Kline's framework hypothesis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
James,

Here are some thoughts on the FH.

Kline says:

“To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.” (Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmology)

The most immediate problem is that Kline sought to lift science from the "constraints" of the bible. If we truly "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), it is God's word should constrain our science.

Science? Science is based in observation. The divine voice has said to man in history "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding" (Job 38:4). The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot observe the beginning. If scientists build off of observations of earlier scientists, why not build our science off of the only One who actually observed creation? Scientific theory is not observable, and can only guess based on unknown variables what may have occured.

There is absolutely a correlation between days one and four, two and five, three and six. After God created the world, He inhabited the world he created. This sequence is something you would expect in a chronological history. Try rearranging the days, and you end up with impossibilities. Kline's triad is a creative attempt to deny what is plain about the text.

We should also look at Genesis 2:4:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..." (NKJV)

This Hebrew word for "history" (תּוֹלְדוֹת) is translated in the NKJV as genealogy(ies), generations, history, birth or records. Genealogies are by necessity chronologial. תּוֹלְדוֹת is also used in Gen. 37:2 to describe the chronology of events that lead Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery. Any way we cut it, תּוֹלְדוֹת is used for literal and chronological events.

Kline argues that natural processes were taking place prior to the end of creation. He argues extensively from Gen. 2:5 about this. If my memory serves me correctly, he uses this passage to prove that day three (?) is not a literal day but an extended period of time. From an honest reading, though, Gen. 2 is a description of day 6-- the creation of man. But all that aside, if Gen. 1 is not literal, and Gen. 2's description of man's creation is non-literal, what basis do we have to argue that Adam and Eve are in fact literal?

If this is not enough, is it enough that the inspired writers understood these events as literal? (See Ex. 20:11, Psalm 33:8-9, Matt. 19:4-5, Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 11:9, 15:45-49, 2 Cor. 4:6a, 2 Pet. 3:4-6.) Even if Kline understood Adam and Eve to be literal, such influence has permeated many churches, casting doubts over many doctrinally vital truths. The late Edwin Walhout of the CRC said:

“Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.”

Further:

“Original Sin- According to this doctrine, the fall of Adam and Eve is an actual historical event that plunged the entire human race into sin. Ever since, both the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin, theologically speaking, have been passed on from parent to child in such a way that we all come into the world tainted by them. We say that our children are conceived and born in sin. But if Adam and Eve are not understood as real historical people, then there can hardly be an inheritance of sinfulness from parent to child all the way back to Adam—in which case the entire doctrine of original sin falls by the wayside. We will have to find a better way of understanding not only what sin is but its effect on the population in general—a way that does justice both to the Bible and to science and that helps us understand how sin works in our own lives under God.”

It seems that it's only a matter of time before Christianity becomes consistent with this position and adopts the views of Rev. Walhout if we adopt Kline's framework with its implications.

G. I. Williamson puts it well:

“When I was a seminary student I became concerned to understand what well-known neo-orthodox theologians were saying. So I requested a special class for this since none was being offered at that time. Professor Addison Leitch agreed to provide this by assigning me reading in theologians such as Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. Well, I did my assigned reading faithfully, and then reported to Dr. Leitch. I told him it gave me a headache because these men didn’t make sense in what they were saying. They talked about things being supra-historical, and about people being both elect and non-elect. And then I would read the straight-forward teaching of Calvin (and other great Reformers). I could understand them. They did make sense."

Instead of getting wrapped all up in the complicated arguments of Kline and others, why not simply believe the simple narrative God gave us?
 
James,

Here are some thoughts on the FH.

Kline says:

“To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.” (Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmology)

The most immediate problem is that Kline sought to lift science from the "constraints" of the bible. If we truly "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7), it is God's word should constrain our science.

Science? Science is based in observation. The divine voice has said to man in history "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding" (Job 38:4). The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot observe the beginning. If scientists build off of observations of earlier scientists, why not build our science off of the only One who actually observed creation? Scientific theory is not observable, and can only guess based on unknown variables what may have occured.

There is absolutely a correlation between days one and four, two and five, three and six. After God created the world, He inhabited the world he created. This sequence is something you would expect in a chronological history. Try rearranging the days, and you end up with impossibilities. Kline's triad is a creative attempt to deny what is plain about the text.

