Ok. Here's the question about creation. I mentioned this on the other thread about seminary.<br><br>At CTS they teach basically that the original text does not give enough evidence that creation took place in 6 days. <br><br>Give me some feedback, please!
My observation has been that Covenant folks in general tend to be divided over this because a 24 hour, six day creation week reading of Genesis is something that is attributed to dispensational hermeneutics. Because dispensationalists have a "literalistic" approach to understanding scripture, some Covenant folks reject a literalist reading of the creation narrative. To read it as true, literal historical narrative would be giving credit to dispensationalism. The popular trend now a days is to read Genesis with a Klinian framework interpretation, in which Genesis one is not making any reference to time whatsoever, but only describing a two registered cosmology that envisons the heavens, or the upper register, and the earth, the lower register, where the lower register relates to the upper level as replica to archetype (if that makes sense). With such a reading, it allows for the accomodation of the evolutionary long years of time and such points of view that comes from Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe" camp.<br><br>On the other hand, there are other Reformed folks, say for instance the faculty at Southern Presbyterian where Joseph Pipa is president, that recognizes that Genesis is historical narrative, and to read it as not being literal history of man's, and the world's origins, is to adulterate the Hebrew language and the intention of the author. Thus, they have no problem with the literalism, as long as it is applied to the right genre of scripture. To read some biblical texts as literal does not equate to endorsing all the flawed hermeneutics that makes up dispensationalism as a system.<br><br>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
Well I must be a complete Biblical moran! I have read such books as "mortification of sin", "the death of death in the death of christ" " the christian in complete armour" "Alarm to the unconverted" "charity and it's fruits"<br>"a divine cordial" "the works of John Bunyan" etc,etc. etc and I don't remember ever seeing Genesis from a dispensationalist view! Wow, I must be too old to figure all this out!!
I wouldn't go as far as calling yourself a moron, but of the numerous discussions I have had with Reformed, Covenantal folks over the years; what I have found is that their dislike of anything that remotely smacks of dispensationalistic hermeneutics has brought them to re-interpreting the creation narrative of Genesis. In fact, I had a Reformed pastor admit to me that this was the reason he embraced a framework theory of Genesis and now entertains the apologetics of progressive creationist Hugh Ross. To be a literal creationist is to be in league with those barefoot, hillbilly fundamentalist preacher types. And we all know they take a literal approach to the whole Bible. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
"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
Well I am in Tennessee, and have raised 6 children so being a barefoot, hillbilly doesn't bother me. <br><br>I am assuming you are speaking tongue in cheek when you say those hillbillies that take the Bible literally?<br><br>I am not a dispensationalist at all, and yet do not find that embracing the literal creationist doctrine clash!<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am assuming you are speaking tongue in cheek when you say those hillbillies that take the Bible literally?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, very much so. Hence the reason I posted a figure laughing on the floor.<br><br>Fred<br>
"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
I do NOT intend this to be offensive or a personal attack, but it would seem to think far too highly of Dispensationalism or far too little of Covenant Theology to make such a statement as you did in your first reply. It may be true, as the one instance you cited, where there are those of the Covenant camp who will believe something just because it is also believed by some Dispensationalist or because it is somehow seen as being related to Dispensationalism. I would rather think that a rejection of the 24/6 day creation model is due to a negative influence of post-modern thought, academic pressure, or some other reason. One doesn't have to be a Dispensationalist to see that the Genesis account is a valid historical narrative. I'm no Dispensationalist by any stretch of the imagination, but personally I cannot conceive of how anyone can read the Genesis account in any other way. All this foolishness about the various meanings of "yom", etc., are just that..... foolishness that is the product of a pre-disposition/supposition that already has dismissed the possibility of the Genesis account being historical narrative and one that seeks to justify one of these other non-biblical suppositions.
The suppositions of modern science are probably the #1 factor, IMHO, that have influenced some to cast off accepting the 24/6 day creation, out of fear of looking foolish before the world. Thus they grasp at these other views to try and find some semblance of continuity between the Bible and science. After all, one would not want to be found in the same camp as the RCC where they taught that the earth was flat, based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Bible, eh? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]
The bottom line for me is that with everything else considered, when I read the Genesis account, it SCREAMS 24/6 day creation; the Spirit of the text is clearly that of a literal historical narrative and all these other views are poor attempts to circumvent the obvious. I doubt seriously that anyone in Moses' day could have understood anything other than the earth and all that exists upon it was created by God in 24/6. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Pilgrim,<br><br>I would agree with your overall assessment: Most people probably reject a 24/6 interpretation of Genesis due to the main view of the world. However, as I have observed, more and more of the discussions I have with Covenant folks reveals a leaning away from a literal historical understanding of Genesis because it is too akin to dispensational thought. In fact, Young Earth Creationism had its beginnings with dispensationalists. <br><br>Though what the "scientific" world teaches in regards to origins was problematic for them to reconcile with the Bible, now that there are hermeneutical alternatives that help to bridge the supposed teachings of the scientific community with the truth of God's word, a literalistic approach is now accused as being the problem for a lack of seeing eye to eye, and I would add, a hinderance to the gospel. They will even go as far as to claim the literal understanding of Genesis is recent and has never been a part of the Christian faith until the 1800's. <br><br>Michael Spence of the Internet Monk fame is another prime example of this line of thought. His reason for being an anti-literal creationists is rather telling.<br><br>http://www.internetmonk.com/creation.html<br><br>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
Linda,<br><br>For centuries, the six days of Creation in Genesis were understood by nearly all Church Fathers and Biblical Hebrew scholars to be ordinary 24-hour days. However, due to the widespread acceptance of evolution over the last 130 years (even in the church), attempts have been made to interpret the days of Creation in a way consistent with the evolutionary time scale. Even many who accept fiat creation (Creation out of nothing through the power of God's Word) feel compelled to somehow incorporate the evolutionary time scale, if not the evolutionary process itself, into the Genesis account of Creation. Thus, some creationists have attempted to stretch the seven "days" of the Creation week into several billion years! <br><br>I think the text is clear enough and doesn't need to comply with any theories scientists come up with. Let creation conform to the Word. After all God spoke and it was so.<br><br>John Calvin says: Genesis means what it says. Today the church needs a new Reformation to return to the authority of the Bible, the written Word of God, rather than trusting the fallible conjectures of unbelieving scientists.<br><br><br>Wes<br><br><br>
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
In reply to:[color:"blue"]To be a literal creationist is to be in league with those barefoot, hillbilly fundamentalist preacher types. And we all know they take a literal approach to the whole Bible.
I believe sir that is a woodenly literal approach. Let's not forget those adverbs. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Wes<br>I couldn't agree with you more. As I said on one of these psots, when I aske my pastor about Covenant Seminary he said Bryan Chapell believes that because the original texts cannot be interpreted conclusively that it was actually 24 hours, that he believes the men at the seminary have the right to take either interpretation.<br><br>My first thought when I heard that some don't believe in a 24 hour day in regards to creation, I said to my pastor that it sounded very much like that thinking just gives more credence to evolution.<br><br>Thanks for your thoughts, and I have read what Calvin and Luther said about this.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
