Though not a Presbyterian, I am saddened by the fact that there has been so much doctrinal entropy and decline in the PCA and OPC, especially considering their noble and promising beginnings. I am reminded of Paul's chilling warning to the Corinthians: "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12).

While I found most everything on the site commendable, I do wonder if this is the right place to draw the line in the sand:

Quote
We are committed to the doctrine of creation of the heavens and earth in six literal, 24-hour days. Scripture is its own interpreter, and its words have meaning in context. The meaning of the word translated "day" in the Genesis creation record is clear from the context and from its usage elsewhere in Scripture. But the Orthodox Presbyterian church, for example, has adopted what it calls a "hermeneutic of trust" where it is permissible to say that the "day" of Genesis chapter one is anything from a literal day to billions of years — as long as a minister says that he subscribes to the doctrine of "creation in the space of six days" contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith."

Regardless of where one stands on the nature of the days of Creation in Genesis or the age of the universe (and I have no interest in debating that topic here at this time), is it a good idea to draw the circumference of orthodoxy so tightly around the center that there would not be room within it for men like James Montgomery Boice, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Meredith Kline, J. I. Packer, Vern Poythress, and Francis Schaeffer? Are all these men really just modernist "compromisers" as Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and others would allege? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />




[Linked Image]