Does anyone know what the PCA position is on the creation weeks and what is allowable in PCA churches?


I'm asking this question, because I heard a PCA pastor say that it is now permissible for a PCA TE to believe and or teach that the creation took longer than a literal six days. And that he believes the days in Genesis are not literal.

He said that this was a recent change within the PCA.

Is this true?

I pray not.

Can some please help me refute this or prove that this is within our churches standards of teaching?

__________________
Michael McNeil
PCA
Ellicott City, MD
www.spepchurch.com

Mac, I'm not certain, but I think there is permission for this in both the PCA and the OPC . . . but I could be wrong about that.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

My old RUF minister takes the same exception. Apparently those who hold to the position seem to be typically graduating from Covenant Seminary.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

Mac, go here

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

and go down to Creation for the PCA position paper on the subject.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Tim Keller is an 800 lb gorilla in the PCA and he is rather "liberal" on this.

When Tim Keller professes a position ( in this case a non literal 6 day creation) the PCA has to allow it or lose Tim Keller.

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

Sadly, it's an acceptable exception. Check out the link to the position papers above. Personally, I don't know how you can argue for the Sabbath without a literal week, but hey...

__________________
Rev. R. Kevin Carroll
Pastor Elect
Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Wheat Ridge, CO
Blog: Reformed and Loving It

Or why even the Lord would allude to "For in six days God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, but the seventh day He rested . . ."

When someone says they don't follow 6-day Creation, what exactly are they saying they espouse?

God created the world over millions of years? Thousands of years? Ten days as opposed to 6?

Are they agreeing with evolutionary theory?

?

Or Framework...? Sheesh!

Theognome

__________________
Bill Cunningham
Covenant Reformed Church, URC
Kansas City
There are three kinds of people- those who can count, and those who can't.

They believe that God took a long period of time to create the world such as millions and millions of years. Just because someone believes that God took millions and millions of years to create the world does not mean that he believes in the theory of evolution.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Thus why I asked.

I don't believe it, but it is a legit view.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

And your proof for this is...? Whilst doing your research you may also want to look at graduates of other seminaries, then compare the figures. Let's not forget also that more than a century ago faithful reformed pastors/theologians were holding similar views.

__________________
Donnie MacLeod
Crossroads Presbyterian Fellowship (PCA), Maplewood, MO
MDiv Student Covenant Theological Seminary

You filled my heart with greater joy
than others may have found
As they rejoiced at harvest time,
when grain and wine abound.Ps 4:7, Sing Psalms 2003

What are they saying? How about that the Bible doesn't say, never intended to say, and that the argument wasn't a problem until people started thinking that the only way to fight evolution was from a young earth perspective?

I personally don't hold to a six 24 hour day creation (it was not included in the WCF because there was controversy even back then ... there was talk of it being stated as 6 normals days of 24 hours, but that language was defeated). Augustine thought creation occurred in an instant. If you read Genesis, you don't have the sun to rule the day or the moon to rule the night (they were given to mark times, days seasons) until the 4th day.

While I understand that some want to hold to a young earth, six day creation, the internal testimony of the account does not seem to allow that days 1 through 3 are ordinary days. To say they are takes bringing to the text what the text does not say and takes the ordinary meaning of the text and throws it out the window. If the only reason to do so is to trash evolution, let me assure you, even if the universe were trillions of years old, the origin of life would still be an insurmountable obstacle to evolution (you have to have a cell for evolution to even get started ... it requires a self replicating life unit to get started, and that is so unlikely that no sane person when they looked at it would believe it possible).

That there has been a long history of controversy over the meaning of the first 6 days that long precedes the Darwinian error (I don't give it the credibility of a theory) then the two subjects are completely disjoint and unrelated.

