timfost
Puritan Board Senior
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?
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?