just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Gird up the loins of your mind? Put Peters names to that, the Apostle.
A better man than J Gill ever was!
A better man than J Gill ever was!
Old Earth v. Young Earth
- Thread starter Puritanhead
- Start date
- Status
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Sometimes I think the reformers clan would put the reformers before the Apostles. How dare anyone interfere with our doctrine lol!
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by just_grace
Originally posted by BobVigneault
"1 John talks about fellowship with the Father and the Son, do you think this is possible for Christians today?"
David, I'm afraid I don't understand your last question.
I thought it was quite clear.
To be honest, if you said 'no' then in my eyes you would be a 'heretic'.
Thoughts please...
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Moses wrote that the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days, and he also wrote that God told Abraham his family would be enslaved for 400 years.
Neither of these things did Moses witness.
How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?
Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?
I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.
In Christ,
KC
Neither of these things did Moses witness.
How is it, then, we trust one statement but not the other? Why is it we have to come up with all sorts of magic for Adam, but not for Abraham's sons?
Not too many Darwinians are complaining about the 400 years in Egypt. But, once they complain about creation days, we have to give in to their hypothesis?
I've said this before, but if God can create ex nihilo, why is it impossible to do it in 6/24 hour days? Perhaps, it's too high for us.
In Christ,
KC
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, but how does one thought or the other effect the Gospel?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL????????????
[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL????????????
[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]
BobVigneault
Bawberator
"Gird up the loins of your mind? Put Peters names to that, the Apostle.
A better man than J Gill ever was!
To be honest, if you said 'no' then in my eyes you would be a 'heretic'.
Thoughts please... "
Hmmmmm, I think you need a beer my friend. Let's go to the pub. I'm buying. No more Red Bulls for you.
A better man than J Gill ever was!
To be honest, if you said 'no' then in my eyes you would be a 'heretic'.
Thoughts please... "
Hmmmmm, I think you need a beer my friend. Let's go to the pub. I'm buying. No more Red Bulls for you.
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, but how does any of this theology change Christian teaching?
I am not Darwi btw. How can I be?
David
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
The question is not what God could do, but what he revealed to us in Genesis and what he intends us to think on the basis of that revelation.
Those whom I know who doubt the 6/24 reading of Gen 1 do not question ex nihilo creation or fiat creation or any other essential Christian truth.
I am a 6-day Creationist because I haven't been convinced to believe otherwise. I have an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering and understand radioactive dating methods. I also know a bit about the tautology between geology and the "fossil record" with respect to the dating of fossil finds. There are a number of issues that, scientifically, militate against a really old universe.
That said, I was listening to R.C. Sproul recently when he was talking about General Revelation. He asked the question: "Is General Revelation infallible?" He concluded that because, in fact, General Revelation is God's revelation it is infallible. I agree. What is fallible, of course, is our interpretation of that revelation given our sinful condition.
Nevertheless, as an example, he brought up Galileo. Even the Reformers (Calvin and Luther) needed to be "reformed" in their dogmatic view of geocentricity. They condemned the notion of a heliocentric solar system based on what they believed to be unequivocal language in the Scriptures that indicated otherwise.
To be fair to Calvin and Luther, of course, the scientific establishment also balked at the notion of heliocentricity. The original Copernican hypothesis was that the orbits were circular. The orbital equations just didn't work out right on paper and scientists had formulas that worked for a geocentric system. It wasn't until Kepler showed that, if the orbits are elliptical, then the orbital equations work for a helocentric system and are FAR less complicated than the geocentric system.
So what's the point in all of this? I just think we ought to be careful before we refuse to look through Galileo's telescope. We need not be gullible and believe every scientific theory. Darwinism is foolish not only because it's bad theology but because it's bad science. Nevertheless, if men, as they're subduing Creation, discover something new about the nature of the Universe from general revelation and it is true, then it is True. It does not overthrow Special Revelation but it might reform a mis-interpretion of phenomenological language.
[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]
That said, I was listening to R.C. Sproul recently when he was talking about General Revelation. He asked the question: "Is General Revelation infallible?" He concluded that because, in fact, General Revelation is God's revelation it is infallible. I agree. What is fallible, of course, is our interpretation of that revelation given our sinful condition.
Nevertheless, as an example, he brought up Galileo. Even the Reformers (Calvin and Luther) needed to be "reformed" in their dogmatic view of geocentricity. They condemned the notion of a heliocentric solar system based on what they believed to be unequivocal language in the Scriptures that indicated otherwise.
To be fair to Calvin and Luther, of course, the scientific establishment also balked at the notion of heliocentricity. The original Copernican hypothesis was that the orbits were circular. The orbital equations just didn't work out right on paper and scientists had formulas that worked for a geocentric system. It wasn't until Kepler showed that, if the orbits are elliptical, then the orbital equations work for a helocentric system and are FAR less complicated than the geocentric system.
So what's the point in all of this? I just think we ought to be careful before we refuse to look through Galileo's telescope. We need not be gullible and believe every scientific theory. Darwinism is foolish not only because it's bad theology but because it's bad science. Nevertheless, if men, as they're subduing Creation, discover something new about the nature of the Universe from general revelation and it is true, then it is True. It does not overthrow Special Revelation but it might reform a mis-interpretion of phenomenological language.
[Edited on 2-24-2006 by SemperFideles]
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Interesting post Rich.
Has anyone read that book Creation in Six Days? I've read a lot of creationism books, but not that one. I was wondering if what anyone thought about it.
Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry
Has anyone read that book Creation in Six Days? I've read a lot of creationism books, but not that one. I was wondering if what anyone thought about it.
Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation by Dr. Kenneth Gentry
My position? 6 days. Young earth.
[gasp--shock--stunned silence]
Well, when it comes to conflicting interpretations, it really is "survival of the fittest," right?
[gasp--shock--stunned silence]
Well, when it comes to conflicting interpretations, it really is "survival of the fittest," right?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well, Dr. Clark, there are more things involved than things about the creation days. There are essential Christian truths at stake that have to do with the first part of what you said, about going beyond revelation without authority, and putting that on par with what is revealed. There is the matter of the fallacy of using one's position and the church to foist one position as equal to or greater than another, when in fact the opinions have never been properly introduced into church discussions.
The point is, elders and ministers are not to speak or write outside their authority, for that compromises the office and the Church, namely the authority given it by Christ. Their office is not to give leading opinions, but to minister and administer Christ's authority. When speaking or writing outside their office, it must be clear that they have distanced themselves from their offices and the official church. This has not been done at all over this issue.
It is for that reason that I consider all alternative views as illegitimate.
To me this is the major issue, not the creation days themselves. I think it is a bigger issue than the creation days. It has to do with how we view the Word of God, whether we are really serious about the things we say about the Word of God as the Word of God. It is, as you say, a matter of what God reveals, and what He intends for us to believe. And the plain reading of the Word still must be dealt with, that He makes the direct correlation between the week days and the creation days. It cannot be sloughed off that easily. Just positing a theory is still only just positing a theory. Nothing more. Not when it is supposed to stand beside the Word of God; or as some have it, superimposed upon the Word of God. It sends shivers down my spine just to think that people to that so easily.
The doctrine of the Word of God is an essential Christian truth.
This is something in the word of God, and therefore is inspired by Him and profitable for knowledge.
The issues here are not the most essential, perhaps, but they certainly do interplay with the good news (in letting us know what was wrong to begin with, principally) and certainly deserve our respect and careful interpretation as the very Word of God.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I guess my question about all of this is why does our reading and understanding of God's Word change because of the "wisdom" of man?
If God can create ex nihilo, then could He not also reveal and illuminate the exact truth to Moses without the use of a telescope, radioisotope dating, and geological surveys? It seems to me that we're asking men to discover the scientific truth about creation and we're doing it apart from what God reveals. I'm not suggesting for one moment that cancer research is a waste of time because God has already revealed His word. That's a bit different. The question of creation is not so much scientific as it is philosophic. We know Plato and Aristotle were wrong about origins, but if they hadn't written and thought about it, I'm not so sure science would now be looking to prove any theory other than God's truth.
