Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions is a good book, but I do have to take issue with something he said in his second chapter: the chapter about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Basically, Clark’s argument is that where the Confessions are silent it is a point of liberty and those who wish to add (specifically in this case) 6/24 creation as a test of religious orthodoxy are illegitimate. The chapter briefly covers to other things that are extra confessional or anti-confessional: Theonomy and basically the Federal Vision/Shepherdism. The largest section is directed at 6/24 hour day creation proponents. It seems clear to me that the RCUS in particular is in view and indeed we are specifically cited as the only NAPARC denomination to not grant liberty on this point and we appear in a footnote. I will be addressing why Clark is wrong on this point.

Full disclosure moment. Dr. Clark was formerly in the RCUS and left on mostly amicable terms. Dr. Clark now teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary California which is no longer supported by the RCUS mostly for their non-6/24 hour stance on creation.

Points of disagreement

1. Clark starts by stating that proponents of the 6/24 hour day view of creation have always been unable to show a theological reason for holding to this view. He also claims that this stance has "little to do with the Reformed Confessions" (pg. 48). I could not disagree more. This has a lot to do with the Reformed Confessions and theological reasons abound. Creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th day is the foundation of the 4th Commandment. The 4th Commandment is covered in Confessions. What on earth does the Heidelberg mean in Question 92 when it is reciting the law including the basis that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." Surely then the meaning of the word "day" has confessional implications, and is not restricted to Genesis 1 as an extra-confessional debate. What about Question 103 where the catechism states in its explication of the 4th commandment "especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church . . ." Again the troubling word "day" appears. The Westminister also states "within the space of six days". Surely then it is considered a confessional matter. Yet, Clark waves this off as a simple rejection of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, not a pronouncement upon the days. Yet there is more confessional situations at stake here. The articles of the nature of Scripture are at stake. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession requires us to "reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule [Scripture]". Is that arguably what is going on with the statement about creation? Article 7 also speaks of not respecting the writings of men above Scripture no matter how holy they are, which presumably ought to include the writing of scientists as well as theologians. And it states we ought to believe all that it is in the Scripture. What about the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 that states Scripture is clear and even the unlearned can understand it. Is that true of the GapTheory or Framework? Or is the clear teaching of Scripture 6/24 hour days. And what of WCF 1.9 that says Scripture ought to interpret Scripture and the meaning is one. Can the meaning be one but the message from the ministers be four fold as the PCA would have it on creation? Or WCF 1.10 that says Scripture is the supreme judge of all things. Does that not put it over science? Should I not believe the words of God even if science is against me?
2. Clark dismisses the argument of David Hall and others that point to WCF 4.1 and the "in the space of six days" statement as addressing a different question. That was to keep out Instantaneous Creation and thus has no bearing upon Day-Age or Framework theories of the day. Yet, does not this argument work against Clark as well? The divines simply did not say "God did not create instantly." Rather they stated it was six days. A confessional marker. Also, if what question they were answering is important then is the Confession not applicable to any questions that come after them? Evolution is a challenge to the gospel that is well after the confessions. Does it mean we are all at liberty? Or does it meant that it was not specifically rejected in the Confessions because those views are not yet invented? It seems to me this argument could cut either way, Clark just makes it cut his way and ignores the rest.
3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past. He is clearly attempting to draw a parallel between the two. Clark wants to argue that using Scriptrue as a text book for science is bad theology and science. First, no one is saying Scripture is a science book. Second, all people are saying is that where the Bible does speak it must be obeyed. Comparing Genesis 1’s repetition of a 6/24 hour formula for creation to the geocentric world debates is a long stretch. It is more an attempt to smear than a real argument.
4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement (pg.50). If the requirement for things to be considered confessional is that they are exegetically based then we ought to apologize for the Canons of Dort as the Arminians were exegetical. They were just really really bad exegetes of Scripture. And thus they were condemned. Framework and Day Age and Gap Theory are also really really bad exegetical examples. And they are also clearly examples of letting science control the exegesis, which does run into some confessional problems as noted above in point 1.
5. Clark states this is not a debate between "two religions . . . not even between two different hermeneutical principles, but rather a debate over the application of those principles and specific exegetical applications" (pg.61). Clark here makes a good point that it is not two different religions. But does the RCUS say that if you believe in Theistic Evolution or Old Earth that you are not Reformed? No. Is this chapter supposed to be about who is Reformed and who is not? No. The chapter was about Illegitimate Religious Certainity. The question then is can we be certain about 6/24 hour day creation. And to that the RCUS has answered yes. Clark has changed the question a little to make the RCUS seem to be saying something we are not. We are not disagreeing with the theology, piety, and practice of prior men in history who may have held to an Old Earth. We are simply saying that one can understand God’s word and what it teaches in Genesis 1. Science does not have the ability to change the words. I do want to point out that I disagree with Clark that it is not about differing hermenuetical principles. How one can use a Grammatical-Historical approach and come away with anything other than 6/24 hour days is beyond me. I do believe then it is about different hermeutical approaches.