One item that those that hold to the Genesis account not being literally six days comes from the idea that God *never* lies. He does not do so in the Bible, nor does he do so in general revelation. While it certainly is possible for God to have created the universe as an already existing universe with the light from a supernova of a star that never existed, it seems like to have done so would at least be deceptive. If my kids pulled some kind of stunt to convince people that something was true that never existed through planting false evidence, I'd probably tan their hide for being deceptive -- for bearing false witness to events. Do we really want to have it that God would be planting false evidence within the universe? Think about that one long and hard before you answer. Coming up with "tricks" to prove it possible (like changing the nature of light) seem just as bad for then we have a God of chaos, not of order.

The internal testimony of scripture, the testimony of the stars in the sky, what we see around us all point to something other than a six day creation. I tend to lean toward the framework in which the text appears to be two sets of three, in which prior to the work of the six days, we have formless and void. The first three days are formed, the next three days are filled. It makes perfect sense, needs no weird explanation of the first three days when days had not yet been created as 24 hour entities, and puts the Bible squarely in the genre of theological history, not scientific journal. Science rightly looks at "how did God create" and theology rightly looks at our duty toward God and who he is. While the Bible is incapable of error, it speaks differently than what science does and is not interested in the questions for which we might want to get answers. God condescended to us in revealing himself to us for his purposes, not to satisfy our curiosity. We have his works (the universe) and his word (the Bible) and we should ever expect there can be no contradiction between them -- God cannot lie -- and so we should always look at both to know what we can about our sovereign and king.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

From the Shorter Catechism:
From the Larger Catechism:
I have heard the argument from men in my presbytery that the Westminster Standards are ambiguous on this . . . that you don't even need to take an exception to our standards. I can't see how that can be argued without assaulting the English language.

__________________
Brian Eschen
Ruling Elder, PCA
Pleasanton, California

I must say that I grew up heavily influenced by Kline, (my Grandfather's colleague, and I'm friends with his grandchildren), and while I'm not wholly convinced by his position, I appreciate some of the fruit of his study.

1) Since God at least describes creation in the week format, it means that he intends us to understand it as such, even if he is describing an event that can hardly be expressed in human terms. I think Kline would argue that the very structure of the passage leads to the Sabbath Day (the King-rest day in which all creation acknowledges the Creator) Far from negating it, the account in fact establishes it.

2) How come none of us have a problem with language of accommodation, or visionary language, poetic language, or figurative language in general, yet get hung up that God might possibly be describing an incredible event -- far beyond our imagination -- in a way that we can grasp it.

3) Not only grasp it, but also learn about who God is from the very structure of it. That He alone is the creator of all things, That he is the king over his creation. That he created all things by the power of his Word. That He sustains all things and created them orderly. That he created man unique, and in His image, as the crown of his creation. And that it was all very good. All glory be to Him!

I'm not saying that it's not 6 literal days, just that we shouldn't assume someone is "liberal" for holding this. (or even that is some sort of compromise to be esteemed in liberal circles or derived out of a liberal "framework" of thinking) And personally knowing the late Dr. Kline and his family, I must tell you that he is one of the most Godly, brilliant scholars I have met, and someone who understands the ancient near east languages quite a bit more than any of us on this board.

Despite what I just said the strongest argument against framework theory is that the simplest way to read the text is that a day in the Hebrew here means a literal 24 hour period.

__________________
Rob G.
Under care, OPC (currently an associate member at a PCA church)
Pittsburgh, PA

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.- 1 Cor. 1:18

I find the view that it took longer than 6 days for creation to be serious error. And this is why:

1. To make things simple, lets say the days are 1000 years. Scripture tells us that 1000 years is to one day for God. So let's say each day is 1000 years. We all know that the bible tells us that Adam was created on day six. Then God rested on day seven. So if the days are equal distance in time to one another, then Adam before the fall would have to be older than a 1000 years. We all know that Adam was 930 years old when he died. So one must ask, even if someone believes the days are 1000 years, do they believe in a literal Adam. And if they don't believe in a literal Adam, do they believe in original sin. And if they don't believe in original sin, then why did Christ have to die for us. I say unbelief in a literal creation week put's ones whole theology on unstable ground.

