Old Earth v. Young Earth

[Semper Fidelis]

Bruce, Dr. Clark, and JohnV:

Thank you so much for this dialogue. It is very edifying and instructive. Bruce - you really did a great job of explaining your concern regarding the implications to hermaneutics.

What I like about this exchange is that it goes far beyond the typical "We believe Scripture and you don't" exchange.

 

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.

Brian

 

[JohnV]

I agree with you Bruce, about the traditional six day view not being a totalitarian view. What I oppose is that the suggestion that six days may mean any time period, not necessarily a regular day. It is insufficient to postit that; there has to be proof that it does not mean six days. For it is God who suggests the correlation, to which man puts his correlations as equal possibilities. That would entail, necessarily, that the seven day measuring of the passing of time is arbitrarily introduced by man, which is then accommodated by God in Scripture. That is a pretty audacious argument.

What I have been taking pains to point out is that this is not ever merely a discussion about origins or first days. There is always, necessarily, other things involved, things that have to do with the centre points of orthodoxy. We know far too little to be dogmatic about the creation days, but we do have God's Word on it. And six normal days are not an impossibility; the sun being created on the fourth day is not an impossibility or a detriment to the six-day view. God commanded that we work six days, in relation to His working six days to create the cosmos. Sloughing that off, no matter how sophisticated, is still just sloughing that off.

 

[Puritanhead]

Radioactive dating methods

Originally posted by SemperFideles
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.

I understand that the various radiological dating efforts (viz. carbon-dating, potassium-argon dating and rubidium-strontium dating) tend to have limitations that people do not account for-- and that they only go back so far in terms of accuracy. I know some tend to give more creedance to its accuracy, but I have heard of ample skeptics. I don't know a lot about this area, however.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by cultureshock

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.

Brian

Highly unordinary in what fashion? Depending on your answer one could say that a lot fo things are highly unordinary in the Bible, but that doesnt give us the right to do as we please.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by cultureshock

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

Fred, I am interested in more argumentation along grammatical lines. We have to keep in mind that the study of language is more descriptive than prescriptive. In language, there is always an exception to every rule. It seems to me that Gen. 1-2 is a highly non-ordinary piece of text due to its content. But I'd like to hear more.

Brian

Brian,

The point is that the waw-conversive/consecutive is THE mark of Hebrew narrative. It is the way that you tell that something is intended to be a chronological narrative. The historical books are full of this kind of usage; poetry does not use it at all.

In fact, I have never seen a good grammatical argument for the Framework theory. The best I have seen is the invention of a "semi-poetry" category, that I have never seen in any other language (having had more or less experience in English, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German and French).

If one begs the question and states that Genesis 1-3 fits no category because it is unique, and therefore can have any grammatical structure one wants, I could say that it is anything I want. That not only proves too much, it makes Genesis 1-3 impossible to interpret with any reliability.

Anyway, here is a sample from Gesenius on the waw:

§ 49. The Perfect and Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.

a
1. The use of the two tense-forms, as is shown more fully in the Syntax (§§ 106, 107, cf. above, § 47, note on a), is by no means restricted to the expression of the past or future. One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses1 is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the first verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect. Thus in 2 K 20:1, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death (perf.), and Isaiah "¦ came (imperf.) to him, and said (imperf.) to him, &c. On the other hand, Is 7:17, the Lord shall bring (imperf.) upon thee "¦ days, &c., 7:18, and it shall come to pass (perf. hy"h'w>) in that day "¦

b
This progress in the sequence of time, is regularly indicated by a pregnant and (called waw consecutive2), which in itself is really only a variety of the ordinary waw copulative, but which sometimes (in the imperf.) appears with a different vocalization. Further, the tenses connected by waw consecutive sometimes undergo a change in the tone and consequently are liable also to other variations.

