Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle? - Page 9

AV1611 · #**321** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDWiseman

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.

Thanks for your post, lots to consider. I would agree with your observations above with certain caveats.

Puritan Sailor · #**322** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.

Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.

How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?

Daniel Ritchie · #**323** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

All the ANE cosmogonies were considered historical by the original audiences.

Even if you are correct here, and I am not sure you can demonstrate such a thing, it still does not mean that they are recounting actual history. That is the nub of the issue.

How would a father instruct his young son about why they keep the Sabbath? Would it not be the simple explanation that God gave himself, the God himself kept the Sabbath? If it was not historical, then why does God give that reason? Further, if that reason is not historically true, then wouldn't God be lying?

According to Exodus 20 it was actual history.

armourbearer · #**324** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

I would suggest a reading of these:

HASEL, G. F. (1972) “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, Andrews University Seminary Studies. 10 pp. 1-20.

And for follow-up study, here is another article by the same author -- just to "hasel" your viewpoint

Hasel, G. F. --- The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1

Daniel Ritchie · #**325** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 06:56 PM

From the above article please note the following extract:

Quote:

2. Reformation Understanding of Creation "Days"

The sixteenth-century Reformers agreed that the fourfold sense of Scripture compromised the literal sense of the Bible, making its authority for faith and life null and void. They insisted that the single, true sense of Scripture is the literal sense, the plain meaning of the text.

One of the major achievements of the Protestant Reformation is the return to Scripture. This meant that Scripture is in no need of an external key for interpretation — whether that key be the Pope, the church councils, philosophy, or any other human authority. Scripture's clarity and perspicuity became the norm of the day; its reading from within its own context was paramount. External meaning must not be superimposed on it, as had been the practice under medieval Catholicism. The Bible was to be read in its literal and grammatical sense.

Martin Luther, accordingly, argued for the literal interpretation of the creation account: "We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read." The other Reformers understood the creation "days" in the same way.

This literal and grammatical interpretation, known in the history of hermeneutics as the historical-grammatical method, was the norm for biblical interpretation more or less into the nineteenth century.

3. Changes Under the Influence of Modernism

As the concept of long time periods made its way into the understanding of Earth';s origins in the wake of the publications of James Hutton (1726-1797) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875), some Christian concordist interpreters started to reinterpret the Genesis "days" of creation in a non-literal manner. The impetus for this was not found in the Bible itself but in the new world view which was being developed on the basis of uniformitarianism and its concomitant understanding of origins which demanded long periods of time.

The understanding of the creation "days" as "days of restoration," "days of revelation," aside from taking a "day" for an "age" ("day-age" theory) or an epoch/era goes back to this time and the changes in time frames required by the new geology. The approach of a non-literal reinterpretation of "days" was typical of concordists who had accepted long ages for the origin of Earth. In view of these developments, it is unavoidable to conclude that external influences exerted by a new understanding of geological ages became the catalyst for the reinterpretation of the "days" of creation.

py3ak · #**326** (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 07:57 PM

Ben, I think this article might be beneficial to you.

I disagree with each one of your three numbered statements. But I suspect it may be a question more of basic feelings and attitudes even than presuppositions, and probably not likely to be well hashed out on a thread already this long and hard to follow.

Perpetua · #**327** (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 04:06 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 just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance.

I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."

Ivan · #**328** (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perpetua

I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

I would find it difficult too, Lynda. Sometning for you to think about, eh?

Hippo · #**329** (**permalink**) 07-02-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perpetua

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 just wanted to say "thanks" for that post. I just found this message board, and wholeheartedly agree with this as well as the statements made by Daniel. In my Christian walk I have read plenty about the creation issue, both regarding the science and biblical issue, and feel just as strongly about its importance.

I learned some time ago that my pastor -- who in all other issues is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace -- is completely opposite in regards to this matter. He in fact follows Hugh Ross' ideas, and has a very hostile view to biblical creation and scornfully derides "those young-earthers." He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit, though he has taught it a few times during a weeknight study class, and I learned from both verbal and e-mail conversations with him that he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word. I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Anyway, these posts here are an encouragement, that many other reformed believers do honor the full word of God including Genesis 1, and also feel that it is "worth the battle."

You could consider giving him the benefit of the doubt that he honestly believes that an old earth position is biblical. It is possible to hold such a position in good faith, whether it is correct or not is another matter.

a mere housewife · #**330** (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 09:19 AM

Dear Sister, could you not in good conscience participate in the worship of the saints when you are meeting for that purpose, and you stated that your minister 'never preaches anything regarding this [his views on creation] from the pulpit', and is solidly biblical in other areas? If the other family member is your spiritual head then that is an additional reason to expect God to use the means He has instituted -- the preaching of the word in the assemblies -- to bless you in spite of the fallenness of your minister.

Dwimble · #**331** (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 11:46 AM

Let me preface my comments with this...I honestly, really, truly do not want to be harsh or cause offense, but I find your post problematic in a couple of ways. First of all, this is your pastor that you are talking about, not just some random person or acquaintance. And you say this about him:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perpetua

...in all other issues [He] is solid in reformed doctrine, Calvinism, Sovereign Grace

and

Quote:

He never preaches anything regarding this from the pulpit...

And yet, you then make these comments about him:

Quote:

...he gets as upset as a non-believer when someone tries to discuss this with him (as I clearly refuted his three "proofs" for old-earth and then pointed out many more flaws in his old-earth progressive creation view). He is quite willing to tell others *his* views, but beyond that it's like talking to a wall; his attitude also reveals how willing he is to distort scripture to support his view, and how easily he appeals to other men and man's wisdom, when it suits his purpose, rather than truly honoring God's word.

And then finally:

Quote:

I now find it hard to even listen to him in his regular sermons, since all his talk from the pulpit about honoring the word of God, contending for the faith as did the Reformers, sola scriptura, etc., shows his extreme hypocrisy, that he really doesn't believe it.

Again, I don't want to be harsh, but it looks like you are sitting in judgment over your pastor, and accusing your pastor of some very serious things. You are judging his motives, his heart, his beliefs, his attitudes. You disagree with him over that one issue, and when you try to "refute" him and "point out many more flaws" in that area (none of which is your responsibility to do in the first place), you claim that he gets as "upset as a non-believer".

So, now instead of listening to the pastor whom God has placed in authority over you to instruct you, and whom you say is solid in his doctrine, you'd rather sit in church and read a book by someone whom you deem acceptable to you, because you seem to have judged your pastor as not good enough for you. You seem to think you know better than him and more than him.

Perhaps your pastor is wrong in this area, and perhaps your pastor needs to repent over these things. But instead of judging him you should be praying for him, submitting to him, and thanking your Sovereign Lord that He has given you a pastor who is "solid". Yes, he may need to repent in this area, but you most certainly have some areas where you should be humbly repenting as well.