We should also look at Genesis 2:4:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..." (NKJV)

This Hebrew word for "history" (תּוֹלְדוֹת) is translated in the NKJV as genealogy(ies), generations, history, birth or records. Genealogies are by necessity chronologial. תּוֹלְדוֹת is also used in Gen. 37:2 to describe the chronology of events that lead Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery. Any way we cut it, תּוֹלְדוֹת is used for literal and chronological events.

Kline argues that natural processes were taking place prior to the end of creation. He argues extensively from Gen. 2:5 about this. If my memory serves me correctly, he uses this passage to prove that day three (?) is not a literal day but an extended period of time. From an honest reading, though, Gen. 2 is a description of day 6-- the creation of man. But all that aside, if Gen. 1 is not literal, and Gen. 2's description of man's creation is non-literal, what basis do we have to argue that Adam and Eve are in fact literal?

If this is not enough, is it enough that the inspired writers understood these events as literal? (See Ex. 20:11, Psalm 33:8-9, Matt. 19:4-5, Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 11:9, 15:45-49, 2 Cor. 4:6a, 2 Pet. 3:4-6.) Even if Kline understood Adam and Eve to be literal, such influence has permeated many churches, casting doubts over many doctrinally vital truths. The late Edwin Walhout of the CRC said:

“Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.”

Further:

“Original Sin- According to this doctrine, the fall of Adam and Eve is an actual historical event that plunged the entire human race into sin. Ever since, both the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin, theologically speaking, have been passed on from parent to child in such a way that we all come into the world tainted by them. We say that our children are conceived and born in sin. But if Adam and Eve are not understood as real historical people, then there can hardly be an inheritance of sinfulness from parent to child all the way back to Adam—in which case the entire doctrine of original sin falls by the wayside. We will have to find a better way of understanding not only what sin is but its effect on the population in general—a way that does justice both to the Bible and to science and that helps us understand how sin works in our own lives under God.”

It seems that it's only a matter of time before Christianity becomes consistent with this position and adopts the views of Rev. Walhout if we adopt Kline's framework with its implications.

G. I. Williamson puts it well:

“When I was a seminary student I became concerned to understand what well-known neo-orthodox theologians were saying. So I requested a special class for this since none was being offered at that time. Professor Addison Leitch agreed to provide this by assigning me reading in theologians such as Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. Well, I did my assigned reading faithfully, and then reported to Dr. Leitch. I told him it gave me a headache because these men didn’t make sense in what they were saying. They talked about things being supra-historical, and about people being both elect and non-elect. And then I would read the straight-forward teaching of Calvin (and other great Reformers). I could understand them. They did make sense."

Instead of getting wrapped all up in the complicated arguments of Kline and others, why not simply believe the simple narrative God gave us?
Good points, thank you. I think i would have to understand what you mean by literally, if it means evolution or Adam and Eve and didn't historicaly exist than no! But can't he mean something else?
 
An OPC minister found himself being shown the door by his presbytery because he's a Kline adherent. He's a ruling elder in the PCA now.
 
Science studies normal/ordinary providence. Things that can be tested again and again coming to the same results. The creation account and Genesis 1 is not normal/ordinary providence. It is extra-ordinary providence. It is miracle. Can science study or determine or in any way figure out creation? No.

But Genesis does show us that creation, even if a one-time and special event, is orderly. There's a pattern to the days, creation "according to its kind," and the making of man in God's image. So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.

This doesn't mean we should elevate those efforts above our reading of Scripture. On the contrary, it is the witness of Scripture that gives us confidence to undertake our scientific endeavors in the first place. But it may be an overstatement to say science cannot in any way figure out creation, the way we would say science cannot figure out the gospel.

I think it's difficult to maintain that Scripture is infallible and still argue for an old earth, so I favor a young earth view. But surely there are still some ways in which our understanding also can be furthered by examining the world God has made, if indeed he made it.
 
But Genesis does show us that creation, even if a one-time and special event, is orderly. There's a pattern to the days, creation "according to its kind," and the making of man in God's image. So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.

This doesn't mean we should elevate those efforts above our reading of Scripture. On the contrary, it is the witness of Scripture that gives us confidence to undertake our scientific endeavors in the first place. But it may be an overstatement to say science cannot in any way figure out creation, the way we would say science cannot figure out the gospel.

I think it's difficult to maintain that Scripture is infallible and still argue for an old earth, so I favor a young earth view. But surely there are still some ways in which our understanding also can be furthered by examining the world God has made, if indeed he made it.
Thats good. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this race. I just wanted to see what people thought. I lean towards Kline but don't really care because I like the big picture.
 