2[1] This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, for by waw consecutive an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action. Moreover, it is clear from the above examples, that the waw consecutive can only be thus used in immediate conjunction with the verb. As soon as waw, owing to an insertion (e. g. a negative), is separated from the verb, the imperfect follows instead of the perfect consecutive, the perfect instead of the imperfect consecutive. The fact that whole Books (Lev., Num., Josh., Jud., Sam., 2 Kings, Ezek., Ruth, Esth., Neb., 2 Chron.) begin with the imperfect consecutive, and others (Exod., 1 Kings, Ezra) with waÃ’w copulative, is taken as a sign of their close connexion with the historical Books now or originally preceding them. Cf., on the other hand, the independent beginning of Job and Daniel. It is a merely superficial description to call the waw consecutive by the old-fashioned name waw conversive, on the ground that it always converts the meaning of the respective tenses into its opposite, i. e. according to the old view, the future into the preterite, and vice versa.
(emphasis added)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by SemperFideles
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.

I understand that the various radiological dating efforts (viz. carbon-dating, potassium-argon dating and rubidium-strontium dating) tend to have limitations that people do not account for-- and that they only go back so far in terms of accuracy. I know some tend to give more creedance to its accuracy, but I have heard of ample skeptics. I don't know a lot about this area, however.

The problem with all the methods is they assume a uniform radioactive decay throughout all history which cannot be verified. They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods. Radioactive dating is fairly precise when you are certain of the starting conditions but the starting conditions are a guess. Beyond the dating methods, there are a number of other things that militate against an old earth, among them: the hot core of the earth, the amount of dust on the surface of the moon, the limited amount of erosion in some places, ... (the list goes on). I just have never received a convincing enough argument to force me to conclude the universe must be billions of years old.

That said, I still think science is good at examining current phenomena (even when their theories of why they're here are gooned up). I'm not a big fan of the pseudo-science that some Christian groups engage in to try and come up with "Christian" theories that are just as fanciful as Darwinism. I've heard some people in Sunday School speak dogmatically of how it never rained until the Flood based on the fact that "a mist covered the earth". This mist apparently caused mankind to have longer lives then. It's just silly. I suppose it's possible but it's not science just because it's a possible explanation and we ought not to think that, just because we reject their presuppositions and some of their silly theories, that the rest of the knowledge and academic rigor that really intelligent men lend to a field pales in comparison to our folk imaginings in certain subjects we know little about.

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.

actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.

....

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr

They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.

actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.

....

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]

Actually no "what" for the C-14 method?

How do you date via C-14 without knowing what the decay constant is or what the propotion of C-14 to C-12 is?

 

[Puritanhead]

Thanks Rich for your response. I learned a little something new.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr

They also assume a uniform amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere or presume a certain amount of other radioactive material present in other dating methods.

actually, no, not for C-14 dating. hence the recent calibration(of raw dates) via tree rings and pollen varves.
i've seen some work on calibrating ocean creatures with coral but i know little about that.
the calibration on tree rings is advanced enough to offer pc computer programs to download the databases.

....

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]

Actually no "what" for the C-14 method?

How do you date via C-14 without knowing what the decay constant is or what the propotion of C-14 to C-12 is?

the best essays that i am aware of on the topic are:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

on calibration of C-14 raw data:

tree rings mega links is at:
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

on varves try:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/geochronology/geochronology.htm
i don't see the one at the uofa that i usually recommend

the decay constant depends on both the weak and strong forces, physics is not my forte, i'll let someone else point out what else in the universe would break if the decay constants weren't.

the varves data is particularly interesting, there is several days on good reading on the lakes looked at and what has been found thus far. neat stuff.

i've only glanced at the coral data so i don't have sites to recommend yet.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've seen those Thanks. I don't want to drag this down into a discussion of C-14 dating methods. Those methods merely calibrate the proportion of C-14 in the air for particular years to try and increase accuracy. They still rely on the assumption that half-lives are constant. It's just one issue Richard. I don't want to distract the overall thread but thank you for the links.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

from "Because it Had Not Rained"

The literary character of Gen. 1:1-2:5 prepares the exegete for the presence there of a stronger figurative element than might be expected were it ordinary prose. This passage is not, of course, full-fledged Semitic poetry. But neither is it ordinary prose. Its structure is strophic and throughout the strophes many refrains echo and re-echo. Instances occur of other poetic features like parallelism (1:27; 2:2) and alliteration (1:1). In general then the literary treatment of the creation in Genesis 1 is in the epic tradition.