For me it goes back to Van Tillian apologetics. We need to realize that God is creator, we are creature. Man constantly and consistently suppresses the truth of that. So, why would we think that God is expanding the revelation of Himself to include allowances from ungodly men? This is a concession point. I don't care if a Reformed man who upholds the standards has his conscience pricked because he believes in the gap theory. This is a superaddition to the Christian thinking. As Bob has pointed out, can very many people holding to framework understand it? I know I can't. I've read Futato. And I'm sorry, but framework is not for laymen, it's more for a serious scientific mind.
What does God reveal to the most simple of Christians? What can everyone understand? How has God lisped this truth? He created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Children understand this.
But when they grow up, they are bombarded with choices on the matter, and I think it's just plain wrong. It's not only a question we can't answer (detail about the creative process), but we are foolish if we think we can. God could never explain it, even with the most brilliant human mind. We don't understand "out of nothing" because we don't know what "nothing" is.
So, my statement is, let science do as it may. But it is always God confounding the wisdom of this world. They think they know so much, but God is allowing them to flounder in their sin. In the end, I don't believe we're putting enough emphasis on the noetic effects of sin as it regards science. We regale them because of their advances, but God sees the corruption of His image. We should too.
In Christ,
KC
If God can create ex nihilo, then could He not also reveal and illuminate the exact truth to Moses without the use of a telescope, radioisotope dating, and geological surveys? It seems to me that we're asking men to discover the scientific truth about creation and we're doing it apart from what God reveals. I'm not suggesting for one moment that cancer research is a waste of time because God has already revealed His word. That's a bit different. The question of creation is not so much scientific as it is philosophic. We know Plato and Aristotle were wrong about origins, but if they hadn't written and thought about it, I'm not so sure science would now be looking to prove any theory other than God's truth.
For me it goes back to Van Tillian apologetics. We need to realize that God is creator, we are creature. Man constantly and consistently suppresses the truth of that. So, why would we think that God is expanding the revelation of Himself to include allowances from ungodly men? This is a concession point. I don't care if a Reformed man who upholds the standards has his conscience pricked because he believes in the gap theory. This is a superaddition to the Christian thinking. As Bob has pointed out, can very many people holding to framework understand it? I know I can't. I've read Futato. And I'm sorry, but framework is not for laymen, it's more for a serious scientific mind.
What does God reveal to the most simple of Christians? What can everyone understand? How has God lisped this truth? He created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Children understand this.
But when they grow up, they are bombarded with choices on the matter, and I think it's just plain wrong. It's not only a question we can't answer (detail about the creative process), but we are foolish if we think we can. God could never explain it, even with the most brilliant human mind. We don't understand "out of nothing" because we don't know what "nothing" is.
So, my statement is, let science do as it may. But it is always God confounding the wisdom of this world. They think they know so much, but God is allowing them to flounder in their sin. In the end, I don't believe we're putting enough emphasis on the noetic effects of sin as it regards science. We regale them because of their advances, but God sees the corruption of His image. We should too.
In Christ,
KC
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I don't agree with you either, Kevin. I don't mean to be disagreeing with everyone, but the problem is a whole lot easier than all this. First, if you're going back as far as Van Til, why not go further back. After all, he's not the best exponent of the view of the originality of authority in the self-revelation of Christ.
The fact of the matter is that the actual creation has very little to do with this problem. We know so little about it, and it provides an opportunity to speculate, even about what the Word of God says. And this speculation involves minimizing what we do know, and too often maximizing what we speculate. When the men of Westminster wrote "in the space of six days" they were not dealing with science, they were dealing with Scripture. This is what the Scripture leads us to believe.
This is not a matter of pitting the minds of science against the minds of simple believers. It is a matter of being overrun by men who claim to know more than they do. What have we got to put up alongside Scripture? Do we have science? Is it really science? Are we not relying on our own judgments here? And does not Alexander Pope ring true here?
Science is not science if it does whatever men may do with it. And we are tending to do the same with our philosophies and theology. Let these theories be properly introduced, according to the rules. And let us not trust our own judgments, but only the necessities of both general and special revelation. Speculation is still only speculation, no matter how many people believe it, and no matter what pressure society may put upon us to accept it. And neither may men holding office impose anything more than what they have proper authority to impose, or use their office in any way for what it is not meant.
These are the issues. Take away these concerns, and all we have is individuals with different opinions, but with no effect on what is certain; neither directly or indirectly. No matter how complicated the explanations may be, the clear distinctions remain for one and all.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I quite agree. Ministers aren't generally scientists. Our job as ministers is to serve the Word of God. The creation debate is an exegetical and theological debate. My point about theology is that it doesn't work to set up an argument whereby anyone who disagrees with view x no longer believes the Bible. E.g.,
1. I believe the Bible
2. The bible teaches x
3. You deny x
4. Ergo you deny the Bible.
What any private person or minister things the Bible teaches about x is interesting, but unless it's confessed by the churches it cannot be required as a doctrinal standard.
We should not assume (as I think too many do) that if we all just use the same method the same way we'll all arrive at the same conclusions. Exegesis is as much art and science and it doesn't work that way. Folks using the same, sound, hermeneutic can arrive at different exegetical conclusions. There is some liberty in exegesis within confessional boundaries.
On creation, it seems to me that the confessional issues are the inerrancy of the Word, its perspicuity, and the cardinal doctrines of ex nihilo creation, the historicity of Adam and the like.
In the controversy over the framework (or even the day/age view or the analogical view) none of these doctrines or commitments is in question.
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.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the 6/24 view is fundamentalist, but ONLY that it's use as a standard of orthodoxy is not particularly confessional, as the American Presbyterians have understood vow 2 and have received the confession.
In Dutch Reformed (ex-CRC) circles it is widely and wrongly believed that MGK's view are identical to those of Howard Van Til (a Calvin College prof). Nothing could be farther from the truth. MGK rejected HVT's invitation to participate in a project on creation because he disagreed with HVT's hermeneutic and conclusions.
I know this argument isn't compelling to all, but I keep making it. We say we love the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen, but NONE of them held the 6/24 view. Indeed, BBW may well have been an evolutionist of some kind!
I understand that doesn't make the 6/24 view correct, but there are too many folk in our churches who are ready to chuck the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen out of our churches (in a sort of retrospective purge) in their prosecution of the alleged heresy of non-6/24 views. Respected elders in confessional Presbyterian churches have told me that they would file charges against these fellows if they were alive today!
That's remarkable.
The 6/24 view may be correct. There's nothing about it, however, that is distinctively Reformed. Holding it does not make one "Reformed." Lots of non-Reformed folk hold it and deny it. In that way it must function differently than say Christology (or predestination or justification or Word and Spirit etc) on which there is a distinctively Reformed view. It is impossible to deny the Reformed Christology and still say that one is Reformed. The 6/24 view doesn't function in the same way.
I quite agree. That's why we have confessions. The confessions norm what it is to be Reformed. The imposition of extra-confessional dogmas as norms or measuring sticks for what it is to be Reformed is highly damaging.
I understand that some use this argument against me regarding covenant theology. I admit that the historic 3 covenant scheme is not as explicit in the three forms as it is in in the Standards, but it's implicit and it's how the 3 forms were understood by those who wrote them and adopted them (e.g., at Dort). Still, on that principle, I'm willing to admit a minister who denies the pactum salutis, though I think it's a grave theological mistake, because it's not explicit. I have a little more trouble admitting someone who denies the covenant of works, though I might be persuaded. If, however, as a result of his covenant theology, he denies Q 21 or Q 60 of the HC in substance (as the FV does) then we have a case.
