up at all, but for this parent it seemed to be the test of orthodoxy and the truth upon which American society would either survive or crumble. My most strongly-held view is that such a level of certainty and insistence is unhelpful.

So to answer your question, I think days of ordinary length or days of unspecified length are most likely, but I see no reason to choose between the two.
 
Jack K said:
The young-earth views affirmed in the OPC report seem to me to fit the plainest readings of the biblical texts, and therefore are most likely. But the older-earth views have some strong support and Scriptural reasoning, and it may turn out that one of them is correct, though this seems less likely to me. Theistic evolution (not included in your list) seems least likely of all and comes with significant concerns when compared to the other views.

The age of the earth is not a matter the Bible seems very concerned to specify. Rather, it is a culture-wars issue. Scripture wants us to know that God made the heavens and the earth at a point in history, out of nothing, by the power of his word. It wants us to trust that God's word in the Scriptures is absolutely true and sufficient. It wants us to see that God's plan of redemption in Christ was in the works from the beginning. As long as these truths are upheld, I don't get very concerned about what position a person favors on the length of days.

As a guy who teaches Bible lessons to kids, I sometimes encounter parents who are strongly attached to certain positions in the culture wars. They have come to believe that a particular theory put forth by Answers in Genesis or some other creation explainer is critical Bible teaching. The most recent was a parent who was very insistent I teach that all snakes had legs before the fall. It's not usually an issue I bring up at all, but for this parent it seemed to be the test of orthodoxy and the truth upon which American society would either survive or crumble. My most strongly-held view is that such a level of certainty and insistence is unhelpful.

So to answer your question, I think days of ordinary length or days of unspecified length are most likely, but I see no reason to choose between the two.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I am on the same page as you.
 
I tend to hold to a 6 24hr day view, because when I read Genesis, that seems most likely to me. I’m not convinced by creation science or AiG and feel that the scientific evidence is more in favor of evolution, however I also recognize that we’re like mice trying to understand how the house we live in got there, so whether or not the scientific consensus shows evolution or not doesn’t concern me too much. If scripture says 6 ordinary days, and I believe it does, that’s enough for me.
 
Six natural days which is the natural reading of Genesis 1 and the WCF picks up on that which was argued I think conclusively for the ultimately failed PCA report in the late 1990s. I think it is important; for instance, the pulpit committee when looking for our next pastor would never have considered someone holding anything else.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Six natural days which is the natural reading of Genesis 1 and the WCF picks up on that which was argued I think conclusively for the ultimately failed PCA report in the late 1990s. I think it is important; for instance, the pulpit committee when looking for our next pastor would never have considered someone holding anything else.
Click to expand...
Why do you say the PCA report failed?
 
Jack K said:
As a guy who teaches Bible lessons to kids, I sometimes encounter parents who are strongly attached to certain positions in the culture wars. They have come to believe that a particular theory put forth by Answers in Genesis or some other creation explainer is critical Bible teaching. The most recent was a parent who was very insistent I teach that all snakes had legs before the fall. It's not usually an issue I bring up at all, but for this parent it seemed to be the test of orthodoxy and the truth upon which American society would either survive or crumble. My most strongly-held view is that such a level of certainty and insistence is unhelpful.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate this answer. It's possible to hold beliefs, even firmly, without making them first-order beliefs. Some years ago, I was intrigued by the arguments of Hugh Ross, mainly because he made this same point - and it resonated with me - that our witness is impaired when we make issues such as this THE litmus test for orthodoxy.

I no longer give credence to Hugh Ross's own views, and I'm also pretty decided in my own mind that theistic evolution and variations of the framework hypothesis are poor attempts by literalist Western minds to reconcile the Biblical account with what we in our hubris think the scientific record indicates. For me there can be no death and no suffering before the fall, and the Bible doesn't give me any compelling reason to adopt a uniformitarian stance regarding the laws of physics. I do also think some views are beyond the pale (any form of belief in evolution, for instance); and I find it unfortunate that the prevailing mindset insists on God's incomprehensible ability to do absolutely anything he wants - except, apparently, create the world in six literal days.

But, all that said, the point made by Hugh Ross and by Jack in this post is, I think, a good one.

@Jack K - how did/do you handle such situations? I'd be interested from a practical standpoint in your wisdom there.
 
Glad to see so many side with the six day view. I thought I was in a fringe minority back when I graduated high school and hadn't come across AiG or Creation ministries. I adopted it after having taken AP Bio and read The Language of God, which advocated Theistic evolution, which I briefly followed. But the latter, along with Biologos, made me question, not the Bible, but why the Genesis narratives were so contorted by Collins et al. I was faced with a choice, either I could believe the Bible or what men were saying about the Bible, most of which has very little positive theology and muddled everything. I chose the former and haven't looked back.
 
pgwolv said:
Why do you say the PCA report failed?
Click to expand...
It was a failure because it allowed a smorgasbord of views despite the clear teaching of the confessional standards. Others have said, the very ones claiming such an approach would not allow theistic evolution, not long after promoted it.
 
dsanch1120 said:
I tend to hold to a 6 24hr day view, because when I read Genesis, that seems most likely to me. I’m not convinced by creation science or AiG and feel that the scientific evidence is more in favor of evolution, however I also recognize that we’re like mice trying to understand how the house we live in got there, so whether or not the scientific consensus shows evolution or not doesn’t concern me too much. If scripture says 6 ordinary days, and I believe it does, that’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
I'm the same. If scientists examined Adam's body the moment after God created it, how old would they conclude him to be? Where did he come from? How tall was he an hour ago? What race were his parents? Were they likely tall or short?