Having made such an observation concerning the literary genre of the creation record, it is imperative (especially in the present theological scene) that one convinced of the genuinely historical nature of the events recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis promptly add that the disregard for historical truth associated with the usual epic is not imported along with the formal literary aspects of the epic style into the divine revelation. Such importation was no more inevitable than that the polytheism of pre-biblical psalmody, for example, must have been carried over with the religious lyric form into the biblical Psalter. Though Genesis 1 be epic in literary style, its contents are not legendary or mythical in either a Liberal or Barthian sense. The semi-poetic style, however, should lead the exegete to anticipate the figurative strand in this genuinely historical record of the origins of the universe.

It also needs considerable emphasis, even among orthodox exegetes, that specific evidence is required for identifying particular elements in the early chapters of Genesis as literary figures. The semi-poetic form of Genesis 1 does not make it an exception. Exegesis which disregards this degenerates into allegorizing and these chapters are not allegories.

The specific exegetical evidence for the figurative character of the several chronological terms in Genesis 1 has been repeatedly cited. The word "day" must be figurative because it is used for the eternity during which God rests from his creative labors. The "day's" subordinate elements, "evening" and "morning", must be figurative for they are mentioned as features of the three "days" before the text records the creation of those lights in the firmament of heaven which were to divide the day from the night. (From the position taken in this article the last argument is, of course, only ad hominem. But on the other hand, if the validity of the interpretation advocated here is recognized, the figurative nature of the "evenings" and "mornings" follows with equal necessity.)

Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.

 

[Peters]

Dr. Clark, do you object to the notion that there could have been "death" in the creation (though not human death) before the fall?

Thanks.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
from "Because it Had Not Rained"

The literary character of Gen. 1:1-2:5 prepares the exegete for the presence there of a stronger figurative element than might be expected were it ordinary prose. This passage is not, of course, full-fledged Semitic poetry. But neither is it ordinary prose. Its structure is strophic and throughout the strophes many refrains echo and re-echo. Instances occur of other poetic features like parallelism (1:27; 2:2) and alliteration (1:1). In general then the literary treatment of the creation in Genesis 1 is in the epic tradition.

It should be clear that this paragraph of Kline's is the only part of his quote that sets forth any strictly exegetical conclusions. And honestly, the case is far from being made. Merely pointing out that a passage has a literary structure does not drive a hermeneutic wedge between form and meaning. The issue is not whether a passage has one or two instances of apparent parallelism, but whether parallelism is shot-through a text. The issue is not whether TWO words in Gen 1:1 begin with the letter "beth", but whether alliteration is characteristic of the text.

I can go to almost any historic passage of Scripture (this one is 34 (!) verses--36 verses if you add in Kline's warrantless inclusio of two verses from the second major division), and find something I can call poetic. Then, according to this canon, I may call it "semi-poetic" and start to pry it loose (just to make it "float" a little above) from its grammatic constraints that anchor it to the world of events. "Upper Register"! Historie/Geschichte anyone?

"Epic" material it may be. But Kline would render it much more akin to unbiblical epic by making it "about history" instead of strict history, despite his profession of historio-phillia below:

Having made such an observation concerning the literary genre of the creation record, it is imperative (especially in the present theological scene) that one convinced of the genuinely historical nature of the events recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis promptly add that the disregard for historical truth associated with the usual epic is not imported along with the formal literary aspects of the epic style into the divine revelation. Such importation was no more inevitable than that the polytheism of pre-biblical psalmody, for example, must have been carried over with the religious lyric form into the biblical Psalter. Though Genesis 1 be epic in literary style, its contents are not legendary or mythical in either a Liberal or Barthian sense. The semi-poetic style, however, should lead the exegete to anticipate the figurative strand in this genuinely historical record of the origins of the universe.

Note well: the passage is historical in nature; Kline does not deny that creation happened, nor that the only true God of Scripture did it; only that it happened in the manner or chronology that a prima facie, straightforward reading of the narative might lead one to believe.

In other words, read 1 Sam. 17 fundamentally different from Genesis 1.

It also needs considerable emphasis, even among orthodox exegetes, that specific evidence is required for identifying particular elements in the early chapters of Genesis as literary figures. The semi-poetic form of Genesis 1 does not make it an exception. Exegesis which disregards this degenerates into allegorizing and these chapters are not allegories.

