Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

Daniel Ritchie · #1 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 06:45 PM

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?

ChristianTrader · #2 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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?

How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?

CT

Pilgrim · #3 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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?

How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?

CT

That's a good question, given the old "Machen's Warrior Children" piece. I would imagine Frame has some list somewhere of essentials or fundamentals of the faith. Whether it's the same as the old "Five Fundamentals" I don't know since I haven't read much Frame.

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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?

How many things should we fight for according to John Frame?

CT

I presume it should only be over soteriological issues; but I do not know for definite as I have not heard from the horses' mouth.

armourbearer · #5 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 06:58 PM

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.

I would definitely agree that it should be a term of office. Certainly in terms of hermeneutics the consequences of denying 6 day creation are dire. Can we apply the same approach to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?

greenbaggins · #7 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:03 PM

I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an exception to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I would agree with Matthew's comments here. If someone does not believe in a literal account of Genesis, that should, at the least, be interpreted as an exception to the WCF. Whether that exception then constitutes something that strikes at the vitals of religion, or whether it undermines the system of doctrine taught in the standards can then be debated (and I am not fully convinced on this point that a Framework guy is a heretic, even though I think he is wrong and out of accord with the Standards). I have known guys who hold to the Standards rigorously in all areas except this one.

I would not like to use the "H" word, but, nonetheless, it smacks of a lack of confidence in God's word.

panta dokimazete · #9 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

That's a good question, given the old "Machen's Warrior Children" piece. I would imagine Frame has some list somewhere of essentials or fundamentals of the faith. Whether it's the same as the old "Five Fundamentals" I don't know since I haven't read much Frame.

Here is the article referenced. and the section:

Quote:

12. The Days of Creation

As in the broader evangelical world, the interpretation of Genesis 1 has been controversial in Reformed circles. Nevertheless, there has been relative peace and tolerance over this issue until recently. A number of Old Princeton professors, including Charles and A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Oswald T. Allis, held that the days of creation were not literally twenty-four hours long. Edward J. Young, who taught Old Testament at Westminster for many years, held that the days referred to long ages of time. [40] In 1957, Meredith G. Kline published an article, “Because it Had Not Rained,” [41] arguing not only that the days were non-literal, but that the narrative does not even teach a temporal sequence of events. Following N. H. Ridderbos, [42] Kline argued that the list of days is a literary framework that has no implications for the length of time or the sequence of events. 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.

But since then many have taken up the cause of twenty-four-hour-day creation, [43] and their disciples have followed the twentieth-century Reformed pattern of being militant about their views. Many Christian Reconstructionists have embraced a literal position, joined by many strict subscriptionists (see later discussion) who base their argument on what the writers of the Westminster Confession are likely to have believed. Some presbyteries in the OPC and the RCUS have denied ordination to candidates who reject the literal view of Genesis 1.

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. A non-literal interpretation does not entail, for example, that Adam was anything but a real person, or that human beings evolved from animals.

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Anton Bruckner · #11 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

caddy · #12 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I would say six day creation is a matter of officer integrity because of its explicit inclusion in the Confession. (I don't agree with those who say the Confession only duplicates the words of Scripture -- it doesn't.) From a hermeneutical perspective, six day creation is important because it shows a commitment to the literal interpretation of Scripture. Dogmatically, it reinforces the divine fiat-fulfilment nature of creation, which has a number of bearings on other theological and moral questions. Finally, practically, the Sabbath as a creation ordinance comes into doubt if Gen. 1:1-2:4 is not a literally historical account.

Thanks Matthew. I have done some major reading the last few years on the I.D. / Creationist debate. Most of what I have read as you have described it is where I lean given that understanding and reading.

caddy · #13 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

DMcFadden · #14 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 08:49 PM

In my Christian college and seminary education, ALL of my professors were representative of the poetic/metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. They simply dismissed the straight-forward interpretation as nonsense. That, coupled with some Hugh Ross books, left me feeling quite comfortable with a framework or progressive creationist view.

A couple of years ago, while fighting tooth and nail with progressives in my denomination who were arguing for the ordination of openly gay men and women, it finally hit me. The same hermeneutic used to finesse Genesis fits quite nicely when trying to dismiss any number of Pauline teachings in the New Testament.

After three decades of ministry, I had never given a serious consideration to the issues, hermeneutically or scientifically, but simply coasted on what my teachers had said. Surely the distant starlight problem and radiometric dating alone made the Genesis account impossible to reconcile with modern science . . . or so it seemed.

Discovering the Answers in Genesis web site (with their presuppositional apologetic) was a gift of God. One need not crucify his intellect to believe in a young earth. The "facts" of science fit (and can be reconciled with) either a Darwinist-naturalist worldview or an orthodox Christian worldview. The solid work by the AiG folks on some of the scientific problems offers credible answers to secular challenges, even the technical ones.

However, even if there was no AiG or credible answer to the evolutionists from a scientific perspective, the compromises made by Reformed theologians in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century undermine their claim to biblical authority. 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. The structure offered by evolutionists leads to atheism. Compromising with them to achieve some temporary tactical advantage is stupid. The confessions take Genesis in the sense in which it was written, a sense which also stands behind Ex 20:11 and the establishment of the sabbath, the Pauline argument regarding Adam and Christ in Romans, etc.

panta dokimazete · #15 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 09:10 PM

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.

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 Judgement will be?

Answer: As long or as short as the Lord wills it.

armourbearer · #16 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

A couple of years ago, while fighting tooth and nail with progressives in my denomination who were arguing for the ordination of openly gay men and women, it finally hit me. The same hermeneutic used to finesse Genesis fits quite nicely when trying to dismiss any number of Pauline teachings in the New Testament.

This is one of those theological and moral issues which hang on the fiat-fulfilment position of Gen. 1. Rushdoony has a good book entitled Revolt against Maturity, in which he argues persuasively that belief in "mature" creation is fundamental to Christian ethics. He builds on Van Til that non Christian ethics are themselves creative, whereas a truly Christian ethic is receptive because it presupposes creation is the moral prerogative of God alone. A genuine belief in the historicity of Genesis commits a man to the normativity of nature as God has made it. Hence sexual distinction, propagation, work, etc., are non-negotiable.

Narnian · #17 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

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.

The question is whether or not it is a plain historical account. I recall taking an OT class from J. Barton Payne at Covenant Seminary back in 1977 where Dr. Payne said the reading of the Hebrew of Genesis prohibited a literal 7 day view of creation.

Joshua · #18 (**permalink**) 01-07-2008, 09:30 PM

So, did Adam fall into sin over a period of thousands of years? Also, if it's not literal, what does the whole "morning and evening" division symbolize?