It's a matter of setting theological priorities. Those who subscribe the Westminster Standards must affirm "in the space of six days" as that language has been received by the church. We might disagree about what it means, but it must serve as a baseline for our understanding of Scripture.
If our exegesis of Gen 1 (or 2) leads us to deny the analogy of Scripture or the things confessed by the church then we must either submit to the church and ask her to consider revising her confession.
Ministers have only ministerial authority. They can't and don't create doctrine. They simply serve the Word of God what what it teaches as confessed by the churches. That doesn't mean we'll all agree on every extra-confessional issue or necessarily on how to subscribe the standards, but that's another discussion.
rsc
[Edited on 2-24-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
thank you for a very nice posting Dr. Clark
how does the PCA Creation Report modify the Confession so that OEC/FI Pastors can in conscience subscribe to the WCF?
how does the PCA Creation Report modify the Confession so that OEC/FI Pastors can in conscience subscribe to the WCF?
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
John,
I think we agree more than you know. I wasn't just going back to Van Til, but I think you made my point better than I did. The point is, if we use Scripture alone, we will not come up with a modern scientific view. If we think in terms of day-age or something along those lines, then we've pretty much got the presupposition that science has explained what the Bible does not. Therefore, we must regulate our view because of what godless men put forward.
And I think, in response to Dr. Clark, that this is the problem with our forebears. They didn't exactly think it through because they were still reeling from the argument put forward by their modern science. I say that it matters not. What should we preach, Dr. Clark? I think you would agree that in the space of six days is it. Moreover, we make no comment on the length of days or on the age of the earth since it is not explicit in the Scriptures.
But in all this, there is a sentiment I'm putting forward that I would like all to respond to. Are we allowing the postulations of godless men to feed our presuppositions on the matter? Can we use Scripture alone to determine the framework and the other views? And, what is to be gained by using science to aid us in our interpretation of the Bible?
I think you already know my answers to these questions. I'd like to hear all of yours.
In Christ,
KC
P.S. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily think that 6/24 is some Reformist hill to die on. But putting that aside, how do we interpret the Bible? Is it by externals such as the state of man and his worldview? Or, should it be the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit through the Word? If it is the latter, then I'm not so sure that there is any room for modern science in the pulpit, classroom, sunday school, etc.
I think we agree more than you know. I wasn't just going back to Van Til, but I think you made my point better than I did. The point is, if we use Scripture alone, we will not come up with a modern scientific view. If we think in terms of day-age or something along those lines, then we've pretty much got the presupposition that science has explained what the Bible does not. Therefore, we must regulate our view because of what godless men put forward.
And I think, in response to Dr. Clark, that this is the problem with our forebears. They didn't exactly think it through because they were still reeling from the argument put forward by their modern science. I say that it matters not. What should we preach, Dr. Clark? I think you would agree that in the space of six days is it. Moreover, we make no comment on the length of days or on the age of the earth since it is not explicit in the Scriptures.
But in all this, there is a sentiment I'm putting forward that I would like all to respond to. Are we allowing the postulations of godless men to feed our presuppositions on the matter? Can we use Scripture alone to determine the framework and the other views? And, what is to be gained by using science to aid us in our interpretation of the Bible?
I think you already know my answers to these questions. I'd like to hear all of yours.
In Christ,
KC
P.S. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily think that 6/24 is some Reformist hill to die on. But putting that aside, how do we interpret the Bible? Is it by externals such as the state of man and his worldview? Or, should it be the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit through the Word? If it is the latter, then I'm not so sure that there is any room for modern science in the pulpit, classroom, sunday school, etc.
Thank you for that.
[Edited on 2-25-2006 by SemperFideles]
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Have you read Hodge, Warfield, and Machen on science? They were very well read in the science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm not prepared to say that I'm better read than they were.
Amen (see below)
So, can I not learn physics from pagans? I can only learn it from Christians? Are you sure you want to say that? In the providence of God, the church has historically learned a great deal from pagans and we've usually attributed those benefits to pagans. Are there Christian numbers? Arabic or Roman, both are "pagan," I guess. Is there a "Christian" physiology? I learned my logic from pagans. I learned my Greek from pagans. The Apostle John got at least some of his vocabulary from pagans ("in the beginning was the Logos...." -- the Logos was a heavily freighted philosophical term shot through with pagan notions and associations).
The OT uses repeatedly phrases and ideas and themes from pagan literature from the Ancient Near East. It re-contextualizes them and re-interprets them, but it uses them. Paul quotes a pagan poet about Cretans being liars and slow-bellies. The list could go on. Christian theology has quite properly used Aristotelian categories and distinctions for most of 2000 years. Indeed our cherished "elements and circumstances" distinction is nothing more than Aristotle's substance/accidents distinction! Our entire doctrine of the unity of the covenant of grace and diversity in administration is another example of the same. Olevianus wrote about the "substance of the covenant of grace" implying the same distinction. The creeds speak of God's "being" -- which many modern theologians call "Greek" or "pagan."
The idea of keeping "science" hermetically sealed from our understanding of the Bible is apparently attractive but impossible. We call that attempt "biblicism." It would mean not using any extra-biblical terms to explain Scripture. Just try to do that with any other discipline. Try explaining the function of cells without using some other words from some other sphere of discourse to explain it. It can't be done. Why should our explanation of the Bible be any different?
Does the Bible tell us, in botanical terms, what a tree is? No. It expects us to know what a tree is and a little bit about how trees function so that when it says that a righteous man is like a tree, we know what that means.
The thing we must do is be sure to operate from biblical presuppositions. The Bible says that God is. The Bible says that God spoke into nothing and made all that is. These are non-negotiables.
Thus, we have to be critical of scientific claims and test them against the Scriptures. It would be behoove us to learn a little about the history and methods of science so it isn't so frightening and threatening. I have found Michael Polanyi's work very helpful in this regard (and Kuhn and others). The history of science is being written more completely now. The arrogant modernist scientists who pronounce absolutely and dogmatically about how X shows that Christianity isn't or can't be true aren't doing science but religion and the history of science shows them to be foolish when they make such pronouncements. In this context, "can't" isn't really a very scientific way of speaking. It's a rationalist a priori not an induction or a deduction.
The history of science is full of pronouncements about "what all reasonable people know" that have collapsed under the weight of new research and evidence. My favorite is Bultmann's blathering about how in the age of the "wireless" (radio) etc no reasonable person could be expected to believe in a "three story" universe. What rubbish. At the very moment he was spewing carbon dioxide, modern physics was being transformed right beneath his feet. Three story universe indeed. It turns out that the universe is vastly more complex that Bultmann even imagined.
We must also be willing to criticize our own assumptions, however. Have we set up extra-biblical and extra-confessional standards for truth as way of gaining certainty? Have we said to ourselves, "all reasonable people know X"? (let X = the earth is 6,000 years old, on the basis of the addition of the genealogies, which the Princetonians showed more than 100 years ago weren't meant to be added in the first place). This has happened and continues to happen.
Until the early 18th century, most Reformed folk were geocentrists. They thought that, because the Bible says that the sun rises that the earth must be at the center of the universe. Today, virtually no Reformed theologian or pastor thinks that.
That the earth was not at the center of the universe was hotly controversial, however, to G. Voetius in the early and middle 17th century. He fought against allowing heliocentric astronomy from being taught in the Univ of Utrecht. He also opposed theories of corpuscular blood circulation because they were promoted by Descartes whom he opposed root and branch.
Now, Voetius was right to be suspicious about Descartes epistemological assumptions ("I am thinking, therefore I exist") but by opposing him on astronomy (following the scientific views of L. Daneau and others) and circulation he brought the faith into disrepute unnecessarily.
What changed? Why aren't we geocentrists? To my knowledge, it was not biblical exegesis that changed our minds. What did it? Well, science. The fact is that it became untenable to hold the gecentrist view and we had to re-think our assumptions about what the Bible is trying teach us. We realized that the Bible isn't trying to teach us a geocentrist astronomy. We realized that the Bible was speaking in observational language.
