R.C.Sproul Changes his Mind on the Days of Creation

SolaGratia · #1 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:31 PM

I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line.

Here is the link: article:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Any thoughts, info. etc.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #2 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:33 PM

Well considering ole R.C. has held practically every eschatological view imaginable not too surprising. However 100,000 amens to Dr. Sproul!!!

Ivan · #3 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line.

Here is the link: article:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Any thoughts, info. etc.

That is encouraging.

SolaGratia · #4 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:40 PM

Below is the whole article from the BOT:

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:
For most of my teaching career, I considered the 'framework hypothesis' to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.
The 'framework hypothesis' was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a 'framework' into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman's guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:
According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.

Bygracealone · #5 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:44 PM

Very encouraging!

Scott1 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:53 PM

Dr Sproul does a very fair and informative job of explaining four views of creation in his excellent book, Truths We Confess. He explains the tie-in to micro-evolution and the "crisis" that has occurred in relation to the Genesis account of creation in modern theology. On p. 120...

Quote:

This crisis has resulted in several attempts to reinterpret the Genesis account of Creation.

He goes on to say p. 127

Quote:

For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one.

He goes on to say regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Quote:

The Confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days. (bold in the original)

This has been very helpful in my own understanding of the theological issues surrounding this. Thank God for the gift He has given Dr Sproul in making the complex understandable.

dannyhyde · #7 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 05:55 PM

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

SolaGratia · #8 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 06:05 PM

Pastor Hyde,

"back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"

What do you mean by that?

panta dokimazete · #9 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 06:35 PM

It is "hedging your bet" in anticipation of potential scientific discovery to hold anything less than the literal 6 days - I have been guilty of the same. I believe there was and has been a sense of dependence on science's explanatory power on origins that has failed to truly emerge, with a deepening alliance to presuppositional apologetics that is driving the "sea change".

the grass withers, the flower fades...

Anton Bruckner · #10 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 06:42 PM

I am glad to say that I always held 6 days literal, and I saw through the farce of 6 days being an allegory and non literal as a means to merge Christian with Science so called.

Brian Bosse · #11 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 06:58 PM

Hello Gentlemen,

I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible!

) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.

Brian

danmpem · #12 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 07:07 PM

Usually I read about the older generation of teachers becoming more and more loose on their doctrine. It is an encouragement to see someone like Sproul keep himself under the authority of scripture throughout the entirety of his life.

Archlute · #13 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

Hello Danny,

I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.

So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. FWIW, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).

SolaGratia · #14 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 08:40 PM

So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?

dannyhyde · #15 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 08:43 PM

Hi Adam,

Interesting to say the least.

Danny

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

Hello Danny,

I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.

So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. FWIW, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).

dannyhyde · #16 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Pastor Hyde,

"back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"

What do you mean by that?

Basically, I would say I hold to the view that God created in six days. I would agree with Bavinck, though, in saying that the first three days were anything but ordinary seeing there was no sun!

dannyhyde · #17 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?

The sem's public position may be found here: Westminster Seminary California about

Grymir · #18 (**permalink**) 07-12-2008, 10:24 PM

He may be admitting it now publicly, but philosophically, R.C. has held to a literalist view for years. I've heard just about every teaching he has ever done too. Why a statement like that now, I don't understand. Was it a current article? It had a date of 2006 quoting his writing in a Truth's we confess.

danmpem · #19 (**permalink**) 07-13-2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grymir

Why a statement like that now, I don't understand.

Grymir,

Do you know how long it was before I figured out that your avatars were of Rush Limbaugh and not of the real Timothy Johnson? I had no idea what either of you looked like, so I naturally assumed you were in radio and really liked your cigars. When I happened to come across "your" picture online, and then realized who it was, I contemplated giving a little shout-out about the impostor on the PB.

What I just said had everything to do with your question.