To take their conclusions and try to fit it into the narrative handed down would be pointless. The answers to those questions are irrelevant because he was created instantly by a divine being from dust.
 
chuckd said:
If scientists examined Adam's body the moment after God created it, how old would they conclude him to be? Where did he come from? How tall was he an hour ago? What race were his parents? Were they likely tall or short?
Click to expand...
Yes! Nice to hear someone else share this thought.
I always thought of the ridiculous scenario where Adam chops down a tree to build a home, only to find many rings in the stump. Even though the stump suggests that it is so many years old, there is no reason that Adam should assume that the tree was created in a different manner than he was, apart from image and dominion.

I am of the opinion of six literal days. To some this seems foolish, but I don't think any other position makes a whole lot of sense, especially since (like jw mentioned previously) we are to follow God's '1 day in seven' sabbath rest.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
It was a failure because it allowed a smorgasbord of views despite the clear teaching of the confessional standards. Others have said, the very ones claiming such an approach would not allow theistic evolution, not long after promoted it.
Click to expand...
I also believe in days of ordinary length, but I’m not sure that the confessional standards are 100% prescriptive on it. As one of the reports pointed out, the Westminster Divines had the language of 24-h days available to them but did not use it. How would you respond?
 
pgwolv said:
I also believe in days of ordinary length, but I’m not sure that the confessional standards are 100% prescriptive on it. As one of the reports pointed out, the Westminster Divines had the language of 24-h days available to them but did not use it. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
I did the research for David Hall back when EEBO was EEB on microfilm reels. I think it is patently obvious what the Westminster divines meant, so I believe Dr. Hall's conclusions in the report. No one collected the game tickets he was giving away if they could show a Westminster Divine who did not taking the days literally.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
I did the research for David Hall back when EEBO was EEB on microfilm reels. I think it is patently obvious what the Westminster divines meant, so I believe Dr. Hall's conclusions in the report. No one collected the game tickets he was giving away if they could show a Westminster Divine who did not taking the days literally.
Click to expand...
The PCA report says:
recent primary evidence uncovered by David Hall and others has convinced many that what the Westminster Assembly meant by its phrase “in the space of six days” was six calendar days.
Click to expand...
Can you perhaps link me to that evidence, which you found convincing?

Second, would you feel uncomfortable if someone held to e.g. the days of unspecified length view “provided the men can affirm the historicity of Gen 1-3 and do reject evolution,” as the PCA report stated some presbyteries allow?

EDIT: Would Hall’s work be captured in David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate (Crux Press) and in Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, Eds., Did God Create in Six Days?(Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press and Kuyper Institute, 1999)?
 
pgwolv said:
The PCA report says:

Can you perhaps link me to that evidence, which you found convincing?

Second, would you feel uncomfortable if someone held to e.g. the days of unspecified length view “provided the men can affirm the historicity of Gen 1-3 and do reject evolution,” as the PCA report stated some presbyteries allow?

EDIT: Would Hall’s work be captured in David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate (Crux Press) and in Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, Eds., Did God Create in Six Days?(Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press and Kuyper Institute, 1999)?
Click to expand...
Yes; I think so; I don't know that it is online. It used to be 20 years ago. No, like I said, I would want a pastor that was strictly confessional on the subject. I forget how many sources it was, but I remember how excited David was and he told me to keep it secret till they revealed it.
 
pgwolv said:
I also believe in days of ordinary length, but I’m not sure that the confessional standards are 100% prescriptive on it. As one of the reports pointed out, the Westminster Divines had the language of 24-h days available to them but did not use it. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
"How do we know they meant '60 minute' hours and not an indefinite period of time?"
 
chuckd said:
"How do we know they meant '60 minute' hours and not an indefinite period of time?"
Click to expand...
The issue at hand is the meaning of “days,” as that is how Genesis describes it. I agree that the most natural reading is as the original listeners would have understood it: normal days.
 
I hold to big picture view of the beginning and the end. I affirm that Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity (historical people and no evolution from any other organism, special creation). I affirm the second second coming of Christ with the last judgment and separation of the wheat from the tares. For us elect to live in paradise with God, in resurrected bodies, with our Lord for eternity.
The details are unimportant, in my opinion, but I hold to a framework hypothesis personally.
 
jwright82 said:
I hold to big picture view of the beginning and the end. I affirm that Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity (historical people and no evolution from any other organism, special creation). I affirm the second second coming of Christ with the last judgment and separation of the wheat from the tares. For us elect to live in paradise with God, in resurrected bodies, with our Lord for eternity.
The details are unimportant, in my opinion, but I hold to a framework hypothesis personally.
Click to expand...
Same here. This is a somewhat personal note, but I also think it is important for me and Jamey to point out where we are in agreement on issues.
 
jwright82 said:
I hold to big picture view of the beginning and the end. I affirm that Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity (historical people and no evolution from any other organism, special creation). I affirm the second second coming of Christ with the last judgment and separation of the wheat from the tares. For us elect to live in paradise with God, in resurrected bodies, with our Lord for eternity.
The details are unimportant, in my opinion, but I hold to a framework hypothesis personally.
Click to expand...

RamistThomist said:
Same here. This is a somewhat personal note, but I also think it is important for me and Jamey to point out where we are in agreement on issues.
Click to expand...
Ew!;)
 
6 literal 24 hour days, I have always had that view. None of the others make any sense to me. I could care less what unbelieving scientists with minds darkened by sin and under the power of Satan think about human origins.
 
6 literal 24 hour days. On another somewhat personal note, I think it's important to point out where Jacob and I do not agree on everything hahaha
 
Let's ask some historical theology questions:

1) Other than the literal 6 day creation view - When, where, and why did these other views originate?
2) Which of these views existed before Darwin's Origin of the Species? (1859)
3) How popular were these views before 1859?

I don't have the answers but I am curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top