Today no reputable inerrantist (e.g., the Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy) would claim the Bible as a science text, but we once used it as such regularly. To connect with another discussion, we also used to believe in Christendom, but most of us don't anymore.
Neither view was part of being distinctively reformed. Our Christology (pick a locus of theology) hasn't changed but our view of church-state relations has and so has our view of science and the Bible.
These changes don't affect what it means to be Reformed. I still confess the same Reformed theology as our forefathers, even if I don't share their science or their politics.
Being Reformed doesn't entail "this" politics (what's the "Reformed" or "biblical" view of the port sale controversy?) or "that" science.
Being Reformed, however, does entail "this doctrine" in the confessions and "this liturgy," that RPW etc.
Cheers,
rsc
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Dr. Clark...
I was merely pointing out what we preach on this. And I think you agreed with me that we should not be preaching the modern science viewpoint. But doesn't that go the same way with all theological viewpoints. Our starting place is Scripture. Their starting place is not. Therefore, how can any part of what they think or say or write shape our view of theology? That's what I was getting at.
To me, creation is theological, therefore, I cannot allow ungodly science to shape my thinking about it.
As for geocentricity, I'm not convinced that in some way earth is not the center. I realize that we move around the sun, but at the same time, the earth is the center of God's creation.
As for all the other things you mentioned about learning from pagans, I would rather say that all of my learning is based in the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. Whatever I learn, it is because directly or indirectly He has taught me. I know that it is mere semantics, but I think you would agree that it is correct to say that all knowledge begins with God and, therefore, it cannot be pagan even though the means of the truth were certainly pagan.
I'm not suggesting that we could do the same with science as it pertains to the created universe because we already know where the starting point is. We are not learning about origins from pagans because ultimately, it is a philosophic and not scientific question. Science deals with observation, and none can observe God creating except in His Word, therefore we must see the origin of the universe in the Bible first. Don't you agree?
When I made the comment about our forebears I wasn't comparing myself to them intellectually. I am certain that they were well apt to understand it all. But, I think they were swayed too much by science and let it inform their theology regarding creation, instead of the other way around.
In Christ,
KC
I was merely pointing out what we preach on this. And I think you agreed with me that we should not be preaching the modern science viewpoint. But doesn't that go the same way with all theological viewpoints. Our starting place is Scripture. Their starting place is not. Therefore, how can any part of what they think or say or write shape our view of theology? That's what I was getting at.
To me, creation is theological, therefore, I cannot allow ungodly science to shape my thinking about it.
As for geocentricity, I'm not convinced that in some way earth is not the center. I realize that we move around the sun, but at the same time, the earth is the center of God's creation.
As for all the other things you mentioned about learning from pagans, I would rather say that all of my learning is based in the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom. Whatever I learn, it is because directly or indirectly He has taught me. I know that it is mere semantics, but I think you would agree that it is correct to say that all knowledge begins with God and, therefore, it cannot be pagan even though the means of the truth were certainly pagan.
I'm not suggesting that we could do the same with science as it pertains to the created universe because we already know where the starting point is. We are not learning about origins from pagans because ultimately, it is a philosophic and not scientific question. Science deals with observation, and none can observe God creating except in His Word, therefore we must see the origin of the universe in the Bible first. Don't you agree?
When I made the comment about our forebears I wasn't comparing myself to them intellectually. I am certain that they were well apt to understand it all. But, I think they were swayed too much by science and let it inform their theology regarding creation, instead of the other way around.
In Christ,
KC
I appreciate Dr. Clark's post, even if we disagree on interpreting the pasage.
May I add a word to the thread concerning my main objection to the "non-historic-narrative genre" interpretation?
I am not aware (another way of saying "I am ignorant") of a post-Reformation radical reworking of basic hermeneutical categories in order to accommodate a non-geocentric world view. Was their's not an admission that standard "secular" categories such as poetry, that the language of observation versus "modern" technical precision, etc., must all be taken into account? Didn't this move bring biblical hermeneutics even more closely in line with the Renaissance humanists ad fontes principles, and the recovery of old learning? I challenge the notion that this further move was especially prompted (in Reformation nations) by the rise of autonomous Enlightenment rationalistic humanism. Wheat and tares grew close together in those days.
I realize that something similar is being postulated in our age, namely that new data (a constant stream) re. the physical universe, and that of other disciplines, demand the continual integration of our theological enterprise into the whole university. But quite frankly, it seems to me as though the older exegesis is cast out wholesale by conservatives as untenable in the "modern age" (did the fathers get nothing right regarding the intent of the author in explaining the origin of the world?). If God wanted us to believe for all time the historic position of Reformed Orthodoxy prior to the Darwinian revolution, based on a historic-narrative reading of the text (with all the recognizable "marks" of that genre), how much clearer could he have made it?
A fair question, I think. Still unanswered in any form.
And in its place we are offered a completely new genre, conveniently tailored for a throughly accomodated understanding of Genesis 1. Or is it Genesis 1-2? Or is it Genesis 1-3? Or is it Genesis 1-11? Why is Abraham the first truly "historic" figure in Scripture, according to some conservative scholars? They claim they are simply applying the same hermeneutic conservatives first advanced to explain away the historic-narrative (pretend!) of Genesis 1. Why not extend the mythic history perception all the way to Genesis 50? After all, there is no canon to tell us where "exalted prose" stops and "narrative history" is in effect.
Dr. Clark would balk, I'm sure, at such extremes, but there are other college and seminary professors teaching in conservative institutions who will not, and do not. How shall we object to them, having already accomodated in this fashion, without justly being accused of arbitrariness?
Why not include Exodus? What about the 10 plagues? Real? Or just a story about Jehovah defeating all the pagan gods of the ancients? We can find a "poetic structure" there, a framework. And if structure is the determining factor, along with there being no hard evidence from science that there ever was an Israelite slavery, or plagues, or the departure of millions of the population, why not apply the new hermeneutic? Is there a reliable biblical-theological canon that consistently informs us when we are in danger of rejecting a vital truth, when we mistakenly seek to apply the "exalted prose" rule? If there is one, I await its explanation. If "exalted prose" is a new category of interpretation, I need to know how to 1) identify it consistently, and 2) apply it to my exegesis, and bless the flock thereby.
Maybe another doctrine, one a little closer to the religious core, seems utterly out of place in the present era. Don't like the Virgin birth? Don't like Atonement? That's fine, just create a new hermeneutic that removes the incongruity between then and now. Where will it end?
I'm not arguing for a static, inflexible, ossified state of hermeneutical affairs. I'm not suggesting that we have arrived at a state where Semper Reformanda is no longer a legitimate battle cry. Someone just answer the question, "How exactly did the earlier exegetes err? What were the PROBLEMS? What did they have correct?" Don't blithely dismiss them as "inadequate for today, no explanation needed," and then offer an alternative interpretation, a "solid gold" paradigm-shift, that (supposedly) solves all the old problems.
There are thousands of people who are still wondering what those "problems" are, and why so many of the people who first spotted them were so hostile to the faith (and not neutral truth-seekers).
Anyway, there's my take.
Bewilderedly Yours,
(Still stuck in the Dark Ages),
May I add a word to the thread concerning my main objection to the "non-historic-narrative genre" interpretation?
I am not aware (another way of saying "I am ignorant") of a post-Reformation radical reworking of basic hermeneutical categories in order to accommodate a non-geocentric world view. Was their's not an admission that standard "secular" categories such as poetry, that the language of observation versus "modern" technical precision, etc., must all be taken into account? Didn't this move bring biblical hermeneutics even more closely in line with the Renaissance humanists ad fontes principles, and the recovery of old learning? I challenge the notion that this further move was especially prompted (in Reformation nations) by the rise of autonomous Enlightenment rationalistic humanism. Wheat and tares grew close together in those days.