I guess the only thing I can say is: its nice that Kline recognizes that, having pried away the text from firm attachment to history, he still recognizes that Alexandrine exegesis is the natural trajectory of his conclusions, and he seeks to guard against that. Interesting that he should have to warn orthodox exegetes not to take his methodology to far. Interesting too that he seems to add some kind of vague and arbitrary constraint: "the early chapters of Genesis."

Ah, the shadowy mists of pre-history.

The specific exegetical evidence for the figurative character of the several chronological terms in Genesis 1 has been repeatedly cited. The word "day" must be figurative because it is used for the eternity during which God rests from his creative labors. The "day's" subordinate elements, "evening" and "morning", must be figurative for they are mentioned as features of the three "days" before the text records the creation of those lights in the firmament of heaven which were to divide the day from the night. (From the position taken in this article the last argument is, of course, only ad hominem. But on the other hand, if the validity of the interpretation advocated here is recognized, the figurative nature of the "evenings" and "mornings" follows with equal necessity.)

NOTE: the parenthesis at the end is a serious concession. It means that while this may be a legitimate conclusion of his article, it is not strictly speaking an argument for the article, for in order for it to be valid the previous argumentation must already have been seen as determinative. As Pipa puts it:

The circular nature of Dr. Kline's argument hardly needs to be pointed out. Because he assumes "day" in 2:1-3 refers only to eternity, the term "day" has symbolical meaning throughout chapter 1. The assumption is gratuitous. He needs to prove that "day" is used exclusively as a metaphorical term on the seventh day, as well as chapter 1.

The seventh day is marked by the ordinal number in sequence. God blesses a day, not his rest. Moses/Jehovah appeals to this passage in Ex. 20:11 to enforce the day of rest. All these are cogent arguments that militate against Kline's assumption. As for the "evening-morning" matter, it first assumes "sunrise-sunset" as basic to the idea, then imports a figurative meaning into the first three days, then also into the last three days. Not much going for it either.

But of course, Kline already admits this whole section is not so much a proof as a conclusion, and so of no support to his argument.

Purely exegetical considerations, therefore, compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts. And if it is a figurative week then it is not a literal week of twenty-four-hour days. Furthermore, once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is appreciated the literalness of the sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the duration of the days in this figurative week.

This is Kline's own assesment of his accomplishment. Read the article for yourself. Read Pipa, "From Chaos to Cosmos," and other critiques of Kline/Futato/Irons, et al. Read, Read, Read.

Draw an informed conclusion.

 

[fredtgreco]

Once again I agree with Bruce. In order to draw the "Purely exegetical considerations" that "compel the conclusion that the divine author has employed the imagery of an ordinary week to provide a figurative chronological framework for the account of his creative acts," Kline merely piles on assertions.

Why is it not ordinary prose? Because Kline says so. No evidence at all is given. Why is it that day must be used figuratively? Because Kline says so.

The trick of making the hermeneutical rules for Genesis 1-3 different because the material is unique is dangerous, and would be seen as such if used for any other "unique" passage. What about the resurrection? That is certainly unique. What about scenes from glory? That is certainly unique and figurative - likely more figurative than Genesis 1-3.

For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.

 

[JohnV]

I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.

As you say, if all he gives as authentication for his view is his own say-so in re-interpreting Scripture, then that is not being honest to his area of expertice, much less his calling.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.

Is not saying " a theologian's exegesis is his weakness" , akin to saying a pitcher's weakness is throwing strikes?

CT

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by fredtgreco
For my part, for all his brilliance (and I do believe that it is often a problem to be "too smart" ) Kline's great weakness (not a strength) is his exegesis. It leads him to things such as animal sacrifices before the Fall, death before the Fall, and a host of other anomolies that are almost universally rejected.

Is not saying " a theologian's exegesis is his weakness" , akin to saying a pitcher's weakness is throwing strikes?

CT

You can always "bean" the guy. That way he would be too scared to stay at the plate and hit the ball. Of course, it really doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Peters]

Originally posted by JohnV
I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.

How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down?

Thanks

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'd have to agree with Marcos on this. I think calling him dishonest is harsh.

John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.

