Donations for the month of April


We have received a total of $70 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Posts: 33
Forum Stats
768 Members
30 Forums
5797 Topics
46883 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13235
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3838
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2419
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2287
John_C 1864
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
Pilgrim 19
Robin 8
chestnutmare 8
Josh Shelton 7
Wayne@purpose 5
goldenoldie 4
TheExegete 2
Tom 2
Recent Posts
The Deep, Deep Love of Jesus
by Pilgrim
Thursday, April 3, 2014 4:57 PM
"The Hand of God" by Francis Schaeffer
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:16 AM
Covenant Theology
by Robin
Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:26 PM
1 Tim.2 & Women
by Tom
Friday, March 28, 2014 11:42 AM
I saw One hanging on a tree!
by chestnutmare
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:25 AM
Justification by Faith....."Alone?"
by goldenoldie
Monday, March 24, 2014 9:37 PM
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#22252 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:24 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! *****
fredman Offline
Addict

Registered: Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Posts: 593
Loc: Canyon Country, CA
Just to clarify, they also taught baptismal regeneration along with their views of OIKOS baptism. Their convictions were born more along by sacarmentalism than textual study.
but, that is for another thread.

Fred
_________________________
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns

Top
#22253 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:48 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: fredman]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Here are some articles that you may enjoy on creation. Some do refute the framework theory very well, while yet others deal with varying aspects of creation. Enjoy.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#22254 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:33 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Just to clarify myself, my question wasn't making so much of a point for historical continuity (i.e. the framwork hypthesis is wrong because it goes against what was previously taught, period) as it was for the point of allowing extra-biblical voices to influence our exegesis.

If we've been wrong all these centuries, then prove it from scripture, and prove we could have "been right" all these centuries had we been faithful to Scripture. But that's not what's happening with these revisionistic interpretations of Genesis: these are letting worldly "science" dictate how we interpret Scripture, which is an abandonment of Sola Scriptura.


Edited by Henry (Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:35 PM)
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#22255 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 5:58 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
rmwilliamsjr Offline
Newbie

Registered: Thursday, November 14, 2002
Posts: 33
Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Here are some articles that you may enjoy on creation. Some do refute the framework theory very well, while yet others deal with varying aspects of creation. Enjoy.


all the capo papers are off line and have been for several months. does anyone know if they are posted elsewhere? google leads to capo only.
for instance:
http://capo.org/holdfast0.html
http://capo.org/newdivines.html
http://capo.org/creationRevise.html

even much the google cache for capo is not listed
cache for only a few pages available.

....

Top
#22256 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:11 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Henry said:
Hi Brian,

Welcome. I do have one initial question: in your opinion, is the framework hypothesis something that arises naturally out of the text of Genesis in such a way that skilled exegetes of the past centuries recognised it? Or is it something that we only recognised once science told us the earth was older then we thought?


Hi Henry,

Well, first I would take issue with the way you attempt to frame the question. It is entirely possible that a correct interpretation can be arrived at naturally out of the text, and for it not to have been seen before by skilled exegetes. As I say in the paper:

"Although an interpretation that has the majority report in church history must be taken seriously, it is simply inappropriate to let history dictate our conclusions. As our knowledge of societies and cultures much different than our own increases we must be prepared to revise our views in light of new context. Semper reformanda (always reforming) must be our motto in both word and practice as we investigate what Scripture has to say."

The discovering of the supporting arguments for the Framework Interpretation might be the product of us having to go back and revisit something we thought we knew, once we discovered that God created things longer ago than we thought. Study of nature can lead us to re-examine things. Actually, a really good question is whether or not this pattern was seen in the text long ago:

Day 1 Light----------Day 4 Luminaries
Day 2 Sky / Seas-----Day 5 Sea / winged creatues
Day 4 Land----------Day 6 Land animals
------Vegetation----------Man

[arg, having difficulty with the formatting..oh well]

I don't think there's much dispute that this parallel framework is found in the text. Did past exegetes see it? I'm not really sure. I've been more concerned with evaluating the present arguments for each side rather than the history of interpretaiton, which is certainly an interesting issue.