I realize that something similar is being postulated in our age, namely that new data (a constant stream) re. the physical universe, and that of other disciplines, demand the continual integration of our theological enterprise into the whole university. But quite frankly, it seems to me as though the older exegesis is cast out wholesale by conservatives as untenable in the "modern age" (did the fathers get nothing right regarding the intent of the author in explaining the origin of the world?). If God wanted us to believe for all time the historic position of Reformed Orthodoxy prior to the Darwinian revolution, based on a historic-narrative reading of the text (with all the recognizable "marks" of that genre), how much clearer could he have made it?
A fair question, I think. Still unanswered in any form.
And in its place we are offered a completely new genre, conveniently tailored for a throughly accomodated understanding of Genesis 1. Or is it Genesis 1-2? Or is it Genesis 1-3? Or is it Genesis 1-11? Why is Abraham the first truly "historic" figure in Scripture, according to some conservative scholars? They claim they are simply applying the same hermeneutic conservatives first advanced to explain away the historic-narrative (pretend!) of Genesis 1. Why not extend the mythic history perception all the way to Genesis 50? After all, there is no canon to tell us where "exalted prose" stops and "narrative history" is in effect.
Dr. Clark would balk, I'm sure, at such extremes, but there are other college and seminary professors teaching in conservative institutions who will not, and do not. How shall we object to them, having already accomodated in this fashion, without justly being accused of arbitrariness?
Why not include Exodus? What about the 10 plagues? Real? Or just a story about Jehovah defeating all the pagan gods of the ancients? We can find a "poetic structure" there, a framework. And if structure is the determining factor, along with there being no hard evidence from science that there ever was an Israelite slavery, or plagues, or the departure of millions of the population, why not apply the new hermeneutic? Is there a reliable biblical-theological canon that consistently informs us when we are in danger of rejecting a vital truth, when we mistakenly seek to apply the "exalted prose" rule? If there is one, I await its explanation. If "exalted prose" is a new category of interpretation, I need to know how to 1) identify it consistently, and 2) apply it to my exegesis, and bless the flock thereby.
Maybe another doctrine, one a little closer to the religious core, seems utterly out of place in the present era. Don't like the Virgin birth? Don't like Atonement? That's fine, just create a new hermeneutic that removes the incongruity between then and now. Where will it end?
I'm not arguing for a static, inflexible, ossified state of hermeneutical affairs. I'm not suggesting that we have arrived at a state where Semper Reformanda is no longer a legitimate battle cry. Someone just answer the question, "How exactly did the earlier exegetes err? What were the PROBLEMS? What did they have correct?" Don't blithely dismiss them as "inadequate for today, no explanation needed," and then offer an alternative interpretation, a "solid gold" paradigm-shift, that (supposedly) solves all the old problems.
There are thousands of people who are still wondering what those "problems" are, and why so many of the people who first spotted them were so hostile to the faith (and not neutral truth-seekers).
Anyway, there's my take.
Bewilderedly Yours,
(Still stuck in the Dark Ages),
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well spoken, Bruce.
You refer to conservatives throwing out the old genre as untenable. Well chosen words. Conservative they are, but I will go further to question whether they truly are Reformed. We need to remember these things:
1. Men are using their ecclesiastical offices and authority (including the positions at Bible colleges and seminaries, where our fut ure office-bearers are prepared for their respective callings ) to propagate these theories which are superimposed ( or to be more precise, imported upon ) Scripture. This is clearly outside their offices, and is an offence to the offices and to the Church, not to mention to Christ Himself Who commissioned them through the Church. Ordination is supposed to mean something, but for personal use.
2. Men who are taking a stand for these theories are not bothering to distance themselves from these definitively anti-Reformed practices of their fellow proponents of these views. If could be that perhaps someone like Kline has never used his office, just like Machen, in relation to these views. But has he ever bothered by those who do, like Irons? And if he is not truly bothered by it, then how seriously can I take him for the views he says he believes? I can't.
3. Not only are men using their offices to propagate such things, but they use their offices as cloaks, as protection against criticism. To call such a thing un-Reformed, due to the abrogation of the prime directive of Sola Scriptura in preaching and the offices, is to call down the wrath of the Session, the Presbytery, or even GA, for supposedly breaking the fourth vow, the one of submission and respect to the offices. This is actually happening at this present moment, though on another, but similar, issue.
4. Young minds are being taught at this very moment that personal views are just as Biblical as established Church doctrine, and that people may use their offices to propagate these as long as GA does not call it heresy. So there are a plethora of churches, each with different doctrinal emphases, hardly recognizable as being of the same denomination. From a pew perspective, you could not tell that they confessed the same confession. Young minds are being taught that there are several creation views, only one of which is the six day view but that it is of no greater weight than the man-made views. How horrible! They are not being taught to distinquish properly anymore. For if they were, then of obvious question is: Where are the elders in all this, the ones who are supposed to be overseeing?
5. There are people like myself, who are not that adamant about a specific six-day view as a mark of orthodoxy, yet make a great deal about the use of offices as a mark of orthodoxy, as well as respect for the authority of the church as a mark of orthodoxy. Personal licence overriding these is a slap in the face of people like myself, not to mention Christ who commissioned them through the Church. It forces listening to the preached Word to be optional, and pits father against elder, and so father against church, and so father against children who are catechized by the church.
Yet who is it that ends up on the outside? Is it them? By no means. They go on from bad to worse, all the while holding the Reformed banner, while we have been cut off from the fellowship and the sacraments, and even our children, for not being moved by the winds of doctrine that so moved them.
6 I ask only what was asked in Jeremiah 5: What will they do in the end? When Christ comes back and asks what they have done with the talents entrusted to them, what will they then say?
You ask if this is really happening in the churches? I have particularly picked on the Framework Hypothesis because it is clearly an importation of philosophy upon Scripture. It is clearly, very clearly, NOT Sola Scriptura. But that does not mean that I don't have better examples. But if we don't stand here, then where will we stand?
I have no problem with someone holding to a Framework view. As long as he do so as a private member of the church, and state it as private view. Divorce this completely from the offices, including that of teaching our young in the places where they train our future pastors and elders, and our children the doctrines of the Church, and there is no problem. It could even be viewed as a sign of health in the church. But this is not the case in our churches. These things are so mixed in with all the levels of the churches; and we do not see how the church is being eaten away from the inside by it. People even dare to spout heresies, such as FV via the same licence.
We need to start with the offices including those who teach in the colleges. Once we have the topic completely cleansed from the offences, then we may reopen it, but do so properly. Meanwhile, Kline is completely compromised, no matter how well he defends his position.
Until then, I will continue to see this as a scourge on our church, no matter how well it is defended. The simple truth is, a theory is imported into Scripture, and not from general revelation, but from the imaginations of man. That says it all. This has gotten far too bloated with human pride.
You refer to conservatives throwing out the old genre as untenable. Well chosen words. Conservative they are, but I will go further to question whether they truly are Reformed. We need to remember these things:
1. Men are using their ecclesiastical offices and authority (including the positions at Bible colleges and seminaries, where our fut ure office-bearers are prepared for their respective callings ) to propagate these theories which are superimposed ( or to be more precise, imported upon ) Scripture. This is clearly outside their offices, and is an offence to the offices and to the Church, not to mention to Christ Himself Who commissioned them through the Church. Ordination is supposed to mean something, but for personal use.
2. Men who are taking a stand for these theories are not bothering to distance themselves from these definitively anti-Reformed practices of their fellow proponents of these views. If could be that perhaps someone like Kline has never used his office, just like Machen, in relation to these views. But has he ever bothered by those who do, like Irons? And if he is not truly bothered by it, then how seriously can I take him for the views he says he believes? I can't.
