R.C.Sproul Changes his Mind on the Days of Creation - Page 2

etexas · #41 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

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.

Well stated, Sproul has indeed been very orthodox in his later years, and is unwavering in his defense of the Reformed Faith. RC is not perfect, and does not claim to be, the thing that angers me when I hear people (in our own "camp") take shots at him, is this simple fact, more than anyone, he has made the Reformed Truth understandable at a popular level, he has never ignored the grassroots.

Stephen · #42 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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

Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.

Stephen · #43 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 11:58 AM

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.

Which, Sproul. Not Sproul, Sr.

Stephen · #44 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jogri17

What do you all think of the Gap theory?

Archlute · #45 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.

Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".

Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his An Old Testament Theology.

It is not poetry. Even calling it "elevated prose" does not make it anywhere close to Hebrew poetry. There is much assertion/speculation in by the scholars cited above with very little to back up what they are saying. Whoever said that the syntax is "distinctively different" from narrative prose (Wenham? I can't tell since there is an ellipsis in the quote) is smoking crack. If you want to see a difference between the syntax of narrative and poetry read a book like the Song of Solomon. First year students of Hebrew will not be able to make heads or tails of it, however, they will be able to translate Genesis 1 without a hitch.

I do not find a great deal of use from observations of critical scholarship in this discussion to begin with. Why would I take with any seriousness the conclusions of men who would waste time with unbelief , e.g. the Documentary hypothesis ("pure priestly theology"), asserting the possibility of "poetic fragments" and "earlier creation accounts"? That is all scholarly code for "We do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a whole, nor that God spoke to him and gave him insight on the subject, nor that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in any way, rather the Pentateuch was pieced together over hundreds (thousands?) of years by multiple hands using passed on material and editorial liberties". That is the kind of garbage that you will even find "Reformed" professors of the OT handing out to their students.

While I'm on this kick, let me bring up the problem of unbelief in the classroom again. Back to a discussion of my Pentateuch course at WSC. The prof involved was asserting this same type of drivel, that the Levitical codes were not written strictly by Moses, but were editorially inserted as "can be most certainly seen by the parallels between the law code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Leviticus" (which really is not all that clear anyway when you actually compare the two). So I raise my hand (once again) and the prof tries to ignore me (once again). Finally I interject and ask, "You are saying that this stuff was all later editorial patchwork inserted from the law codes of pagan societies, but at the head of almost every chapter in Leviticus it reads that 'the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying such and such' - so what do we make of that?" The answer that I received from a supposedly Reformed prof teaching at a Reformed seminary was astounding. He said, "Well, some of these things are difficult, and don't have easy solutions." Allowing that kind of thinking into a Reformed seminary (which is exactly what you will get from taking your PhD at a higher-critical Roman Catholic institution, and being actively involved in SBL) is why conservative Reformed denominations are getting sloppy with their theology. Students are given the speculative and the novel, and they have no firm foundation set from which they can progress (apart from what they learned at their "fundamentalist" churches - God help them).

I mention all the above, because I do not take issues like Framework, etc. as something to be tossed about in a playful manner. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset behind much of the scholarship, and especially as the ideas of critical OT scholarship has had an influence on some significant Reformed scholars (anybody been keeping up on Pete Enns lately?...). This is a battle that also affects the students who would like to minister later in denominations where these scholars reside.

Case in point, the OT prof to whom I have been referring made quite clear to me in private conversation that he would do his best to see that I would never be ordained in his presbytery with my "fundamentalist" views of Scripture and my failure to hold a "sufficiently robust position of common grace". This is sinister stuff. To have Christ-loving, Gospel-centered men actively weeded out by denominational academics who want to see their agenda advanced at the expense of young ministers who may find the foundations of their scholarship to be lacking is something very serious, and something that will eventually undermine the work of any denomination.

shackleton · #46 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 09:27 AM

Here are some lectures I found by Ken Gentry where he refutes the "Framework Hypothesis."