So it is fair to expect that, even with the creation and our human minds damaged by sin, we might be able to examine the creation and see some order that helps us further understand those first days.
From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind?). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.

As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was there something miraculous going on to delay that, or was there a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?

There is too little data. The best that science can offer is an apologetic, e.g., those who claim light cannot exist without the sun can be shown that our current science says it can; but was the light on Day 1 created by E&M excitations? Or was it a miraculous light temporarily put in place until the stars were made to govern it? Or was it the glory of the Lord? Again, too many unanswered questions to say anything definite.

Thats good. Like I said, I don't have a dog in this race. I just wanted to see what people thought. I lean towards Kline but don't really care because I like the big picture.
The details are in fact important, at the very least because God willed for us to know them. Indeed, the NT authors take the details seriously and historically, e.g., Peter on calling light out of darkness. I wish I had time to try and show how denial of various details led to larger than expected theological problems, but I will have to leave it there (especially seeing how this is not the thread's purpose).
 
Last edited:
From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.

As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was their something miraculous going on to delay that, or was their a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?

There is too little data. The best that science can offer is an apologetic, e.g., those who claim light cannot exist without the sun can be shown that our current science says it can; but was the light on Day 1 created by E&M excitations? Or was it a miraculous light temporally put in place until the stars were made to govern it? Or was it the glory of the Lord? Does the glory of the Lord necessarily excite an E&M magnetic field? Again, too many unanswered questions to say anything definite.


The details are in fact important, at the very least because God willed for us to know them. Indeed, the NT authors take the details seriously and historically, e.g., Peter on calling light out of darkness. I wish I had time to try and show how denial of various details led to larger than expected theological problems, but I will have to leave it there (especially seeing how this is not the thread's purpose).
From an epistemological perspective, I don't see how this can be true (perhaps you can give an example of what you have in mind). It is not a matter of being fallen, but of being finite. Science is too limited, and the information we have been given in Genesis is too limited to apply present knowledge of science to parts of the creation account with any confidence. When it comes to miracles, we simply cannot know what things are or are not the case, so applying scientific knowledge to the account can never give an answer anywhere near certainty or high probability.

As an example, take the creation of the stars on Day 4. Were they instantaneously made in a mature state? If they were, were the laws of physics the exact same then as they are now? How did the light from the stars reach the earth, and what information did it contain? Were the stars created in a rapidly mature manner? What was the distribution of the stars and galaxies at that time? Was space expanding, and if so, was it uniform, and what was its rate? Did the laws of gravity operate yet, or were they later; certainly, the creation of the sun would naturally change the gravitational pattern in the vicinity of the earth, but was their something miraculous going on to delay that, or was their a miraculous gravity occuring before the creation so that its creation had no gravitational effect? Did supernovae and black holes exist yet, or were they "stricken" as a result of the Fall? What was earth's rotation speed, and what were its conditions on Day 4 (temperature, weather, climate, etc.)?

There is too little data. The best that science can offer is an apologetic, e.g., those who claim light cannot exist without the sun can be shown that our current science says it can; but was the light on Day 1 created by E&M excitations? Or was it a miraculous light temporally put in place until the stars were made to govern it? Or was it the glory of the Lord? Does the glory of the Lord necessarily excite an E&M magnetic field? Again, too many unanswered questions to say anything definite.


The details are in fact important, at the very least because God willed for us to know them. Indeed, the NT authors take the details seriously and historically, e.g., Peter on calling light out of darkness. I wish I had time to try and show how denial of various details led to larger than expected theological problems, but I will have to leave it there (especially seeing how this is not the thread's purpose).
I don't think Kline ever meant they weren't historical, in the big picture, (and neither do I). Its the dichotomy between a "literal", whatever that means, or "mythical or figurative", whatever that means, way of looking at it that I dislike. Kline, it seems to me, offered a third way between them. Again i side with my denomination on this. But thanks.
 
"Macro" is used in distinction to micro-evolution, which would better be called adaption. There's not a shred of scientific evidence out there that shows one species evolved into another. The best of scientists will at least suggest that "we should find ..." The worst write as though macro-evolution were established fact.

That individuals within a species adapt to changes can be demonstrated with some certainty. That God could create something that could then change to deal with a shift, say, in food availability is astonishing.
 
"Macro" is used in distinction to micro-evolution, which would better be called adaption. There's not a shred of scientific evidence out there that shows one species evolved into another. The best of scientists will at least suggest that "we should find ..." The worst write as though macro-evolution were established fact.