3. Not only are men using their offices to propagate such things, but they use their offices as cloaks, as protection against criticism. To call such a thing un-Reformed, due to the abrogation of the prime directive of Sola Scriptura in preaching and the offices, is to call down the wrath of the Session, the Presbytery, or even GA, for supposedly breaking the fourth vow, the one of submission and respect to the offices. This is actually happening at this present moment, though on another, but similar, issue.
4. Young minds are being taught at this very moment that personal views are just as Biblical as established Church doctrine, and that people may use their offices to propagate these as long as GA does not call it heresy. So there are a plethora of churches, each with different doctrinal emphases, hardly recognizable as being of the same denomination. From a pew perspective, you could not tell that they confessed the same confession. Young minds are being taught that there are several creation views, only one of which is the six day view but that it is of no greater weight than the man-made views. How horrible! They are not being taught to distinquish properly anymore. For if they were, then of obvious question is: Where are the elders in all this, the ones who are supposed to be overseeing?
5. There are people like myself, who are not that adamant about a specific six-day view as a mark of orthodoxy, yet make a great deal about the use of offices as a mark of orthodoxy, as well as respect for the authority of the church as a mark of orthodoxy. Personal licence overriding these is a slap in the face of people like myself, not to mention Christ who commissioned them through the Church. It forces listening to the preached Word to be optional, and pits father against elder, and so father against church, and so father against children who are catechized by the church.
Yet who is it that ends up on the outside? Is it them? By no means. They go on from bad to worse, all the while holding the Reformed banner, while we have been cut off from the fellowship and the sacraments, and even our children, for not being moved by the winds of doctrine that so moved them.
6 I ask only what was asked in Jeremiah 5: What will they do in the end? When Christ comes back and asks what they have done with the talents entrusted to them, what will they then say?
You ask if this is really happening in the churches? I have particularly picked on the Framework Hypothesis because it is clearly an importation of philosophy upon Scripture. It is clearly, very clearly, NOT Sola Scriptura. But that does not mean that I don't have better examples. But if we don't stand here, then where will we stand?
I have no problem with someone holding to a Framework view. As long as he do so as a private member of the church, and state it as private view. Divorce this completely from the offices, including that of teaching our young in the places where they train our future pastors and elders, and our children the doctrines of the Church, and there is no problem. It could even be viewed as a sign of health in the church. But this is not the case in our churches. These things are so mixed in with all the levels of the churches; and we do not see how the church is being eaten away from the inside by it. People even dare to spout heresies, such as FV via the same licence.
We need to start with the offices including those who teach in the colleges. Once we have the topic completely cleansed from the offences, then we may reopen it, but do so properly. Meanwhile, Kline is completely compromised, no matter how well he defends his position.
Until then, I will continue to see this as a scourge on our church, no matter how well it is defended. The simple truth is, a theory is imported into Scripture, and not from general revelation, but from the imaginations of man. That says it all. This has gotten far too bloated with human pride.
I agree in the main with Bruce.
One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.
One point of overwhelming signficance to me is hermeneutical. The "framework" view depends on Genesis 1-3 not being narrative. It must be non-chronological, and (at least) "semi"-poetry (whatever that means). But there is one problem: THE single most signficant grammatical indicator of chronological narrative in Hebrew is the waw-conversive (or waw-consecutive). For example, it never occurs (maybe with one exception that I am not aware of) in the Psalms. It is incredibly frequent in Joshua, 1-2 Kings, etc. The two chapters in the Hebrew Bible where it occurs most are: you guessed it, Genesis 1 and 2. I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be anything other than historical narrative.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I'm not claiming a fundamental shift in hermeneutical principles. Calvin, after all, had advocated a doctrine of accommodation long before Galileo had made a similar argument to Roman authorities.
There was, however, a major shift in the way Scripture was read. Lambert Daneau, Voetius, and many others (as several scholars have described) and as can be seen in primary sources, used Scripture as a science book. This was an ancient practice.
By the mid to late 18th century we weren't doing that any longer. By the mid 19th century. So there was a real shift in the way we used Scripture.
When we finally gave in to the notion of heliocentrism and stopped using the Scripture as a physics/astronomy text, we were only being consistent with the principles Calvin had used long before.
It prejudices the discussion, however, to describe everyone doing astronomy in the 16th and 17th centuries as though they were Enlightenment rationalists. Some were and some weren't, but WHO was doing astronomy (after all, to reject their conclusions because of who they are or what religious views they held or didn't hold would be fallacious) is rather less important logically than what they discovered and what it meant for our Bible interpretation.
The Renaissance did draw us back to the normativity of the historical/literal sense of the text, but the medieval theologians were quite aware of different literary genres in Scripture. They observed those genres with different levels of success by Protestant standards.
I can't account for every other conservative account of Genesis but I'm certainly not saying that our forefathers got nothing right. What I'm claiming is that what they got right was theology. What they didn't get right was science. That's okay, in 100 years our "science" will be corrected. That's why we have read the Scriptures according to their intent (I know we agree about this). The exegetical question is whether the intent of Moses in Genesis or the intent of the Spirit in inspiring Moses was to teach us not only a theology (God, man, sin etc) was to teach us more than that. There's no need for a wholesale casting off of the older exegesis.
E.g., There were a number of historic premil folk in the Reformed camp in the late 16th and 17th centuries, e.g., Piscator, that scoundrel, Mede, and Alsted. Most of us today would say they were wrong -- they took the old historicist view and basically pole-vaulted the millennium into the future. That was a hermeneutical mistake, but recognizing that mistake doesn't invalidate everything else about their theology or exegesis.
As to an accommodated understanding, I can't accept your assumption that it arose as an accommodation to science etc. In fact, we've always (since Calvin) regarded ALL of Scripture as an accommodated revelation. It's not the case that part of Scripture is accommodated and part is not. It's all accommodated.
What I'm advocating is that we recognize what is unchangeable and what is not.
There's nothing about arguing for an analogical or framework interpretation of Gen 1 that makes that text less historical or less literally true or less reliable.
It's an exegetical discussion. Which exegesis is the best account of the divine and human intention as discerned from a reading of the text in its broader canonical, literary, and historical contexts.
I think we both agree that there are different genres at work throughout Scripture. The fact that such recognition can be abused, as we all know, doesn't invalidate the recognition. The literal sense of scripture can be abused (e.g., a 1000 year reign of Jesus in Jerusalem complete with memorial sacrifices!) but that doesn't keep me from reading Scripture literally/historically. Those who abuse sound principles should be called to account for their abuse.
In fact there are literary structures (e.g., Chiasms) in historical narratives in the historical books. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Genesis is an historical narrative of things that really happened, but it contains literary artifice. Surely we all recognize that the Adam narrative is both historically true and telescoped -- he named all the animals in creation in less than 24 hours? Sinlessness is not infinitude or omnipresence or omniscience. Adam still had to reckon with space and time.
Surely the first 11 chapters are telescoped. The genealogies have long been recognized as telescoped. Saying such things is no challenge to inerrancy or the reliability of Scripture.
The gospels themselves have been recognized since the earliest fathers as stylized accounts of the life of Christ. Ned Stonehouse made that case (again) 60 years ago. Luke and John are not identical in structure or arrangement. They are recognized as complimentary by inerrantists.
The fact that the synoptics are stylized, abbreviated, re-arranged doesn't mean the virgin birth (or more accurately the virgin conception) is not an historical fact or that Jesus didn't turn over the tables in the temple (however many times he did it). Nothing about such recognition of various genres suggests historical falsity or a mythological interpretation.
The Revelation/Apocalypse is highly stylized, symbolical account of the inter-regnum but it is also literally true. Some premillennialists would say that the non-literal reading of the the Apocalypse is a slippery slope. Some folks would say that connecting baptism to circumcision is a slippery slope. Some folks say that denying the abiding validity of the civil law is a slippery slope. Slippery slopes can be found everywhere and the most dire predictions made on the basis of them. Luther did it to Zwingli: The bible says, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' if you Zwingli don't believe that (-- which was code for "agree with me re in/with/under) then you don't believe the Bible. So the confessional Lutherans have treated us as fanatics since the 1550's because we don't share their Christology and sacramentology. They accuse us of rationalism and not believing the Bible. It is perfectly clear to them and always has been that Jesus is locally present in the elements and we don't believe it because we're infected with secularist/pagan/rationalist views.