SermonAudio.com - Creational Preparation
SermonAudio.com - Six-Day Opposition
SermonAudio.com - Six-Day Creation

Backwoods Presbyterian · #47 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That is not made explicit as far as I remember, no, but the way that Framework advocates view the structure of the creation narrative is in a manner only found in Hebrew poetic passages and not historical narrative. If pressed, I am sure that they would have to agree that no other portion of a historical narrative in the OT is interpreted like that by anybody, anywhere, which is why it they are understood to be interpreting that chapter as poetry.

Here is Gordon Wenham, "Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all....On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, 'it is simpler to suppose...the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry'. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament...it is elevated prose, not pure poetry...in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives".

Bruce Waltke has a good look at the creation account in his An Old Testament Theology.

It is not poetry. Even calling it "elevated prose" does not make it anywhere close to Hebrew poetry. There is much assertion/speculation in by the scholars cited above with very little to back up what they are saying. Whoever said that the syntax is "distinctively different" from narrative prose (Wenham? I can't tell since there is an ellipsis in the quote) is smoking crack. If you want to see a difference between the syntax of narrative and poetry read a book like the Song of Solomon. First year students of Hebrew will not be able to make heads or tails of it, however, they will be able to translate Genesis 1 without a hitch.

I do not find a great deal of use from observations of critical scholarship in this discussion to begin with. Why would I take with any seriousness the conclusions of men who would waste time with unbelief , e.g. the Documentary hypothesis ("pure priestly theology"), asserting the possibility of "poetic fragments" and "earlier creation accounts"? That is all scholarly code for "We do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as a whole, nor that God spoke to him and gave him insight on the subject, nor that the Scriptures are divinely inspired in any way, rather the Pentateuch was pieced together over hundreds (thousands?) of years by multiple hands using passed on material and editorial liberties". That is the kind of garbage that you will even find "Reformed" professors of the OT handing out to their students.

While I'm on this kick, let me bring up the problem of unbelief in the classroom again. Back to a discussion of my Pentateuch course at WSC. The prof involved was asserting this same type of drivel, that the Levitical codes were not written strictly by Moses, but were editorially inserted as "can be most certainly seen by the parallels between the law code of Hammurabi and the laws found in Leviticus" (which really is not all that clear anyway when you actually compare the two). So I raise my hand (once again) and the prof tries to ignore me (once again). Finally I interject and ask, "You are saying that this stuff was all later editorial patchwork inserted from the law codes of pagan societies, but at the head of almost every chapter in Leviticus it reads that 'the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron saying such and such' - so what do we make of that?" The answer that I received from a supposedly Reformed prof teaching at a Reformed seminary was astounding. He said, "Well, some of these things are difficult, and don't have easy solutions." Allowing that kind of thinking into a Reformed seminary (which is exactly what you will get from taking your PhD at a higher-critical Roman Catholic institution, and being actively involved in SBL) is why conservative Reformed denominations are getting sloppy with their theology. Students are given the speculative and the novel, and they have no firm foundation set from which they can progress (apart from what they learned at their "fundamentalist" churches - God help them).

I mention all the above, because I do not take issues like Framework, etc. as something to be tossed about in a playful manner. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset behind much of the scholarship, and especially as the ideas of critical OT scholarship has had an influence on some significant Reformed scholars (anybody been keeping up on Pete Enns lately?...). This is a battle that also affects the students who would like to minister later in denominations where these scholars reside.

Case in point, the OT prof to whom I have been referring made quite clear to me in private conversation that he would do his best to see that I would never be ordained in his presbytery with my "fundamentalist" views of Scripture and my failure to hold a "sufficiently robust position of common grace". This is sinister stuff. To have Christ-loving, Gospel-centered men actively weeded out by denominational academics who want to see their agenda advanced at the expense of young ministers who may find the foundations of their scholarship to be lacking is something very serious, and something that will eventually undermine the work of any denomination.

&

PaulB · #48 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

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.

