Old Earth v. Young Earth

[JohnV]

Mat 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Mat 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Rev 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

( I've added bold lettering to the Matt. 28 passage to highlight the aspect of "all", to indicate neither more nor less. )

Jesus gives the authority of His rulership to the twelve apostles, to preach the Word, His Word, and to rule or govern His Church according the doctrines and example of the Word. The OT ordination and anointing is replaced by the NT offices, ordained and annointed. The same regulation for worship still applies, that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Word, only with the proviso that this now includes the NT's covenantal fulfillment is Christ. Offering strange fire before the Lord is still not acceptable.

Did Christ teach the FH? That still has to be proven. Until it is proven it cannot be accepted as that which Christ has mandated His representatives in the Church to either teach, whether in spoken or written word, or defend, whether in spoken or written word.

Some denominations have not ruled on it, but some denominations have ruled that the FH is neither heresy nor doctrinal. That is, it is indifferent. To perhaps overstate it for the sake of comparison, it is like checkers or chess, indifferent to the life of the Church. ( Please, this is an overstatement only for the sake of emphasizing the idea of adiaphora, indifference and non-essential. ) That means that it is out of bounds for the elders as far as obligatin it as Biblical or not, for it is not under the mandate of Christ. This decision does not make it in bounds, but out of bounds to preach or teach. For the ruling necessarily entails that it is not doctrine, and therefore is unattached to the mandate Christ gave to those who preach and rule in His name.

These texts come to mind, but I can find more. I would go through Jus Divinum to find the very texts that the WA used to justify their understanding of the offices and their duties.

There are also articles of the Christian faith in the WCF, mostly in ch. 1, that relate to this as well. But the one that I resort to first off is in the Belgic Confession, namely article VII,

The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.

Again, I've added bold characters to the text of the article to highlight the matters which address these concerns. We are admonished to test the spirits, to whether they are of God. It has to be that these things are clearly of God, not of man, for them to be added to the doctrines. Preaching and teaching them from the Christ-given office is saying that they are added to the mandate Christ gave, that they are what the Bible commands, that they are what Christ taught.

So the onus is on the defenders of the FH to prove that Christ taught this, that He meant to teach this. So the teaching must be clearly traceable throughout the history of the Church, just as Calvin, the elders at Dordt, and the elders at Westminster took extraordinary pains to show in the doctines they defended. It is not just a matter of mining an vague paradigm from the Word, and justifying it on that alone. It must be clear, and at large, otherwise it undermines the sufficiency and the perspicuity of the Word; in other words, it undermines our surety of the doctrines of faith contained in the Word.

From these the rest of the argument merely follows.

Thank you for your questions, Marcos. It has helped me to think through these things again, and has helped to clarify these for me as well. Every opportunity to go back to the Word and to the witness of the Church is welcome.

 

[Peters]

John, if you were going to teach Genesis 1-2 from a 6/24 perspective how would you do it? What points would you make? How would you refute arguments that oppose yours, like say for example, oh i don't know, Kline's, etc.? I undertand that you don't want to teach Genesis 1-2 contrary to reformed tradition, so how would you teach Genesis 1 -2? I really want to know, so that we're not left saying: "Kline is wrong because that's not the reformed tradition." Instead, say: "Kline is wrong because the Scripture shows here........."

This is also a question for any 6/24er, not just you, John

 

[Puritanhead]

This thread is like the Energizer bunny... it just keeps going and going...

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Peters
John, if you were going to teach Genesis 1-2 from a 6/24 perspective how would you do it? What points would you make? How would you refute arguments that oppose yours, like say for example, oh i don't know, Kline's, etc.? I undertand that you don't want to teach Genesis 1-2 contrary to reformed tradition, so how would you teach Genesis 1 -2? I really want to know, so that we're not left saying: "Kline is wrong because that's not the reformed tradition." Instead, say: "Kline is wrong because the Scripture shows here........."

This is also a question for any 6/24er, not just you, John

There are a few reasons why I picked on this particular issue, and perhaps a bit too much on Kline. The point, though, is not the creation issue, but rather the issues of the sufficiency and perspicuity of the Word, the offices and their limits, and the responsibility to the present and historic church.

So, what you're asking now is a different thing, as I see it. If I were to teach on Gen. 1 and 2, what would I be teaching? And then again back to the original issue: Would I refute the other views, the ones that are not six day views?