2. In Genesis, it seems that God goes out of his way to define the space of what a day is. When you read Genesis, God specifically states there was evening and there was morning. Notice he dose no say that there were morning(s). God define the day within the same passage to show that it was a literal day. I find it interesting that people do not focus on this fact. Our our eyes so blind that we can't see that God is defining exactly what he means in Genesis when he is speaking of a space in time, defining what a day is in Genesis? Why do we need to go any further? People who are proposing that the day is a period of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years are clearly demonstrating that they have a presupposition not to believe the bible for what it says. What does this say about their faith?

3. The long day theory has no basis in the historical understanding of Genesis, it is a modern theory that goes hand and hand with evolution.

4. People that hold to the long day theory have a lack of belief in the power of Christ. For we all know that Christ uphold all things by the power of his word. God does not need a million years to make anything. He is not subject to time, and works outside of time. He simple give the command that something should be, and it is. God if he so chose to creation within a micro second could have done it. But he decided to take a week to create the world in order to give us further teaching so that we might understand Him. Don't be fooled that God needs millions of years to do anything.

I could go on with reason, after reason why those who hold a long days view are in error. And the WCF is clear on the issue, that the days of creation were six liter days. It is a shame that our denomination has been invaded by so many that hold to the long day view, and that there are so many that are not willing or unable to adequately demonstrate that the long day view is clearly in error.

Oh, well. As you all can see, I have very strong opinions on this matter. I have a very high view of scripture, and a low view of those who want to contradict scripture. I'm sure someone out there is going to chastise me for what I have written on this. I've just exposed myself yet again. But I say, let God be true, but every man a liar.

It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.

Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.

Mac, my friend, I hate to say it but I think you're pretty much dead wrong on every one of your points. This has been discussed in multiple threads in the past, but here are a few quick thoughts:

1. Not many people believe the "days" of Genesis 1 are literally a thousand years. The point is that God is outside the bounds of time, so from His perspective there are no "days." Even so, Adam being 930 years old is not a problem because he did not age prior to the Fall, and was created as an adult. So his age must be counted from the Fall onward, not starting on Day 6 as you claim.

2. Genesis 1 is a song according to most scholars, so "morning" and "evening" don't necessarily have to correspond to a literal rising and setting of the sun. Even if they do, the sun wasn't created on Day 1, so there was no Earth spinning on its axis or revolving around the sun. So even if you take "morning" and "evening" literally, it doesn't necessitate a belief in 24 hr days.

3. Read Augustine, written in the 4th century AD, along with some of the Puritan writers. The non-literal 24 hr day has existed since the earliest days of the church.

4. Absolutely untrue, and frankly offensive. Belief that God created the world ex nihilo through Christ affirms His power. God could have created the world in any manner of time, as you say, but believing the Genesis account does not teach 24 hr days in no way undermines the power of Christ.

5. The WCF is not clear on the issue by design. It does not say "created in the space of six 24 hr days," rather simply "in the space of 6 days." The idea of putting 24 hr day was voted on and rejected by the Divines.

I have a high view of Scripture as well, but that does not necessitate belief that creation occurred in 6 literal 24 hr days. Your pre-supposition is that anyone who believes otherwise is bowing to atheistic evolution, but this is not always the case. I reject on evolution based on the flaws evolution of alone, though I do believe the Earth is older than 10,000 years old, or at least appears older than 10,000 yeard old. Likewise, I'm not convinced the Genesis 1 account requires us to believe a literal week - there are actually just as many problems with this view as there any other view. Finally, no one can demonstrate the "long day view is clearly in error" because it isn't clearly in error. It may be wrong, but it is just as likely that the literal 24-hr view is wrong as well.

I appreciate your high view of Scripture and wanting to preserve the orthodox view of things. But believing in a non-literal view of the creation week, while perhaps the minority view here, is as old as the church itself, does in no way undermine the Scripture, the nature of God, or the Gospel, and is with good reason a valid belief within the PCA.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

Mac, no member of a denomination that holds to the WCF & also holds to some sort of framework view has "invaded" anything.

