R.C.Sproul Changes his Mind on the Days of Creation

[SolaGratia]

I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line.

Here is the link: article:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Any thoughts, info. etc.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well considering ole R.C. has held practically every eschatological view imaginable not too surprising. However 100,000 amens to Dr. Sproul!!!

 

[Ivan]

I just came across this article from Banner of Truth on-line.

Here is the link: article:
Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Any thoughts, info. etc.

That is encouraging.

 

[SolaGratia]

Below is the whole article from the BOT:

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:
For most of my teaching career, I considered the 'framework hypothesis' to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.
The 'framework hypothesis' was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a 'framework' into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman's guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:
According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.

 

[Bygracealone]

Very encouraging!

 

[Scott1]

Dr Sproul does a very fair and informative job of explaining four views of creation in his excellent book, Truths We Confess. He explains the tie-in to micro-evolution and the "crisis" that has occurred in relation to the Genesis account of creation in modern theology. On p. 120...

This crisis has resulted in several attempts to reinterpret the Genesis account of Creation.

He goes on to say p. 127

For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one.

He goes on to say regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The Confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days. (bold in the original)

This has been very helpful in my own understanding of the theological issues surrounding this. Thank God for the gift He has given Dr Sproul in making the complex understandable.

 

[dannyhyde]

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

 

[SolaGratia]

Pastor Hyde,

"back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"

What do you mean by that?

 

[panta dokimazete]

It is "hedging your bet" in anticipation of potential scientific discovery to hold anything less than the literal 6 days - I have been guilty of the same. I believe there was and has been a sense of dependence on science's explanatory power on origins that has failed to truly emerge, with a deepening alliance to presuppositional apologetics that is driving the "sea change".

the grass withers, the flower fades...

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I am glad to say that I always held 6 days literal, and I saw through the farce of 6 days being an allegory and non literal as a means to merge Christian with Science so called.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gentlemen,

I think the article may be a little misleading. Several years ago I heard R.C. Sproul explicitly state that he held to a literal six day creation. Now, at the time it may have been the case that he thought the framework hypothesis was a possibility. Someone thinking X is a possibility does not imply that he holds to X. For example, I think postmillenial views are a possibility, but hold to ammilenialism. (Of course, dispensationalism is not even possible! ) In conclusion, I don't think it is accurate to take from this article the understanding that R.C. Sproul is a recent convert to 6-day creationism. Rather, I think the proper take on the article is that his views regarding the possibility of the framework hypothesis have changed, thereby strengthening his commitment to 6-day creationism. Of course, it is possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe so.

Brian

 

[danmpem]

Usually I read about the older generation of teachers becoming more and more loose on their doctrine. It is an encouragement to see someone like Sproul keep himself under the authority of scripture throughout the entirety of his life.

 

[Archlute]

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

Hello Danny,

I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.

So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. For what it's worth, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).

 

[SolaGratia]

So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?

 

[dannyhyde]

Hi Adam,

Interesting to say the least.

Danny

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

As a former student of Dr. Kline, I have moved from 6-24 hour days after I was converted, to day-age while in college, to framework while in seminary under Dr. Kline, back to a plain reading of the creation narrative. To Dr. Kline's credit, he always explained his view exegetically and not as a desperate attempt to fit science into the Bible. This is just bad scholarship.

Regardless, I never knew Sproul even held to the framework view.

Hello Danny,

I never had the opportunity to sit under Kline directly, but I do remember during a class discussion on this very issue that the question of motive came up at one point, and that the prof (I think it was Estelle at the time) basically admitted that a big underlying force for Kline's work in this area was to make orthodox Christianity more acceptable to the eyes of the secular academy. Estelle was always worried about Reformed ministers looking like "fundamentalists", and did not see this as a compromise as much as a thoughtful advance of Christian scholarship.

So, to sum it up, what was stated in the article I also heard affirmed in the classroom by a former student and admirer of Kline in so many words. For what it's worth, I think that stuff like that is also why he was one of the few profs to absolutely prohibit the recording of his classroom lectures in any form. No need to have fodder for a trial at presbytery (which he also was clear on).

 

[dannyhyde]

Pastor Hyde,

"back to a plain reading of the creation narrative"

What do you mean by that?

Basically, I would say I hold to the view that God created in six days. I would agree with Bavinck, though, in saying that the first three days were anything but ordinary seeing there was no sun!

 

[dannyhyde]

So, what is the current stand on creation of the faculty at Westminster Seminary California (WSC)?

The sem's public position may be found here: Westminster Seminary California about

 

[Grymir]

He may be admitting it now publicly, but philosophically, R.C. has held to a literalist view for years. I've heard just about every teaching he has ever done too. Why a statement like that now, I don't understand. Was it a current article? It had a date of 2006 quoting his writing in a Truth's we confess.

 

[danmpem]

Why a statement like that now, I don't understand.

Grymir,

Do you know how long it was before I figured out that your avatars were of Rush Limbaugh and not of the real Timothy Johnson? I had no idea what either of you looked like, so I naturally assumed you were in radio and really liked your cigars. When I happened to come across "your" picture online, and then realized who it was, I contemplated giving a little shout-out about the impostor on the PB.

What I just said had everything to do with your question.