Bruce: Again, I really appreciate your critique. It has been some years since I was exposed to the FH controversy and, at the time, I never took the time to understand the arguments. I'm beginning to appreciate it more and why some are really concerned about it. Honestly, at the time, my Elders might have understood it but never articulated what the fuss was about. Your argument is very compelling. You get to the point succintly, precisely, and convincingly. You have been graced with much talent and I am thankful you are using it to God's glory.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by JohnV
I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.

How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down?

Thanks

from Rich
John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.

You are right to call me on this. I'm sorry if I offended you. I do believe in what I said, and firmly so, but I did not mean to offend.

All I'm saying is that it is dishonest to assert equal standing for the FH to the six-day view. The Church has not ruled that the Bible explicitly teaches the FH. So to suggest, as a man, even as an officer in the Church, that the Bible does teach it is to go beyond the office. Ministers and elders to not make doctrine; they may only preach received doctrine. To do more is to be dishonest to the office and to the calling, and also to the rule of the Church.

It is one thing to reduce the six-day view to the level of the FH view, it is another to elevate the FH view to the six-day view.

At the very best men like Kline may only say that they disagree, and that they believe otherwise. That is, they may make an exception to the Confessions on this matter. But that is all they may do. There is still no warrant for teaching or preaching it from their office. If they do, if they use their office to propagate it as more than what the Church has ruled it to be, then that is being dishonest to the office.

This is what I believe. I hold to the old understanding of Sola Scriptura and the limits of office. That means that I view things like this in a very strict way. That's what I believe; that's what I believe it means to be Reformed.

 

[Peters]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by Peters

Originally posted by JohnV
I think it is dishonest. If he doubts the six day scheme, then he should leave it at that. That's really all he can do. When he goes further he is being dishonest. God doesn't give us a Plan B, man does. This is Scripture, not some schoolbook. We can't take the Author with a grain of salt. If he doesn't believe the six day view is possible, then the he should tell his Session that he has an exception to the Confessions, and just leave it at that. It is in positing another theory that he shows his dishonesty.

How is he being dishonest, John? Are you saying that if someone disagrees with a traditional position, then all he can do is make the assertion and then be on his merry way? Kline made his case based on the biblical data, not scientific discovery (not that they are necessarily opposed, but i assume that's what you mean by man's "plan B"). Could you show through some quotation of Kline's paper and argumentation where he is in error, or where his reason breaks down?

Thanks

from Rich
John: I understand your concern - not as fully as I will learn it as you, and others, have much to teach me Brother - but if a man believes that his exegesis leads him to Plan "B" then it is not "dishonest" per se. I think "misguided" might be a better term if his exegesis is faulty.

You are right to call me on this. I'm sorry if I offended you. I do believe in what I said, and firmly so, but I did not mean to offend.

All I'm saying is that it is dishonest to assert equal standing for the FH to the six-day view. The Church has not ruled that the Bible explicitly teaches the FH. So to suggest, as a man, even as an officer in the Church, that the Bible does teach it is to go beyond the office. Ministers and elders to not make doctrine; they may only preach received doctrine. To do more is to be dishonest to the office and to the calling, and also to the rule of the Church.

It is one thing to reduce the six-day view to the level of the FH view, it is another to elevate the FH view to the six-day view.

At the very best men like Kline may only say that they disagree, and that they believe otherwise. That is, they may make an exception to the Confessions on this matter. But that is all they may do. There is still no warrant for teaching or preaching it from their office. If they do, if they use their office to propagate it as more than what the Church has ruled it to be, then that is being dishonest to the office.

This is what I believe. I hold to the old understanding of Sola Scriptura and the limits of office. That means that I view things like this in a very strict way. That's what I believe; that's what I believe it means to be Reformed.

Brother, there is no offence. I just want to know why you think Kline is wrong. I'm sorry but who cares if the church has ruled on anything. This begs the question: Who exactly speaks for the church? When you say that ministers may only preach "received doctrine", do you mean that which has already been established by a confession or creed? This is not Sola Scriptura.

Help me understand further what you mean, brother.

 

[JohnV]

Marcos:

You said,

Brother, there is no offence. I just want to know why you think Kline is wrong. I'm sorry but who cares if the church has ruled on anything. This begs the question: Who exactly speaks for the church? When you say that ministers may only preach "received doctrine", do you mean that which has already been established by a confession or creed? This is not Sola Scriptura.