Of course Genesis and Revelation belong to different genres, but the same principle is at work. The 1st three chapters are not as stylized as the rest, so the genre shifts or the intensity of figurative language shifts within the same book. If genres can shift within a book (as in Daniel and in the other major prophets) why not Genesis? Can we rule it out a priori?
Why is it okay to intepret scripture in reaction to modern science -- MS says x, therefore I'm going to read SS this way in reaction -- but not in response to lor in critical dialogue MS? Why is totalitarianism the only acceptable stance?
At that point it's not about hermeneutics or exegesis but about sociology, "them" v my people. I don't think that's a conscious move in our circles but I do think it's part of the equation.
rsc
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I'm not claiming a fundamental shift in hermeneutical principles. Calvin, after all, had advocated a doctrine of accommodation long before Galileo had made a similar argument to Roman authorities.
There was, however, a major shift in the way Scripture was read. Lambert Daneau, Voetius, and many others (as several scholars have described) and as can be seen in primary sources, used Scripture as a science book. This was an ancient practice.
By the mid to late 18th century we weren't doing that any longer. By the mid 19th century. So there was a real shift in the way we used Scripture.
When we finally gave in to the notion of heliocentrism and stopped using the Scripture as a physics/astronomy text, we were only being consistent with the principles Calvin had used long before.
It prejudices the discussion, however, to describe everyone doing astronomy in the 16th and 17th centuries as though they were Enlightenment rationalists. Some were and some weren't, but WHO was doing astronomy (after all, to reject their conclusions because of who they are or what religious views they held or didn't hold would be fallacious) is rather less important logically than what they discovered and what it meant for our Bible interpretation.
The Renaissance did draw us back to the normativity of the historical/literal sense of the text, but the medieval theologians were quite aware of different literary genres in Scripture. They observed those genres with different levels of success by Protestant standards.
I can't account for every other conservative account of Genesis but I'm certainly not saying that our forefathers got nothing right. What I'm claiming is that what they got right was theology. What they didn't get right was science. That's okay, in 100 years our "science" will be corrected. That's why we have read the Scriptures according to their intent (I know we agree about this). The exegetical question is whether the intent of Moses in Genesis or the intent of the Spirit in inspiring Moses was to teach us not only a theology (God, man, sin etc) was to teach us more than that. There's no need for a wholesale casting off of the older exegesis.
E.g., There were a number of historic premil folk in the Reformed camp in the late 16th and 17th centuries, e.g., Piscator, that scoundrel, Mede, and Alsted. Most of us today would say they were wrong -- they took the old historicist view and basically pole-vaulted the millennium into the future. That was a hermeneutical mistake, but recognizing that mistake doesn't invalidate everything else about their theology or exegesis.
As to an accommodated understanding, I can't accept your assumption that it arose as an accommodation to science etc. In fact, we've always (since Calvin) regarded ALL of Scripture as an accommodated revelation. It's not the case that part of Scripture is accommodated and part is not. It's all accommodated.
What I'm advocating is that we recognize what is unchangeable and what is not.
There's nothing about arguing for an analogical or framework interpretation of Gen 1 that makes that text less historical or less literally true or less reliable.
It's an exegetical discussion. Which exegesis is the best account of the divine and human intention as discerned from a reading of the text in its broader canonical, literary, and historical contexts.
I think we both agree that there are different genres at work throughout Scripture. The fact that such recognition can be abused, as we all know, doesn't invalidate the recognition. The literal sense of scripture can be abused (e.g., a 1000 year reign of Jesus in Jerusalem complete with memorial sacrifices!) but that doesn't keep me from reading Scripture literally/historically. Those who abuse sound principles should be called to account for their abuse.
In fact there are literary structures (e.g., Chiasms) in historical narratives in the historical books. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Genesis is an historical narrative of things that really happened, but it contains literary artifice. Surely we all recognize that the Adam narrative is both historically true and telescoped -- he named all the animals in creation in less than 24 hours? Sinlessness is not infinitude or omnipresence or omniscience. Adam still had to reckon with space and time.
Surely the first 11 chapters are telescoped. The genealogies have long been recognized as telescoped. Saying such things is no challenge to inerrancy or the reliability of Scripture.
The gospels themselves have been recognized since the earliest fathers as stylized accounts of the life of Christ. Ned Stonehouse made that case (again) 60 years ago. Luke and John are not identical in structure or arrangement. They are recognized as complimentary by inerrantists.
The fact that the synoptics are stylized, abbreviated, re-arranged doesn't mean the virgin birth (or more accurately the virgin conception) is not an historical fact or that Jesus didn't turn over the tables in the temple (however many times he did it). Nothing about such recognition of various genres suggests historical falsity or a mythological interpretation.
The Revelation/Apocalypse is highly stylized, symbolical account of the inter-regnum but it is also literally true. Some premillennialists would say that the non-literal reading of the the Apocalypse is a slippery slope. Some folks would say that connecting baptism to circumcision is a slippery slope. Some folks say that denying the abiding validity of the civil law is a slippery slope. Slippery slopes can be found everywhere and the most dire predictions made on the basis of them. Luther did it to Zwingli: The bible says, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' if you Zwingli don't believe that (-- which was code for "agree with me re in/with/under) then you don't believe the Bible. So the confessional Lutherans have treated us as fanatics since the 1550's because we don't share their Christology and sacramentology. They accuse us of rationalism and not believing the Bible. It is perfectly clear to them and always has been that Jesus is locally present in the elements and we don't believe it because we're infected with secularist/pagan/rationalist views.
Of course Genesis and Revelation belong to different genres, but the same principle is at work. The 1st three chapters are not as stylized as the rest, so the genre shifts or the intensity of figurative language shifts within the same book. If genres can shift within a book (as in Daniel and in the other major prophets) why not Genesis? Can we rule it out a priori?
Why is it okay to intepret scripture in reaction to modern science -- MS says x, therefore I'm going to read SS this way in reaction -- but not in response to lor in critical dialogue MS? Why is totalitarianism the only acceptable stance?
At that point it's not about hermeneutics or exegesis but about sociology, "them" v my people. I don't think that's a conscious move in our circles but I do think it's part of the equation.
rsc
Thank you Dr. Clark for the response.
I may have been misunderstood at this point:
Appreciation of the flexibility of genre helped tremendously, and yes, changed the way Scripture was read. But I don't believe in infinite flexibility. I think we'd agree that there are discernable limits beyond which even such an elastic genre as poetry can be contorted out of recognition. The wax nose.
It is precisely because I perceive in Framework Hypothesis an undue elevation of the stylistic qualities of the passages in question over the narrative structure--to the point where style is supposed to tell us nearly everything of significance, and history is practically effaced--that I have a problem with it. As I have read the advocates, I repeatedly come away with the sense that what I am being told is: This passage tells us what happened--God created the world, but not (or practically nothing about) how it happened, vav consecutives and assorted details notwithstanding--all that is just "awe-inspiring" presentation. Then Gen. 1:1 is really all we needed. Let's get right in to chapter 2.
I accept that all of Scripture is accomodated by God to us in our finite condition. What I'm opposed to are illegitimate concessions to a pagan Naturalism, that has turned the scientific method and its results (properly interpreted, of course!) into a sacrament. I see the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Days as yet additional attempts, along with the Gap Theory and Theistic Evolution, to save the God Behind Creation from hopeless irrelevancy by accomodating his Word, and by extension HIM, to the dictates of an alternate authority. Meanwhile the sagans grin as you retreat back into a Kantian two-tiered universe (that Van Til demolished!).