Hopefully that communicates my thoughts well enough. Thanks for the question.

Brian

Top
#22257 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:12 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Here are some articles that you may enjoy on creation. Some do refute the framework theory very well, while yet others deal with varying aspects of creation. Enjoy.


J_edwards, I'd be interested to hear what you think in those articles actually refutes the FI. If you look at the bibliography in my paper, you'll see that I took account of several anti-FI works and dealt with the objections found in them. Are there any particular points you think have not been adequately addressed or were you only offering a pointer to additional resources (which is perfectly fine of course)?

Brian

Top
#22258 - Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:00 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
BrianB said:
"Although an interpretation that has the majority report in church history must be taken seriously, it is simply inappropriate to let history dictate our conclusions. As our knowledge of societies and cultures much different than our own increases we must be prepared to revise our views in light of new context. Semper reformanda (always reforming) must be our motto in both word and practice as we investigate what Scripture has to say."

The discovering of the supporting arguments for the Framework Interpretation might be the product of us having to go back and revisit something we thought we knew, once we discovered that God created things longer ago than we thought. Study of nature can lead us to re-examine things.

What you seem to want to gloss over is exactly that which many of us who hold to the "historical" view (6 24-hour day creation) deem to be the fundamental issue. How others have understood the text throughout history, especially biblical history cannot and should not be relegated to an inferior source when trying to come to the truth of creation. Perhaps you have dealt with this issue in your paper(s)? I haven't read them, so I would like to give you the opportunity to address this issue.

It seems to me when I read God's infallible Word, that throughout its history, not one individual, including and particularly the Lord Christ believed anything but that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days. So, it isn't just what previous theologians in more recent history have concluded from the text, but what has been held as true from the very beginning. I will assume that it isn't necessary for me to provide the long list of texts to prove my point. grin But one cogent example would be the worship of God on the Sabbath day, i.e., one day in seven which even Adam and Eve practiced as did all who followed after them. The requirement was again reestablished by God when He gave Moses the Decalog on Sinai and which can only be logically understood if one assumes a literal 24-hour day, which the Commandment itself asserts as fact.

To posit that we must "reform" our doctrine of Scripture due to the ever changing scientific "evidence", new knowledge of cultures and societies, etc., would in essence deny that God has communicated in propositional truth with the expressed purpose of enlightening the minds of men of ALL ages. I can't help but think of how we are told one day by the "ever-reforming" medical community, that eating chocolate is injurious to our health. But not long thereafter, another "more reliable study" comes out which says that eating chocolate is beneficial to one's health. Thankfully, God, being all-wise, isn't bound by the winds of change. Nor is He subject to "Sempera Reformanda" as He gains knowledge of scientific studies, knowledge of cultures and societies, etc. But God revealed Himself in a perfect manner so that the fundamentals of truth, one of which is how He created all things, is and can be known by men; from the first to the last, and yes, even by children.

Lastly, although you will surely consider this next reason less than substantial, it nonetheless is a valid one. Can it possibly be true that for nearly 6000+ years, every man, woman and child who has ever lived has been wrong in their belief that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days? And if they were wrong about that basic doctrine, how many other things has man been wrong about concerning God, Christ, salvation, etc.??

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#22259 - Friday, February 25, 2005 1:25 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, April 8, 2001
Posts: 3838
Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Brian

First of all, welcome to the Highway.

My question to you, do you get your framework view from the Scripture's themselves, or did you get it from outside sources (i.e. science) being brought into interpret Scripture?
The reason why I ask this is because (among other things) if it is the later, it would have been impossible to come to that conclusion until fairly recently in history.

Also, if I am wrong on that last part, can you give examples of the framework model throughout history?

Tom

Top
#22260 - Friday, February 25, 2005 6:51 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: fredman]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Yup, sounds like exactly the same argument. For (enter number here) the church was wrong in both belief and practice due to (place reason here). I bet we get that exact argument from the framework folks.