I am not in such a position. I have no place to teach. But, as I understand, this is hypothetical, for the sake of argument. So I offer it as such, and no more than that. It reflects more what teachings I would look for in a teacher, not so much that I think myself adequate to teach others.

First, in teaching it would be important to be careful to delineate between doctrine and opinion, especially since there are so many different views out there. It is not so much that the 6 - 24 hr. days should be emphasized, as it is to try to keep a clear distinction between what is revealed and what is speculated. In other words, should be emphasized that the Word is the Word, and that we should believe it even if we can't explain it. But one should stick to the text and teach from Gen. 1:1 through all the verses. That might include a brief summary of it as God's revelation of Himself in creation, governance, and providence, as found in Belgic Confession art. II, as well as the summary in the WCF. I

I would use my own example from design and plan of why there is no problem with the fourth day. It is not what the Bible teaches, but is an illustration to show that the fourth day is no stumbling block to the 6 - 24 hr. days. In such a case I am not teaching anything the Bible does not clearly declare, but only using an example.

I would choose to try to keep the lesson not too long, so as to allow a little more time than usual for questions concerning this topic. I'm pretty sure that most of the people listening to the lesson would want to ask their questions. And I believe the Bible does give answers. So when trying to keep a distance between doctrine and opinions, this would include my own. Especially my own, since those opinions would give the most threat of creeping in as more than opinion.

In answering the questions, I would be expecting mostly to be called on to refute the other views. But I wouldn't do that too much. I think the problem does not lie in the confusion on the revelation of Gen. 1 and 2, but on the doctrine of the Word. So I would gravitate to responding to questions in a manner that keeps that clear distinction between revealed doctrine and speculations. The problem is not that we don't know enough about the creation days, for we never knew anything more than what God revealed to us in His Word. The problem is how free we are to raise our speculations to the same level as those things that are necessary to believe.

For example, the Westminster Assembly decreed that we must believe "in the space of six days". So I would ask if this also includes the notions of "in the space of untold days" or "in the space of six time expanses". If we can mean by these terms anything that fits our theories, then ought we not to just expel these terms from the Confession? It if does not mean precisely "in the space of six days", but can also mean "not in the space of six days", then why is it in there? So then the important question to ask is whether the Bible demands this phrase to be believed as from God Himself? And the answer would be that we have the exegesis that Fred was talking about, we have Ex. 20:11, and we have the witness of the Church, that it is traceable throughout the history of the Church; and we have a confessional ruling, which also shows that the Spirit was also working in this decision; we have all these to show that "in the space of six days" is Biblical. What do the other theories have? Do they have an exegesis? Do they have a direct text like Ex. 20:11? Do they have a good and sufficient reason to believe that Ex. 20:11 means something else? Do they have the witness of the Church? Do they have a confessional ruling, which also shows the leading of the Spirit?

Notice that this is not judging anyone. It is only saying that we need to go about this honestly, looking at all the facets. I believe this has not been done. I still see no clear reason why "in the space of six days" can also mean "not specifically in the space of six days" at the same time, and still be in the Confession. There has been no decision by any church which says that another theory is now doctrine, and that "in the space of six days" cannot necessarily mean "in the space of six days". There has been no remarkable declared change in doctrine, Confession, or polity which has opened the doors to speculation being propagated by the offices. None of these things have happened. So the main thing, as I see it, is why these views are a problem in the churches, and when and where did it happen? These new ideas are not only about the creation days.

That is how I would answer questions about the other views. That's because I don't see that as being about other views so much as about more important things. We don't know much about the creation days, but we do know a lot about the doctrine of the Word, the mandate and responsibilities of the offices, Church history, and so on. If we can avoid these problems in positing other views, then we have a legitimate view to deal with.

So if I were given the responsibility of teaching on this matter, I believe it would try very important not to sacrifice the sure and certain things for the sake of things that we do not know about, things that we can only speculate on.

 

[Peters]

There has been no decision by any church which says that another theory is now doctrine...

I do not believe that the church decides what is doctrine, ie. what's true. We must work from the Scriptures first and above all. That is to say, we must be like these guys:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11)

Thanks for your consistent responses, John.

 

[RamistThomist]

What John is saying is that someone who is ordained or in a teaching position under the authority of the church must respect their vows. If one had vowed not to teach contrary to the Confessions, he must be honest and uphold it.