I grant this is a reactionary response. I'm not suggesting that this is how FH looks like to those who are standing within it to engage the unbelieving world. I'm saying that's how it looks to someone like me who is standing next to you in the fight. I shudder to think what I might look like to your eyes...
In my post I do not equate "historic-narrative" with "literal" (definitely an abused term, one that I avoided). I am using the term to describe the genre, including "historic" to exclude "parable" or similar. I agree with these statements:
The 10 Plagues are also a literary set. They are presented in a triple triad, with a final stanza. They are shot through with formulaic encounters, repetitive expressions, and cumulative storytelling effect. Is it merely a framework? Is it more important that we learn that the Israelites went out of Egypt (if they were really geographically there, and not just tribal nomads); rather than getting bogged down in the trivia of how the writer expressed the deliverance?
Did scientists just keep following the truth, while the theologians pulled the shades? It is the Naturalistic philosophy I oppose, as I know you do. Saying that 6-D is "reaction," but FH is "response" seems like a caricature. Your side may have less to be critical about and have more room for agreement with MS, but since you are willing to take some issues up with the standard MS approach someone in that camp will no doubt find you overbearing.
If someone decided to investigate why water froze at 100 C, we would say he was asking the wrong question. If someone today investigates how whales evolved into cows we should respectfully suggest he is asking the wrong question, wasting time, effort, and resources. Ideas have consequences. One can advocate a 6-D view and still engage the philosophy of the day in a critical fashion. But it will have to be more of the Van Til reduction-type critiques, because the worldviews are so contrary.
I admit that a FH approach may actually get you to a place where a MS advocate seems more willing to engage in dialog than he will with one holding a 6-Day interpretation. But how much difference is there between that stance, and the blockhouse apologetic methodology? It seems to me you've surrendered part of the worldview for a meeting at the table.
I agree that an us-them mentality is part of the equation. In some sense that may be inevitable. There is a view, I know, that 6-D advocates basically have a "fundamentalist" attitude toward the whole debate. There can be little rapproachment from our two sides if FH is viewed as rank "liberalism" and 6-D is viewed as "fundy." Well, from this side, it seems quite unfair to be so labeled from an exegetical and hermeneutical standpoint. The fundys may be close by (somewhere) but we Reformed types see the street we're standing in as being pretty well travelled in the Reformation heritage. And as I said in the previous post, we're still waiting to see bona fide problems with the old path.
Thanks for the exchange.
[Edited on 2-26-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
I may have been misunderstood at this point:
In my post I make the point of agreeing with you in this, and offer that the move away from geo-centricism was in part a continued outworking of Reformation principles (having deep roots), and not (as Will Durant, et al, would have us think) to be associated exclusively with its irreligious Enlightenment half-sister. Hence the "wheat and tares" allusion.
Appreciation of the flexibility of genre helped tremendously, and yes, changed the way Scripture was read. But I don't believe in infinite flexibility. I think we'd agree that there are discernable limits beyond which even such an elastic genre as poetry can be contorted out of recognition. The wax nose.
It is precisely because I perceive in Framework Hypothesis an undue elevation of the stylistic qualities of the passages in question over the narrative structure--to the point where style is supposed to tell us nearly everything of significance, and history is practically effaced--that I have a problem with it. As I have read the advocates, I repeatedly come away with the sense that what I am being told is: This passage tells us what happened--God created the world, but not (or practically nothing about) how it happened, vav consecutives and assorted details notwithstanding--all that is just "awe-inspiring" presentation. Then Gen. 1:1 is really all we needed. Let's get right in to chapter 2.
I accept that all of Scripture is accomodated by God to us in our finite condition. What I'm opposed to are illegitimate concessions to a pagan Naturalism, that has turned the scientific method and its results (properly interpreted, of course!) into a sacrament. I see the Framework Hypothesis and Analogical Days as yet additional attempts, along with the Gap Theory and Theistic Evolution, to save the God Behind Creation from hopeless irrelevancy by accomodating his Word, and by extension HIM, to the dictates of an alternate authority. Meanwhile the sagans grin as you retreat back into a Kantian two-tiered universe (that Van Til demolished!).
I grant this is a reactionary response. I'm not suggesting that this is how FH looks like to those who are standing within it to engage the unbelieving world. I'm saying that's how it looks to someone like me who is standing next to you in the fight. I shudder to think what I might look like to your eyes...
In my post I do not equate "historic-narrative" with "literal" (definitely an abused term, one that I avoided). I am using the term to describe the genre, including "historic" to exclude "parable" or similar. I agree with these statements:
The main questions have got to be exegetical and hermeneutical (i.e. what rules are we going to apply to this exegesis?) And thank God that so much of Scripture is beautiful and wonderful and memorable. That is part of the Art of Scripture, without a doubt.
The 10 Plagues are also a literary set. They are presented in a triple triad, with a final stanza. They are shot through with formulaic encounters, repetitive expressions, and cumulative storytelling effect. Is it merely a framework? Is it more important that we learn that the Israelites went out of Egypt (if they were really geographically there, and not just tribal nomads); rather than getting bogged down in the trivia of how the writer expressed the deliverance?
Can we rule a genre shift out, a priori? Who's doing that? Of course Genesis shifts genres here and there. The only questions are where, and on what grounds? Has a new genre been manufactured to make Genesis 1 more palatable to more people?
I like your use of "totalitarian." I used that in another thread, the "MY way or NO way" dialectic. But I don't find it apt to describe my position. Are 6-Dayers (for want of a better term) anti-MS as a discipline? That certainly wouldn't have characterized 100 years of development from the mid 18th to mid 19th century. Nor do I think that's a fair description of most scientists or Reformed pastors and theologians today who hold to the 6-D interpretation.
Did scientists just keep following the truth, while the theologians pulled the shades? It is the Naturalistic philosophy I oppose, as I know you do. Saying that 6-D is "reaction," but FH is "response" seems like a caricature. Your side may have less to be critical about and have more room for agreement with MS, but since you are willing to take some issues up with the standard MS approach someone in that camp will no doubt find you overbearing.
If someone decided to investigate why water froze at 100 C, we would say he was asking the wrong question. If someone today investigates how whales evolved into cows we should respectfully suggest he is asking the wrong question, wasting time, effort, and resources. Ideas have consequences. One can advocate a 6-D view and still engage the philosophy of the day in a critical fashion. But it will have to be more of the Van Til reduction-type critiques, because the worldviews are so contrary.
I admit that a FH approach may actually get you to a place where a MS advocate seems more willing to engage in dialog than he will with one holding a 6-Day interpretation. But how much difference is there between that stance, and the blockhouse apologetic methodology? It seems to me you've surrendered part of the worldview for a meeting at the table.
I agree that an us-them mentality is part of the equation. In some sense that may be inevitable. There is a view, I know, that 6-D advocates basically have a "fundamentalist" attitude toward the whole debate. There can be little rapproachment from our two sides if FH is viewed as rank "liberalism" and 6-D is viewed as "fundy." Well, from this side, it seems quite unfair to be so labeled from an exegetical and hermeneutical standpoint. The fundys may be close by (somewhere) but we Reformed types see the street we're standing in as being pretty well travelled in the Reformation heritage. And as I said in the previous post, we're still waiting to see bona fide problems with the old path.
Thanks for the exchange.
[Edited on 2-26-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
If science is so changeable then why are we basing a change in interpretation of scripture on it? Unless you are somehow going to bound the scope of scientific re-interpretation, it really makes little sense to call a certain interpretation of scripture wrong based on some scientific theory. (Even if one wants to make it a head counting game, the majority can be just as wrong as any minority when it comes to science)
In 100 years, everyone may be making fun of good ole Galileo, and then going back to apologize to Turretin.
CT
[Edited on 2-26-2006 by ChristianTrader]
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