The historical record is clear that the 24 hr day view was rejected at the assembly. So anyone who agrees with the "space of 6 days" wording is within the bounds of the confession.

(BTW I hold to the 6 24 hr day view myself)

Ask a question, get an argument.

If anyone looks at the 4th day, it is obvious that God did not intend the days to be periods of time.
The period of time "day" did not exist prior to the 4th day, and if you give even ordinary intellect to the author, you would give internal consistency to the account within a single page how much more that it is God that is speaking? Here you have God the author, and you want to have conflict within the passage on what would even make sense? Gen 2:4 states in the "day" God created the heavens and the earth. Seems like God went out of his way to point out that he did not mean literal 24 hour days or periods of time at all (periods of time were what was created on the 4th day).

I would state that it adds nothing to say "I have a high view of scripture" to my argument, as I would presume all of us do. I know I do, and I see the interpretation of it differently than some others.

What I find is that I would look at the internal evidence of the passage and clearly see it is not talking of six ordinary days, then it must be talking about something else. If it is talking about something else, then it behooves us to figure out what it is saying. While lots of people that want to say it is six ordinary days use that as a club, the passage has a framework to it ... each of the first three days corresponds to the next three days, and in each of the first three there is created in the next three it is filled. Light on the first day, the light bearers on the 4th, heavens separated from sea on day two, fish and birds on day 5, dry land appears on day 3, animals and man on day 6. It would seem that the meaning is much more than a chronology ... and I find no reason to even think it is six 24 hour periods from reading the text. The text itself is the biggest reason to reject 24 hour days.

One thing that could very easily be offensive is pulling out "high view of scripture" as if there was a difference in how highly we value and esteem the Bible. If the implication is that those that don't hold to a particular interpretation of scripture have a lower view, it is not only insulting to those that have just as high a view of scripture (or even higher). It is also a logic fallacy to use it in argument ... implying anyone that disagrees has a lower view of scripture is name calling/ad hominem. I hope that is not what was intended ... here I doubt if anyone has a low view of scripture. Even if someone did, it does nothing to an argument for the source of it ... as a means of illustration, the response of the pharisees to the man born blind (John 9) was to accuse him of being born in sin so they don't have to listen. We must be careful not to evaluate an argument based on who it is that brings the argument, but the merits of it by itself.

I have a question:

If the three days prior to Day for were not days because there was no Sun, why? This seems built on the idea that the length of a day is restrained by the Sun. Why is the Sun not restrained by the length of a day?

Hmm. If people have references to defeats of the 24 hour day interpretation, can they please give proper references, and preferably links to those references. How can we discern if a reference is correct if the reference is made vague.

Welcome to the PB.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

If some people say that the three days prior to Day Four were not really days because there was no sun, then my response is that there doesn't have to be a sun in order for there to be a day. The light was in existence before there was a sun and that light shined upon the earth.

I'm just wondering why the definition of day is constrained to solar movement. As the text plainly says, days existed before solar movement, so I'm wondering why they are subjugating the definition to the Sun, and determining that the days were then not days.

If God meant "day" after the Sun's creation to mean a 24-hour period, why did the 24-hour period not pre-exist the Sun, and God design the Sun to operate on that 24 hour period? If God had already created time, then God could certainly measure it.

While it is not as explicit as the OPC report, you might want to look at the PCA report here which is from your own denomination. The OPC report is not online from what I can see. I'm still looking (the internet is large, and I am small). The PCA report gives several sides, but still sees it is open to debate by those that argue from scripture and hold scripture in the highest regard. If I can come up with a link to the OPC report, I will.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 12:49:46 EST-----

It isn't constrained by it if you don't want a plain reading of the text. If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.

What is important in the text is that God created, that he in using the figure of six days established a rule for sabbath rest, and that we are created (not creator, but creature). Those are clear from the text. That is also clear in the confession.