God bless,

william

Top
#22261 - Friday, February 25, 2005 8:08 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Brian, Welcome to the forum hello

First let me say that I believe in the historic view of creation (6/24). While I do find the Framework Interpretation (FI) interesting it has only made the historic view (which is not without its difficulties) more concrete in my heart. Thus, for this reason I enjoy (when I have time) discussing it.

Second, I have had two professors in the past attempt to teach me this view (Dr Futato and Dr. Waltke) who are both highly respected in their fields of OT and the study of Hebrew and other languages, et. AL. While I appreciated other things both of these professors taught, I did not find their arguments for these views convincing. Pipa’s (From Chaos to Cosmos) does a good job IMO of critiquing Futato (Kline).

Third, the FI denies historic Christianity, which is no small matter. TMK “no” theologian of antiquity has ever embraced FI (please correct me if I am wrong here and site the source and quote(s)…). If the FI is correct why do we not even find a hint of it in the OT/NT? What we actually find in the text are pointers toward 6/24.

Fourth, to accept the FI worldview means one is accepting a scientific worldview first and foremost as truth. I know of “no” one who holds to the FI that maintains a young earth view (maybe I have not read enough). As matter a fact one of the claimed strengths of the FI is that it removes the possibility of conflict between the theories of modern scientists (old earth) and the Bible (young earth). While I am sure that is not the intent of these theologians, IMO it elevates science to the same level of truth as Scripture. Sola Scientifica or Sola Scriptura—I guess we will have to remove the sola?

Fifth, I have problems with the FI seeing Gen 1 as a mere poem versus a historical account of creation. Although Genesis one may include poetic elements, it is not Hebrew poetry. The parallel construction that is the main characteristic of Hebrew poetry is missing. The OT does contain poetry about creation (Job 38:4-15; Ps 104; Is 40:21-31), and its literary form is quite distinct from that in Gen 1. Gen 1 is an historical narrative. [Young]

Lastly, embracers of FI maintain that their view does away with the alleged conflict in interpreting Gen 1 & 2 (compare, Genesis 2:4-6; Genesis 2:19-20). Gunn points out, that it is argued that God created the whole vegetable and animal kingdoms before the creation of Adam according to Genesis one and after the creation of Adam according to Genesis two. However, I see Gen 1:1-2:3 as a general account of the creation of the universe and Gen 2:4f as a detailed account of the creation of man, woman and the garden, and the historical developments which immediately followed.

This relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 is implied by the word translated history or generations (toledoth) in Genesis 2:4a. This word "never tells how things or persons came into being. It tells what happened after such things or persons had appeared on the scene,” (H.C. Leupold, A Exposition of Genesis). In Genesis 2:4a, the statement "These are the toledoth of the heavens and the earth" means "not the coming of heaven and earth into existence, but the events that followed the establishment of heaven and earth (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Waltke a holder of FI, himself an editor?). Just as the tholedoth of Noah, for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the earth after their creation (C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament). [Gunn]

Have fun, I need to go take care of some personal business for a few days.

Top
#22262 - Friday, February 25, 2005 8:09 AM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Monday, October 27, 2003
Posts: 377
Loc: The Great White North, Eh!
Hey, I thought we were going to leave that for another thread!
_________________________
(Latin phrase goes here.)

Top
#22263 - Friday, February 25, 2005 1:59 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Henry]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Henry said:
But that's not what's happening with these revisionistic interpretations of Genesis: these are letting worldly "science" dictate how we interpret Scripture, which is an abandonment of Sola Scriptura.


Well, it looks like you've already determined that the Framework Interpretation cannot be the best interpretation. Since it disagrees with the YEC interpretation it therefore MUST be the result of having science dictate how we interpret the text. No offense intended, but I've had my fill of this kind of closedminded thinking in other conversations.

To simply declare the FI out of bounds because it doesn't match what you already believe is the essense of closedmindeness. Besides that, you're understanding of sola Scriptura is highly flawed. Nothing in sola Scriptura says we cannot make use of extra-biblical information to help us understand how to interpret the text.