Help me understand further what you mean, brother.

Let's take this one step at a time, because I am unsure where the problem lies. First you ask, "Who cares if the church has ruled anything?" Well, I do for one. Christ has granted His authority to rule in His name to those chosen from the congregation who show the gifts of understanding the doctrines of faith, of leadership, and of being able to teach others. These people are ordained by the church to their offices. Ordained men lay their hands on these men as a formal gesture of bestowing the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon them for their calling. Of course, no man has any authority to give or take the Spirit to or from anyone else. This is how godly men submit to the leading of the Spirit, recognizing that the Spirit is upon someone already for that office. That was why he was chosen for it. This laying on of hands is the formal institution of the office upon him before God and His people.

We must listen to these men, as they speak for God, and as they speak to God on our behalf in the official church setting. God is present through the Spirit at the meeting of His people in the name of Christ. Mat 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
These and only these rule the church. Therefore what they rule is of great interest to me. Not just today's elders, but the elders throughout history that have made rulings that impact the entire church. The Council of Nicea, for example. The Synod of Dordt for another. The Westminster Assembly also. The confessional statements are a summary of the rulings of the historical church, of which we are a part. To stray from these is to stray from that church.

I'm not exactly sure how this begs the question. Perhaps you can lay it out for me. The Church documents speak for the Church. That's what the Confessions represent. It is what has been bequeathed to us by our forefathers in the Church. I don't see how this begs the question.

Lastly you assert that preaching the doctrines the historical Church has officially recognized as THE teachings of Scripture is not Sola Scriptura. I don't follow. If this isn't Sola Scriptura, then what is? Does each generation form its own creed and confession, and call that Sola Scriptura? I'm don't follow you here.

When an ambassador is sent to a foreign country, he is sent with the direct message of him who sent him. He is not there to give his own message or his own opinion, but to deliver the very message he was sent to deliver. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the duty of the minister in preaching as well. He has been given what to preach, and he must preach only that. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't pick what he may preach or not preach; he must preach the whole council of God. If he has opinions on matters besides these doctrines, it is not his office to represent them to anyone.

I did a profession of faith before God and His people before anyone of us knew about the Framework Hypothesis. It was never told me that this was what the Bible teaches, as part of what I must confess to. It has never been added. Therefore it is merely an opinion, nothing more. The Church which has oversight of my faith has never said it is Biblical doctrine. And if it is not Biblical doctrine, then it is not part of the duty of an ordained office-bearer to represent it to me from his official capacity as being what the Bible teaches. It may be his opinion, but the church which has sent him has not given him the mandate to preach it. The Spirit has not given the Church the mandate to mandate preachers to preach it. It is only opinion. That's all it is. The fanciest of exegesis for oneself does not change that. Only ruling by the official church, the plurality of elders, changes that. That is who the rulership of the Church has been given to; not just to one man, or to a group of men acting beside the rulership of the Church.

The FH has never been ruled to be the proper and rightful interpretation of the creation. It is a liberty of views which has been allowed. That is all. I am under no obligation to it; the Church has made that explicit. Thus a man is acting outside his office if he uses his official position to obligate me to that view. It is a matter of liberty of conscience, not a matter of doctrine. As a person, a believer, a minister also has that same liberty, but no more or less than any other believer. A minister's liberty of conscience does not negate the liberty of conscience for the non-ordained. The church is the body of believers, not just the ordained.

If we are under any obligation to the opinions of the ordained leaders of our respective denominations, then you and I would not be able to keep up with all the views. What if one ordained leader says one thing, and another says another thing? Who are we obligated to? What if in one church the minister decides that the FH is what the Bible teaches, and in the next church of the same denomination down the road teaches that the six day view is what the Bible teaches? They can't both be right. One is leading by the Spirit and the Word, and the other not. It is also possible that neither are; but it cannot be that both are right. It is not hard to determine which it is, because the plurality of elders has already ruled on that: we have an official church document which says that we are obligated to believe "in the space of six days." It cannot be shrugged off.