OPC's Report of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 01:04:35 EST-----

I have not located any reference in either the PCA or OPC reports to a defeated proposal for "six ordinary days" or "six 24 hours days" at the Westminster Assembly. The OPC report takes note that the phrase "consisting of 24 hours" was debated and defeated in regards to question of the Sabbath, but not as part of the Creation section.

Would you please indicate the source for your claims on this matter?

__________________
Bryan Peters
Providence Reformed Church (URCNA)
Des Moines, Iowa

Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed. There is no offence in it; it is the staff of uprightness.
~Martin Luther~

I am always amazed at how much difficulty people have with the sun not being created till day Four. God created the light on Day One, created a light/dark cycle, and named it day and night. He's God. He can do those things ya know.

"Despite what I just said the strongest argument against framework theory is that the simplest way to read the text is that a day in the Hebrew here means a literal 24 hour period."

Indeed. I once debated with Miles Van Pelt over this. He was calling Gen 1-2 semi-poetry (a nebulous thing) and tried to prove it with Hebrew grammar. He showed me a chart of all of the Qal Imperfects with waw conversives (THE MARK of Hebrew prose) and said, "See?" I said, "Yes, I see a lot of prose markers." He replied, "Yes, but there are so MANY here, it has to mean something!" I said, "I agree. It means it's prose, not poetry."

I'm not convinced. When someone says in English, "in the space of six days," what other conclusion do English speaking people come to? Were the Westminster divines expecting members of their congregations to study the minutes of the Westminster Assembly? If they meant to be ambiguous, they did not succeed.

You have to assume that the time frame in the first three days is different, but there is no good reason for that.

Brian Withnell (or anyone else),

Can you please provide some documentation that the Assembly rejected such a wording?

If you can, I am most interested in the circumstances regrading which they considered and rejected that wording.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I don't feel like you adequately answered my concern, but merely acknowledged something we both agree upon: that the 1st-3rd days were different. the crux of the disagreement is in what way were they different. You seem to claim that a lack of sun means the days were not 24 hour periods, something inherent to your conclusion that the first three days are figurative and not the second three.

My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer.

How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 02:26:44 EST-----

This is what I'm trying to get him to answer, why is he assuming the time difference in the first three days?

Andrew - passage of time isn't governed by the rotation of the Earth - it's merely a regular event that we use to define other lengths of time relative to it. Surely "time" passes everywhere in normal fashion. But what is time? Does time even exist? These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were necessarily 24 hours, although they could have been. So yeah, God could have determined a "day" would be 24 hours and then created Earth, but that's not only a strong assumption in itself, but unnecessarily boxes God within human notions of time.

If the first creation week is figurative, it does not somehow harm the 4th Commandment or the concept of Sabbath rest. A figurative 7-day week can just as easily be applied to a literal 7-day week in terms of the Law, Sabbath rest, etc.

Do the times that God says 'evening and morning' have any bearing on the definition of the first three days? Why would he include such an easily understood concept of evening and morning defining the day as his audience would understand it if it would lead to confusion?

__________________
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
1644/46 LBC
My Blog - Imprimis

So God cannot measure time without the Sun. Thank-you.

How did you get that from what he said?

Sounds like you're twisting Mason's argument.

__________________
Daniel
PCA
Memphis, TN

Come on, Andrew, that's absurd! Nowhere in my post did I even imply that. For starters, God doesn't measure time at all (being infinite) - only humans do. Second, I said clearly:

My point is that assuming the first days to be literal 24 hour days isn't necessarily valid because there was no (human) means to measure time intervals. Maybe they were 24 hours, maybe not. Regardless, it's an assumption on some level.

According to Gen 1, a "day" in creation week (both days 1-3 and days 4-6) were made up of an evening and a morning. That seems to indicate that there was a means of measuring time, even before the creation of the sun.

Maybe, or it could just be figurative language. Besides, "morning and evening" implies a 12-hr day rather than 24-hr day...