That individuals within a species adapt to changes can be demonstrated with some certainty. That God could create something that could then change to deal with a shift, say, in food availability is astonishing.
Great post, thank you!
 
My main argument here is, which i haven't given (my problem), is maybe the FH has something to teach us?
 
My main argument here is, which i haven't given (my problem), is maybe the FH has something to teach us?

As in all things we study, a strong antithesis should help us better understand our thesis. I have found Kline valuable in defending a young earth since he eloquently challenges it.

As for what it has to teach us, I'm not sure how to answer. I feel like the best lesson I learned from Kline is what we should not teach concerning Genesis 1-2. I believe Kline's thought is modern-day syncretism with the Christian religion and the religion of Godless science. (Please note I am pro-science, but God and His Word should be at the center of it. I hesitate to call theories of origins contra scripture scientific.)
 
How then would you define the FH? What do you think it has to teach us?
Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.
 
Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.

Kline created a... framework... for denying Adam and Eve.
 
As in all things we study, a strong antithesis should help us better understand our thesis. I have found Kline valuable in defending a young earth since he eloquently challenges it.

As for what it has to teach us, I'm not sure how to answer. I feel like the best lesson I learned from Kline is what we should not teach concerning Genesis 1-2. I believe Kline's thought is modern-day syncretism with the Christian religion and the religion of Godless science. (Please note I am pro-science, but God and His Word should be at the center of it. I hesitate to call theories of origins contra scripture scientific.)
I'm glad but why not agree with him?
 
Basically i would say that Kline gives us third way to look at it. Maybe God decided to reveal himself in this way. As long as we admit that Adam was real and historical. Which Kline affirmed.

James you failed to answer, what is the FH as you understand it?
 
The literary discretions between Gen 1 and 2 imply a literary understanding of those books.

What does that mean, specifically "a literary understanding" in the context you are using it? Also, are you suggesting that Genesis 1 and 2 are different books?
 
I'm always glad to see any scholar affirm the truth of Scripture and still take scientific study seriously. The church could use more of that.

I spent last week substitute teaching in our local Christian school, where I had an eighth grader tell me she refuses to be a Christian because Christians reject science. In response, I began by telling her that, sadly, some Christians do reject science. But that's not what Christians should do.

I told her Christians believe God has spoken truthfully in the Bible, and we also believe he has created a world we can learn from and understand (call this science, or general revelation). A good Christian scholar understands that because these both come from God, they both must agree. So when we read the Bible and it seems to be saying one thing, and then we look at the world and it seems to be saying something very different, we know we must be doing either our Bible reading or our science wrongly. So we look again at both. We reexamine our Bible reading. We reexamine our science. Then we reexamine our reexaminations. We keep looking for a way to reconcile what we're learning, because we know our study often is faulty but our God always is true.

In the end, I told her, Christians should give the deciding weight to what we read in the Bible. But properly done, science is a helpful discipline that causes us to ask good questions about our Bible reading. My student seemed to appreciate that. I don't think she'd heard it from many of the believers in her circle.

The idea that science and the Bible are at odds is an unbiblical idea! For this reason, I tend to appreciate any scholar who's willing to examine a text more thoroughly and suggest things it might be saying even though his suggestions may be condemned for appearing to side with science.
The scriptures are the inspired revelation from God to us, so any so called scientific fact has to be in agreement with the scriptures, and the literal 6 days of Genesis, Adam and Eve a special creation of God, that he created all life and did not need to use any evolutionary process, and that there was a real fall event would have to be included in any scientific facts.
What happened was that some saw evolution as being proven true, and so had to accommodate the Bible to fit that view, and not having science forced to agree with the scriptures themselves.
 
Science studies normal/ordinary providence. Things that can be tested again and again coming to the same results. The creation account and Genesis 1 is not normal/ordinary providence. It is extra-ordinary providence. It is miracle. Can science study or determine or in any way figure out creation? No. There’s only one source that helps us understand creation and that is God’s word. Specifically, Genesis 1. Now while there are some common looking literary themes in Genesis 1. It is historical, fact by fact sequential writing. There is no other way to read/interpret it unless one denies the wording of the passage and the rest of the Scripture that supports it.
The Lord Jesus Himself affirmed its historical truth to us.
 
An understanding of an older date for the earth by no means equals acceptance of macro evolution.

Jack, thank you for your thoughtful response to that student!
There is no evidence/facts to support that macro evolution has ever happened in the fossil records.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top