Brian

Top
#22264 - Friday, February 25, 2005 2:12 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Pilgrim said:
What you seem to want to gloss over is exactly that which many of us who hold to the "historical" view (6 24-hour day creation) deem to be the fundamental issue. How others have understood the text throughout history, especially biblical history cannot and should not be relegated to an inferior source when trying to come to the truth of creation. Perhaps you have dealt with this issue in your paper(s)? I haven't read them, so I would like to give you the opportunity to address this issue.

My paper dealt with what is the best interpretation of the text, not how it has been interpreted historically. The paper is a theory-evaluation work, not a historical work. That said, I do not call the history of interpretation of the passage an 'inferior source' as far as I know. It is important to take account of, but again, it cannot dictate our conclusions.

Quote:

It seems to me when I read God's infallible Word, that throughout its history, not one individual, including and particularly the Lord Christ believed anything but that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days. So, it isn't just what previous theologians in more recent history have concluded from the text, but what has been held as true from the very beginning. I will assume that it isn't necessary for me to provide the long list of texts to prove my point.


I don't see anywhere in the Bible that indicates anyone believed the creation was in 6 24-hour days. If you'd like to offer texts that you think require the 24-hour interpretation, feel free to do so.

Quote:

But one cogent example would be the worship of God on the Sabbath day, i.e., one day in seven which even Adam and Eve practiced as did all whom followed after them. The requirement was again reestablished by God when He gave Moses the Decalog on Sinai and which can only be logically understood if one assumes a literal 24-hour day, which the Commandment itself asserts as fact.


I don't see why that is the case. What is your evidence for this claim?



Quote:

Lastly, although you will surely consider this next reason less than substantial, it nonetheless is a valid one. Can it possibly be true that for nearly 6000+ years, every man, woman and child who has ever lived has been wrong in their belief that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days?


That's quite a claim you make there. Perhaps you could begin by showing without doubt that Augustine believed that God created the earth in 6 24-hour days.

Brian

Top
#22265 - Friday, February 25, 2005 2:27 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: Tom]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Tom said:
Brian

First of all, welcome to the Highway.


Hi Tom, and thanks for the welcome. It's good to be here, though I'm leaving in just a little while for a small-group retreat and will be out of touch for a few days.

Quote:

My question to you, do you get your framework view from the Scripture's themselves, or did you get it from outside sources (i.e. science) being brought into interpret Scripture?


From the text, not from outside sources. As I show in my papers, there are excellent exegetical reasons for considering the Framework view to be superior to both the 24-hour and Day-Age views.

Quote:

The reason why I ask this is because (among other things) if it is the later, it would have been impossible to come to that conclusion until fairly recently in history.


I agree with you here. I would also point out that just because we in the church don't have records of seeing something until now doesn't mean it was therefore impossible to come by. I'm unaware of anyone in ancient times seeing the parallel structure of:

Day 1 / 4
Day 2 / 5
Day 3 / 6

But does anyone here want to argue that the parallels between the days are non-existant and forced on the text?

Quote:

Also, if I am wrong on that last part, can you give examples of the framework model throughout history?


As far as I know we have no documentation that contains the FI that would qualify as 'old'.

Hope this helps,
Brian

Top
#22266 - Friday, February 25, 2005 3:23 PM Re: Creation . . . . . and a related question! [Re: J_Edwards]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
J_Edwards said:
Brian, Welcome to the forum hello


Hiya J_Edwards,
Thanks for the welcome, I'm grateful for the invitation and am glad to join you guys. You raise some interesting points, but I'm heading out for the weekend as well, so we'll have to pick this up when we're back. One thing I'd like to know, which arguments from Pipa did you find most persuasive? I certainly remember reading his paper and interacting with what I thought were substantive objections, but I'd be interested to hear which you personally find the most persuasive.

Regards and I'll be back in a couple of days,
Brian

Top
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 0 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
dale, celine7, Hawkins, Tina, elhmiller
768 Registered Users
Shout Box

April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Revelation 22:19 Contradicts Calvinist Doctrine 375350
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 296917
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 263590
Westminster Larger Catechism 238128
The importance of going to church 222760
Roman Catholicism and salvation 179150
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 166154
Double predestination 165195
Gospel truth 141533
Creation 127708