The OPC report on Creation

Discussion in 'Natural Revelation and God's Creation' started by Puritan Sailor, Dec 31, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

  2. street preacher

    street preacher Puritan Board Freshman

    I have printed it out and am now reading it. Thanks.
     
  3. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    Oh yeah. Just so everyone is not surprised, it's a large document.
     
  4. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    894 KB to be precise
     
  5. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

    I don't have time to read the whole thing, but can anyone summarize the highlights? Any concerns? Any strong points?
     
  6. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    It's basically a review and critique of all the non-evolutionist views of creation spreading in reformed circles, with some consideration as to how they can fit in the WCF. They don't pick any favorites, at least not deliberately.
     
  7. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Any idea how it compares to the PCA report of 2002 (I think) ?
     
  8. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    I haven't read through the entire report yet, and I didn't know about the PCA report. What conclusions did the PCA come to?
     
  9. InSixDays

    InSixDays Inactive User

    The PCA accepted four views of creation, the historical, framework, analogical, and day-age views.

    http://www.pcanet.org/admin/2001generalassembly/overtures1.htm#OVERTURE 7 See Overture 7.

    The historical view, however, had so much support that when the topic comes up again, it will likely be adopted as the biblical view. I'd give you a link to an analysis of it, but unfortunately, the link appears to be broken.
     
  10. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    As the Co-Author of the minority report that failed in 2002, don't bet on it.
     
  11. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    Is there a move then to edit the WCF on that one point then to tolerate other views in the PCA? I know in the OPC instead ammending the WCF they are instead trying to see what views "fit with the wording" which to me is completely dishonest.
     
  12. InSixDays

    InSixDays Inactive User

    Actually, as far as I was aware (unfortunately my info is at the broken link) every time the issue has come up the historical view has gained more support. My point was that if the trend continues, eventually it will be adopted.

    I'm not aware of any attempts to edit the WCF. I think they're trying to see what "fits with the wording." Though I fail to see how anything else can fit with "in the space of six days." You'd have to do some intense interpretive dance and gymnastics to come to any conclusion other than "in the space of six days." :p At least they didn't adopt theistic evolution as one of the choices.

    [Edited on 1-6-2005 by InSixDays]
     
  13. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Here's the right link:
    http://www.pcanet.org/admin/2001generalassembly/overtures1.htm#OVERTURE 7

    It is true that the Literal Day view has significant support among Ruling Elders at the GA level, but not the Teaching Elders.

    And I assure you, this is going nowhere in the PCA. The overture you refer to was defeated both in Bills and Overtures Committee (I was there) and when Mark Buckner (RE at Covenant PCA in TN) drafted a minority report, we were pretty soundly defeated by about 60/40. The next year, the Creation overture was defeated in about 5 minutes 70/30. No one wants to debate this anymore. It is going nowhere.

    I'm sorry to say that, but that is how it is.
     
  14. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    Back to the original question, "Did God really say.....?"


    :candle:
     
  15. JWJ

    JWJ Puritan Board Freshman

    This Definitely is the point!

    Look at what the report says:

    226What does subscription not require? Officers are not required to subscribe to the very words of our 227
    standards, but rather must be in essential agreement with each doctrine. This is important to remember 228
    especially when considering the words, "œin the space of six days." The meaning of these words is not 229
    exhausted merely by observing that "œsix days are six days," because this is begging the question. 230
    Instead, we believe that the doctrine of six-day creation can be preserved through different permissible 231
    understandings of the word, "œday."

    Do I understand this correctly? Is not the word and intent of lines 228 and 229 itself begging the question, not to mention very dangerous! What about the words "œpermissible understandings" found in 230 & 231. Does not this kind of subjective ambiguity, openness, and tolerance for accepting a wide range of different exegesis, hermeneutics, and epistemologies (for both Scripture and sub-standards) leave the door open for other doctrines?

    Granted the doctrine of creation, especially on this particular point of contention, may not be critical for a person´s salvation (though depending on what view one adopts certainly can lead to an inconsistency and short coming in one's overall theology). The bone of contention I have is the inconsistency and intentional vagueness of the OPC handling the sub- standards (WCF) and the standard (Scripture).

    In ten years will an OPC report say..."Instead, we believe that the doctrine of justification can be preserved through different permissible understandings of the word, 'justification'."?

    Jim
     
  16. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    We are heading that way brother. That's what the justification overtures last year were all about. Hopefully the commitee will get a spine and take a solid stand.
     
  17. Irishcat922

    Irishcat922 Puritan Board Sophomore

    :candle:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page