 

[JohnV]

That is partly right, Jacob. It is also that Christ commanded those He commissioned to teach what He had commanded. So, because this is Scripture that He commanded, it can be nothing more and nothing less than Scripture. Whether or not someone had taken any vow, he is never licenced to teach what Christ did not command.

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, Marcos. I did not mean to suggest that the great Synods and Councils of the church created doctrine. They do not invent it, or create it, or make into doctrine. The Word is the sole source of doctrine. Over the centuries certain questions have come up on matters that are not directly addressed in the Scripture, or rather things that men have misunderstood; and these are clarified from Scripture by these Synods and Councils. They are not adding to the Word, but clarifying out of the Word. In all this Scripture is still the only interpreter of Scripture. So these church synods do not decide anything to be doctrine that is not doctrine already. They need to stay within what Christ commanded, and nothing more.

 

[Peters]

Brother

What John is saying is that someone who is ordained or in a teaching position under the authority of the church must respect their vows. If one had vowed not to teach contrary to the Confessions, he must be honest and uphold it.

I hear you, brother, but is the literal 6/24 position a definitive mark of the confessional/Reformed? Do you disagree with Dr. Clark´s observation that"¦

The idea of using one particular view of the creation days as a doctrinal norm or as mark of Reformed orthodoxy is relatively new in American Reformed/Presbyterian experience and it seems to me it is fueled by a fearful, reactionary spirit.

"¦or that Hodges, Warfield, and Machen were neither confessional or Reformed or true to their vows?

John

They do not invent it, or create it, or make into doctrine. The Word is the sole source of doctrine. Over the centuries certain questions have come up on matters that are not directly addressed in the Scripture, or rather things that men have misunderstood; and these are clarified from Scripture by these Synods and Councils.

Historically, are not creeds and confessions typically formed to combat heresy and to establish a theological constant from the Scriptures? What other doctrine does this creation issue jeopardize? Dr. Clark has already asked this question:

The bigger question in the whole debate is what is the theological effect of the framework? So far I haven't seen any coherent answers to this question. I can't see that it affects one's doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, or last things.

I think it's a good one.

 

[RamistThomist]

To answer your question, yes I believe that 6/24 is the reformed standard. I believe it is biblical and confessional. There is nothing new I could say that someone like Fred or Bruce haven't said.

 

[JohnV]

Yes, I agree with Jacob. The Confession makes it the standard. As concerns the creation days itself, this has come under question only in recent memory in the North American continent. Before that it was merely assumed, I suppose. And there has been a lot of reactionary fear to the fact that the six day creation was being assailed. But this does not make the six day creation a new idea or new belief. The question is whether it is a norm for orthodoxy. And that is a different question. Dr. Clark is right about that.

I have tried to show that bringing in new theories has impacted the church in other areas. Or perhaps it has been that the theories are brought in because the Church has been impacted in other areas. These questions remain: who is bringing in these new notions? and how? If it is not Scripture, and if it is not the Church, then who? And do we owe any submission to it?

I am inclined to believe right now that the Scripture does not bring these new notions in, that the Church has not, and that we do not owe any submission to them. As such, I believe Dr. Clark is correct as to the six day view not being a mark of orthodoxy, but the Church as the body of Christ is a mark of orthdoxy, the preaching of the Word is a mark of orthodoxy, the proper administration of discipline is a mark of orthodoxy. So the point at issue here is not that people have other views, but that other views are being taught as being what the Bible teaches without official authorization. That, as I have said, is where this impacts the churches.

You could say that the Confessions were formed to combat heresy. It would be better, I think, to say that they were the response to heresies. So it is not so much that men created answers to the heresies, but that the Spirit used heresies to illumine the truth for those who stood firm in the Word. It is not that new things were revealed, but that the same truth prevailed against all attacks, opening us up more and more to what was already revealed in Scripture. In other words, the controversies about things that some men thought were left open to our own additions did not outdate the Scripture, or did not reveal to us that Scripture was inadequate to give us answers, or that the Scripture lacked sufficiency. It was not that the Scripture did not reveal it for us, but that we were ignorant of its teachings until the Spirit led us through trials to reveal it to us. The Scripture is just as vitally revealing now as it has ever been. The problem is not Scripture, but us. Therefore the history of the Church is very important to us, for the Spirit has led her through the ages. That is what the Confessions represent, as I understand this.

 

[fredtgreco]

Thread cleaned and back on track.

 

[Peters]

Thanks for your oversight, Fred.