This is where Kline would be dishonest, then. On his own authority he is differing with the plurality of elders. Not just today's elders, but all historical elders. This is what they have given us to believe, what their witness to us is of the Spirit's leading through the body ordained by Him. To shrug that off on his own authority is implicitly saying that his own authority trumps that of the whole historic church. This is only possible if he can show clear Biblical backing for it. That is, its not his opinion but clear Biblical teaching which all alike must believe. It is his office to uphold the Word, and to be one with that authority throughout the ages. He is obligated not only to show that this is clearly from the Bible, but also that the historic church is one with this. Or he has to prove that the historic church erred in this. And it cannot be the judgment of one man, but it has to be the judgment of the Church.

The men of Westminster especially took great pains to be one with the Synod of Dordt, and of all previous officially accepted rulings of the historic church; not as proof of doctrine, but as proof of the witness of the Church to Scriptural doctrine. Their backing for the doctrines were Scripture only. Their great depth of knowledge of the writings and witness of the great leaders of the church showed that they were one in doctrine with the past, not making new teachings. They were bearing witness to the Scripture's teaching just like the Churchmen of the past had done before them. They were being one in faith with them.

What we owe to someone like Calvin is the great example of faith he has given us. But the doctrines are the Spirit's, not his. His own gifts are only a part of that heritage; the greater part is what the apostasy of the Roman church has taught us about true doctrine, about rejecting false doctrine and practice. Calvin was gifted to organize these, but he introduced nothing new that was not there before. The teachings of the doctrine of .justification by faith were expanded to exclude the errors that were revealed through the apostasy. Everything that Calvin introduced was submitted for the review of the elders, to rule upon for its Scriptural soundness. He was gifted by the Spirit for the special task, and that was why he was such a leader. He pointed us to Christ. If we're not following where he pointed, then we're also not following him. He never pointed to himself; neither should we.

It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present. It has never been a part of the Reformed heritage to licence men to preach their own doctrines, differing from church to church. The oaths that I took are older than all these present controversies; the faith that I professed is older than I am, older than the philosophers and theorizers of this age or any other. I confessed to be one with the Church in faith. That means not only what my present denomination presents as true doctrine, but what the historic church has presented as true doctrine. If my present church departs from that, then it has departed from that unity. I have not departed from that unity by remaining true to what has been handed down, to what I have professed. Only if it can be clearly proven that the historic faith that I professed was wrong, only then am I obligated to change my profession. Until that time, I remain in that stream, even if I am the only one. It is only the witness of the local church at this moment that I differ with, not the witness of the Church of history, that has been present througout all the history of the New Testament Church, the Church which is truly of Christ. That is the example of faith that a man like Calvin gives us. This overrides the teachings of men like Kline who are introducing new things to the Confessions of the historic Church on their own, beside the official rulership of the plurality of elders of the historic Church.

I hope this helps, Marcos. As I said, I'm not really sure why or what you are questioning here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

John you wrote:

It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.

What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?

 

[Peters]

John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.

Thanks

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
John you wrote:

It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.

What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?

Rich:
For certain reasons I am estranged from my church. These will be resolved in time, but right now it is a matter of sharp disagreement.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Peters
John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.

Thanks

I was only telling you what I have believed concerning the issues that are involved. This is what I was taught, and what I believe the Reformed churches have held to.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by SemperFideles
John you wrote:

It is this, not independency, that leads me to be apart from my church at present.

What do you mean by the statement you are apart from your Church at present? Do you mean you disagre with the OPC's unwillingness to discipline men who teach the FH or do you actually mean, physically, that you don't attend Church?

Rich:
For certain reasons I am estranged from my church. These will be resolved in time, but right now it is a matter of sharp disagreement.

John,

That grieves me brother. I'll be praying for you. I hope you are finding a place to worship on the Lord's day.

In Christ's Love,

Rich

 

[Peters]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by Peters
John, thanks for your lengthy reply and sorry for my short one. All i really want to see is you show *from Scripture*, through sound reason and exegesis where he is wrong.

Thanks

I was only telling you what I have believed concerning the issues that are involved. This is what I was taught, and what I believe the Reformed churches have held to.

But do you hold to it because you see it in Scripture? If so, where?

Sorry to hear about your situation with the church, brother. I too will pray for you.