Now I believe what is really motivating Dr. Clark here to try and smack down the RCUS and any other Creationists who stand with us is about protecting men like B.B. Warfield, Machen, and A.A. Hodge as Reformed and true. They would fail this test about 6/24 hour day creation. And fairly clearly Clark thinks any marker that allows in Seventh Day Adventists and keeps out Warfield is Illegitimate (pg.49). Of course no one is trying to let Adventists in as if the Confessions do not exist. It is for Warfield and Princeton that Clark strives. That is why Clark devotes 14 pages to the extra-confessional liberty he believes ought to exist and only 4 to the anti-confessional position of Theonomy and 4 to the Covenant Moralism which he also thinks contradicts the Confessions. I will address this issue in a separate post.

Creation Museum

I was able to attend and go through the Creation Museum in Kentucky near the Ohio border on this vacation. I was both extremely pleased and very disappointed. Let me explain.
I was not expecting the amazing quality of everything done in the Creation Museum. They make wonderful use of multimedia and it really is a museum for the 21st century. They have an expansive location, a planetarium, a movie room, and several nice places to eat. Even walking through the museum you see many flatscreen TVs and then every now and then you get a well done four minute video in a video hall to break up the walking. It is very nice. As far as production quality it is second to none. No one can really complain about the money put into the museum or think that this is some sort of second class rip off of a real museum. I mean in the movie theater the chair’s squirted water at me! Come on, that is high tech at least.
However, I was disappointed in the experience overall. I did not think that the Creation Museum knew the audience it wished to attract. The movie I watched in the movie room (Men in White I believe it was called) was geared toward middle school kids who attend public school. It was primarily meant to help them refute evolution and find meaning in the universe. It was chock full of facts, but since it is a movie it was hardly documented. The evangelistic appeal was minimal, and the science fit into an entertaining film for the age group. Next, I went to the planetarium. Here was a high quality display of astronomy. I learned a lot and it was heavy on the science. In fact, I would go as far to say that this was geared mainly for adults. My kids liked the stars, but the science was way over their heads. It was designed to impress upon you the grandeur of the universe and it does well. Then after lunch, I went through the museum part itself. Now they do not have as many exhibits of actual artifacts as a normal museum because it is new and that is expensive. They have few dinosaur bones and eggs, but most of the museum is multimedia and robotic displays. That is good. However, the “museum” is actually a walk through biblical history and the culture designed to get you to sign a sinner’s prayer card at the end of the tour. It contains a movie that depicts Christ visibly for those of you concerned about the second commandment. A few of the rooms were nice and contained displays about actual ‘creation science’ but most of it is walking through a modern day slum so we can see the result of our sin or walking through a room where robotic Noah talks to his sons who build the ark as robotic sinners mock him. Sure that room has one or two nice things to read about the ark, but really, it is pointless. The design of the actual ‘museum’ is purely an attempt to get you to convert to Christianity.
Thus, the three major parts of the museum do not fit together. The actual museum is so ‘repent and believe’ oriented that the people who are looking for actual science that is found in the planetarium will be disappointed and it is religious enough to guarantee that no public schools will be taking field trips to this museum making the movie room pointless.
It also left out a lot of things that I think it should have focused on. There is a second movie room about Dragons and dragon lore around the world as a proof of dinosaurs alive after the flood. This 10 minute movie deserved more time and a room in the museum proper.
One more good thing to say is that the gift shop is good. It contains not only many books about science from a creationist perspective, but it contains other good books as well. I did see at least a few apologetic books, mostly Josh McDowell kind of stuff, but Greg Bashen’s presuppositional book is in there. They have a lot of stuff by and about Bishop Ussher including a biography that went well beyond his creation work.
All in all, I was disappointed by the museum. I felt it could have set itself up as a real alternative kind of museum, but instead it comes off as a ‘repent and believe’ is the only ‘science’ Christians have. A tad upsetting.

Evolutionists at War

Just in case you do not think that Evolutionists are in an all out war to keep their position of power in the scientific community take a look at the well calculated propaganda on Wikipedia. The Evolution page is nice and free from criticism for the most part. It has a few links to its debates with Creationism and other detractors, but no real disagreement on the page. Now take a look at the Intelligent Design Page. Every thing they believe is accompanied by longer refutations. Much of it is also linked to creationism, and shameless attempts to slander Intelligent Design scientists. Notice the page is locked from editing so no one can mess up the masterpiece. If you proceed to their Talk Page you will not only a lively defense being mounted by Evolutionists, but also that the Intelligent Design page has been rated as one of the best in all of Wikipedia. Creation Science does not fare much better.

Is the Bible historical?

Since I have taken a bit of a beating over my last post, I thought I should delve into the Young Earth view just a little bit more. The thoughtful Internet Monk has an article about why he rejects the Young Earth view. While it is well thought out and well written, I believe it to be unconvincing in the end. The Monk believes that Genesis 1 is a ‘prescientific’ account, and that Young Earth men like myself fail to take into account the literary genre of Genesis 1. I have a few points of rebuttal, if I am so allowed.

