Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
Seems reasonable, except that I would specify human death in line four (point three?).
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
I basically agree, but would add "Human" to #3 (the last one - did you mean it to be #4?). I see no compelling evidence that animals did not die before the Fall...
-----Added 11/13/2009 at 11:26:51 EST-----
Seems reasonable, except that I would specify human death in line four (point three?).
Beat me to it!
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
Great list. And I think point "3" is good the way it is.
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
I basically agree, but would add "Human" to #3 (the last one - did you mean it to be #4?). I see no compelling evidence that animals did not die before the Fall...
-----Added 11/13/2009 at 11:26:51 EST-----
Seems reasonable, except that I would specify human death in line four (point three?).
Beat me to it!
I agree with Mason about #3 but would perhaps eliminate #4. If you are talking about the bounds of confessionalism than I agree that the 6/24 view is the confessional position. But in terms of broader orthodoxy, your boundaries place a whole host of Reformed men outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. I think, at the very least, #4 should be broadened. But then again, do you mean 6/24 hour days?
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
3) Creation occurred in six days
4) Death proceeds from the fall of man
If the parameters are orthodoxy, then you cannot rule out the framework view so popular with Westminster students of Kline. That would remove the 6 days from the list unless you made it mean whatever you wanted it to mean!
Hence:
God is the Creator
God created out of nothing
Adam and Eve were historical figures who really fell
Personally, I was a Hugh Ross, Big-Bang, Progressive Creationist for most of my ministry and considered myself tolerably orthodox. Like Sproul, I have returned to the classic view and would defend it pretty strongly, even against my friends of the framework perspective.
I reiterate a source mentioned in one of my posts the other day. Get Pipa's Did God Create in 6 Days, currently available for a mere $5 from Reformation Bookstore Reformation Bookstore: Resources For The Next Reformation - Search. That is a full 81% off for a hardback that is worth every bit of the retail. It includes thoughtful articles from a variety of perspectives (including framework).
If the parameters are orthodoxy, then you cannot rule out the framework view so popular with Westminster students of Kline. That would remove the 6 days from the list unless you made it mean whatever you wanted it to mean!
Hence:
God is the Creator
God created out of nothing
Adam and Eve were historical figures who really fell
Personally, I was a Hugh Ross, Big-Bang, Progressive Creationist for most of my ministry and considered myself tolerably orthodox. Like Sproul, I have returned to the classic view and would defend it pretty strongly, even against my friends of the framework perspective.
I reiterate a source mentioned in one of my posts the other day. Get Pipa's Did God Create in 6 Days, currently available for a mere $5 from Reformation Bookstore Reformation Bookstore: Resources For The Next Reformation - Search. That is a full 81% off for a hardback that is worth every bit of the retail. It includes thoughtful articles from a variety of perspectives (including framework).
Presbyterian Church in America
Study Committee on Creation
June, 2000
.....
All the Committee members join in these affirmations:
The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.
.....
Presbyterian Church in America
Study Committee on Creation
June, 2000
.....
All the Committee members join in these affirmations:
The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.
.....
This sections seems to set out the unanimously agreed parameters by those on the committee, at that point in time, anyway.
What about the idea of a worldwide flood? It is not usually considered in the category of creation, but evolutionists usually deal with it in some way.
What exactly are they saying here? What do they mean by 'a naturalistic worldview'?
orthodox is just a word without meaning at the moment when it comes to creation.
Presbyterian Church in America
Study Committee on Creation
June, 2000
.....
All the Committee members join in these affirmations:
The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.
.....
This sections seems to set out the unanimously agreed parameters by those on the committee, at that point in time, anyway.
What exactly are they saying here? What do they mean by 'a naturalistic worldview'?
There will have to be an ecumenical council or something to decide the issue
I think one can argue for the death of plants before the fall, since man is given them to eat. I don't think there is actually a counter-argument so I would list every theologian as the names of those who believe in plant death! I would also imagine that if bacteria, etc, had any pre-fall use (even in the stomach to break up the food), then these too could have killed and been killed.I basically agree, but would add "Human" to #3 (the last one - did you mean it to be #4?). I see no compelling evidence that animals did not die before the Fall...
-----Added 11/13/2009 at 11:26:51 EST-----
Beat me to it!
I agree with Mason about #3 but would perhaps eliminate #4. If you are talking about the bounds of confessionalism than I agree that the 6/24 view is the confessional position. But in terms of broader orthodoxy, your boundaries place a whole host of Reformed men outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. I think, at the very least, #4 should be broadened. But then again, do you mean 6/24 hour days?
I fixed the numbers so they now read:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
3) Creation occurred in six days
4) Death proceeds from the fall of man
I think you must include #3 because the Bible explicitly states "in six days". (Exo 20:11) I understand that there is disagreement on the meaning of the word "days" but I don't see how you can get around the explicit statements of the Bible and remain orthodox.
The big question so far is, can one argue for the death of plants and animals before the fall and still remain orthodox? (Again, not 'confessional' but 'orthodox'.) What are the names of those who believe in animal/plant death before the fall?
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
Perhaps something more fundamental would be an appropriate consideration, such as the relationship between Scripture and empiricism. General vs. Special revelation, etc.
Also, what do you see as the difference between confessional and orthodox?
Presbyterian Church in America
Study Committee on Creation
June, 2000
.....
All the Committee members join in these affirmations:
The Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. That Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. That history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.
.....
This sections seems to set out the unanimously agreed parameters by those on the committee, at that point in time, anyway.
What exactly are they saying here? What do they mean by 'a naturalistic worldview'?
One book on the subject that I've always been intriqued by is somewhat related to utilitarian ethics (J.S. Mill). I know it isn't epistemology per se, but it has crucial postulates about a moderate theory of empiricism. I'd like to read something like that from a Christian point of view (=Christian empiricism).What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
Some that come to mind:
1) God is the Creator
2) God created 'out of nothing'
4) Creation occurred in six days
3) Death proceeds from the fall of man
Perhaps something more fundamental would be an appropriate consideration, such as the relationship between Scripture and empiricism. General vs. Special revelation, etc.
Also, what do you see as the difference between confessional and orthodox?