Danny,

Like you and others here, I am a 6 24 hour day guy. However, I did appreciate the fact that at least the framework hypothesis was an attempt to deal with the text of Genesis (ala Dr. Kline) unlike the Gap theory and day age approaches which seemed to just want to find ways to accommodate Darwinian theories.

DMcFadden · #49 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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

Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.

No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.

Actually, listening to R.C. was one of the turning points for me. Hearing him speak so candidly of his own change of mind a few years ago, I started reading YEC material over on the Answers in Genesis site and became convinced for the same reasons R.C. indicated.

So, no, the references have NOTHING to do with Jr. and I frankly have no idea what he thinks about creation.

shackleton · #50 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 05:58 PM

Is it safe to say the earth has the appearance of being old because of it being under water for about a year? Plus I am sure it is a lot older that Ussher's 6-7000 years. Within the genealogies throughout the bible I am sure they did not list everyone that had ever lived but only mentioned the important ones.

There are plenty of cases of rivers subsiding after a flood where it has wrecked great devastation in just a few weeks.

Stephen · #51 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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

Yes, the article is a little confusing. I had R.C Sproul, Sr. in seminary and he never held to the framework hypothesis. As long as he was teaching at Knox and D. James Kennedy was chancellor, he could not have held that view. The article does not say if it was Sr. or Jr., which is a serious omission. I would suspect the article was referring to Sproul, Jr.

No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.

Actually, listening to R.C. was one of the turning points for me. Hearing him speak so candidly of his own change of mind a few years ago, I started reading YEC material over on the Answers in Genesis site and became convinced for the same reasons R.C. indicated.

So, no, the references have NOTHING to do with Jr. and I frankly have no idea what he thinks about creation.

This is why we have to be careful with anything on the internet. We do not know the origin of these sources, how old they are, or if they are accurate. Obvioiusly this is old news, because Sproul, Sr. does hold to a 6-day creation. I found it interesting that the article was written by someone who would not give their name. That makes me suspious.

Scott1 · #52 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

DMcFadden
McFadderator Minimizing

No, the references (old as they are) refer to Sproul Sr. He admitted on his MP3 on the Days of Genesis that he formerly was not in the YEC camp. However, he credits Kelley's arguments with convincing him that the genre of Genesis REQUIRES a straight-forward ("literal") interpretation. However, in typical R.C. fashion, he goes out of his way to indicate that the Framework and Day Age views are held by perfectly orthodox Reformed theologians. As with his eschatological views, R.C. seems to have experienced some "fludity" of thinking over the years.

Having read this section of "Truths we Confess" by Dr Sproul and not having had background on the "four views," it seems to me he approached this in this way:

1) States that the historical view is the view of the Westminster Confession (an "article of faith")
2) Gave background for a "crisis" in Genesis theory created by micro-evolution which affected theology
3) Linked the "crisis" to development of several theories in contrast to the historical (literal) view
4) Respectfully and fairly explains three alternate views that have sprung up within evangelical Christianity, how they got started and who started them
5) Anecdotally relates that he was "open" to one view for much of his teaching career but has now changed his mind
6) Persuasively argues for the historical, confessional, literal view

I don't find anything logically or pramatically "fluid" in this- I find intellectual honesty and a very well thought out position. I find this refreshing.

Praise God for that.

DMcFadden · #53 (**permalink**) 07-16-2008, 06:16 PM

Scott,

I'm not dissing the doc. He is one of my true theological heroes. My point was about his narrative on the CD as to his change of mind. That was the "fluidity" I was speaking about in my comment. Sproul has been candid, in a couple of places, in describing changes of mind that he has had on issues. In another place he describes his waffling on supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. He practically says, "if this is Tuesday, then I believe x, and if it is Wednesday I probably believe y." These are not criticisms. I find him refreshing as well. My point in response to the brother who suggested that the article was probably referencing R.C. Sproul Jr., was that it was Sr. that was under discussion. My details were intended to substantiate that fact.