 

[rmdmphilosopher]

It's interesting--just today I was reading God, Heaven and Har Magedon by Kline (I just got it as a birthday present) and even before reading this thread, I was having certain suspicions regarding his reasons for holding to the Framework view of creation... Just subtle things, like the way his diction is often reminiscent of a certain sort of seeking-to-impress jargon I find in a lot of suspect modern scholarship... The idea that he may be one of those who value the temporary (and, shall we say with Kuhn, constantly subject to the potential of revolution) conclusions of current scientific dogma is something I'll take with me back to my armchair... It's always a little sad to have my initial admiration for a man (like my admiration for Kline after reading some of his book this afternoon) tinctured with suspicion of his motives. Dang it. But thanks anyway for the heads up...

 

[AV1611]

For the record, to my knowledge Dr. Kline never said nor wrote in the following way: Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged 'facts' of science.

Absolutely, there are sound exegetical reasons for the Framework Hypothesis.

 

[Grace Alone]

He may be admitting it now publicly, but philosophically, R.C. has held to a literalist view for years. I've heard just about every teaching he has ever done too. Why a statement like that now, I don't understand. Was it a current article? It had a date of 2006 quoting his writing in a Truth's we confess.

I think it is old news. I remember hearing that announcement quite awhile ago.

 

[shackleton]

This is good because I was starting to wonder if the Framework Hypothesis might be plausible. Partly to mix all the "evidence" of an old earth with what the bible says and partly thinking that maybe we were reading it to literally and not taking into account type of Hebrew literature that had been long dead for thousands of years. But the other part of me still thought that Moses was probably not trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making us believe that God created everything in six days when he really meant millions of years and then fooling them again in the Ten Commandments be telling them to keep the Sabbath holy because God worked six days and rested on the seventh.

It seems like the popular thing to do nowadays with all the works intended to be evidential apologetics to try to mix science with the bible, Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross to name a couple. I guess if it comes down to what man says in science and what the bible says we have to choose who we are going to believe.

 

[Zenas]

I never knew Sproul held to framework. Frankly, that saddens me a little. I'm glad to hear he changed, but to change to the Biblical and Confessional view only recently? Saddening.

Well, at least he's on "our" side now.

 

[Poimen]

This is good because I was starting to wonder if the Framework Hypothesis might be plausible. Partly to mix all the "evidence" of an old earth with what the bible says and partly thinking that maybe we were reading it to literally and not taking into account type of Hebrew literature that had been long dead for thousands of years. But the other part of me still thought that Moses was probably not trying to pull the wool over our eyes by making us believe that God created everything in six days when he really meant millions of years and then fooling them again in the Ten Commandments be telling them to keep the Sabbath holy because God worked six days and rested on the seventh.

Erick:

FYI, the framework hypothesis does not determine nor posit an age for the earth but looks at the Genesis account through a literary structure that rather determines the meaning and importance of creation. I have never heard Kline or any other framework hypothesis proponent argue for an old or young earth, nor say that their exegetical conclusions were based upon scientific evidence/arguments. The latter is largely if not wholly excluded from the theory.

 

[Archlute]

Absolutely, there are sound exegetical reasons for the Framework Hypothesis.

There may be an exegetical approach used, but "sound exegetical reasons" stretches it a bit far for me.

I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."

 

[AV1611]

I have always enjoyed a little statement that Hywel Jones made during one of our preaching courses. He said something to the effect of, "Gentlemen, it is imperative that you understand the genre of a passage upon which are going to preach. The opening lines of Genesis are presented to us as history, not as poetry, and when you attempt to exegete a historical narrative according to principles of Hebraic poetry then you will wreak all kinds of havoc upon your conclusions."

Indeed but, last time I checked, the Framework Hypothesis does not teach that the genre of Gen 1:1-2:3 is poetry.

 

[DMcFadden]

Care must be taken. Sproul articulates in a lecture that we must show respect for those who reach different conclusions based on a faithful application of hermeneutics and their conclusions about the genre. I was in the Ross camp for years, believing it to be harmonious with a right reading of Genesis. We ought to be reticent to judge motives.

But, as one who moved to the 24 hr. position, I now believe that it is amazing that I ever actually accepted an harmonizing exegesis. A few articles by Answers in Genesis, arguments by Mohler, Sproul (yes, his shift is several years old), and my own exegetical re-emination led me to wonder at my former view.

Yes, I claim that many of us (I certainly did), wanted a way to avoid the shame of an unpopular view. The traditional view is a better fit (in my opinion) with a Christian worldview and can be reconciled with the facts of science. AiG has done the Christian world a great service by their fine written materials and audio visuals. Looking back on it, I would say that embarrassment over holding a view so ridiculed by the secular world contributed to many people I know holding to a harmonizing (I would now say "compromising") exegesis. Still, we ought not to assume that others came to their positions for the same unworthy reasons that we may have done the same.

 

[Grace Alone]

I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing.

It is always puzzling to me how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.

 

[AV1611]

I read elsewhere online that there is some sort of controversy going on at Westminster seminary with a Dr. Enns coming out and saying something to the effect that Gen. 1 resembles Ancient Near East creation myths, and he apparently believes the Genesis creation account is this type of writing.

It is always puzzling to be how within conservative, reformed scholarship there can be so many differences in interpretation.

If someone was to deny that Genesis 1:1-2:3 resembles Ancient Near East creation "myths" then they are either ignorant or burying their head in the sand and being intellectually dishonest. For example, try “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”. Also try Gordon Wenham's Commentary on Genesis.

The question is now what do we do with Genesis 1:1-2:3 now we know this.

For what it's worth, I think that Enn's solution is wrong. There is just as strong a case, if not a stronger one, to argue that the ANE myths stems from a perversion of the Israelite 'myth' rather than the Israelites borrowing from the ANE myths.