1. I am not sure I agree with the phrase ‘prescientific’ as if science is something man invented. Science is observation, not an invention. Did the Greeks always get science right? No, but they still practiced science. America today does not always get ‘science’ right. I am still not clear as whether butter or margarine is healthier. I understand what the Internet Monk is trying to say, but his terminology needs to be clearer. He does not think Genesis 1 is a Modern Science text. But, I think anyone can agree to that, and I agree to that. We are not told every scientific detail.
2. The Monk uses the example of explaining the birth of a baby to a three year old child. He rightfully would describe it differently to a college senior than to a three year old. He goes on to state that it does not mean he is lying or using allegory, just appropriate language. Again, here we have no disagreement. But, I believe his example actually harms his own position. One could tell a three year old that babies come from the stork. That would be a lie. However, one could tell the three year old a truth without revealing the in-depth details. How does this apply to Genesis 1? Well, if the days of creation are not literal 24 hour days, then God has given us a ‘stork’ explanation that is not true at all. What era of man did not understand ‘evening and morning’ or the concept of a ‘day’? Thus, holding to a ‘prescientific’ narrative does not get one around the difficulty of whether or not the days are literal.
3. The Internet Monk does seem to confound the Creationism or Creation Science with the Biblical position of a Young Earth. I agree with him completely when he says that we do not need scientific testimony to hold to the truthfulness of the Bible. Some Creation Science is out there on the fringe like the idea that the speed of light is not constant. Yet, that should not be confounded with the Biblical arguments. While I do believe there is legitimate science to support a Young Earth position, I don’t need it. If there is no scientific support for my position at all, I will still believe it because the Bible tells me to believe it. Is there science to support life after death? No, but I know there is because it has been revealed in God’s word. All I ask of those who hold to an Old Earth or some other position is to listen to the Biblical argument, not any scientific ones.
4. The idea that the creation story and genealogies of Genesis are theological, not historical, in their purpose also does not solve any problems. The genealogies are specific and people from the 2nd century on have used them to count backwards to Adam and Eve. If this account is ‘prehistorical’ or only ‘theological’ in its purpose then that idea was completely lost by the early church and most rabbis. This genealogies occur in many places, and while I do think there is a theological point, that does not exclude a historical accurate list.

This gets back to the discussion about inerrancy. The term generally means that the Bible does not contain errors of any kind. Thus, it is a reliable historical document. Yet, the Internet Monk has defined the Bible’s passages in such a way that it is not in ‘error’ when rightly understood in its purpose, but it is indeed unreliable for historical accuracy. The Bible becomes a theological book without historical reliability. To steal Charles Spurgeon’s analogy, The Internet Monk has removed the skeleton and left a pile of quivering flesh.

Which brings me to my last point. Despite the claims of some that inerrancy is an ‘Enlightenment’ word (which is a way to label something so you can throw it out), or that no confession ever used the word so it is a non-essential, there is ample proof that the Church has always held to inerrancy. Even though the word itself may not be used it is easily demonstratable that the church has always found the Bible to be historically accurate and even usable to date the earth. Spurgeon’s words showing that the Bible was both historical and theological and each worthless without the other should suffice for him. The WCF claims God created in "the space of 6 days", which does a good job of showing the Westminster Divines viewed the Bible as historically accurate, and the Genesis account in particular (pre-enlightenment by the way). Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” claims six literal days for creation and a world that is less than six thousand years old. Obviously Irenaeus does not have a problem with using the genealogies to date the world. To him we can add Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all held to literal days and dated the world to be less than 10,000 (all but Origen thought less than 6,000). Showing they viewed the Bible to be without historical error and the genealogies to be accurate for dating. Basil, Theophilus, Ambrose, and Cyril of Jerusalem all taught six 24 hour days, not seeing the disparity between theological and historical claimed by the Internet Monk. Even Augustine, who thought creation instantaneous, viewed the Bible as historically accurate and used the genealogies to date the earth young, less than 6,000 years (City of God 12:12). The Reformers were on the side of historical accuracy, and the Synod of Dort’s authorized Bible annotated the days of creation to be 24 hour days.

Perhaps the term ‘inerrancy’ was coined around the enlightenment. However, the idea that the Bible was useful for not only theology, but history as well is not new, nor it is it an enlightenment idea. We see men in the second century counting the ages of those in the Bible to discover the age of the earth. Archbishop Ussher may be famous for it, but it was an idea that dated back to the closing of the canon. The fancy claims the church has never thought of the Bible as inerrant nor taught a Young Earth view appear to have very little support in church history.

The Boar's Head Poll

The Boar’s Head Tavern, which is really more like a country club than a Tavern (no non-members, no brawls, etc.), has recently put up a poll covering several issues. The Boar’s Head is place that includes many members that blog elsewhere highlighted by the Internet Monk, who started the poll. A few others around the blogosphere have joined in like Joel Garver and Kevin Johnson. It is an interesting, but very disturbing poll. It shows a wide variety of people attend the Boar’s Head with the majority of them favoring Credo-baptism, but it is neither the sacraments nor their disagreements I wish to highlight. Nor are their disagreements particularly disturbing. The few places where they agree shocked me. Besides the obvious massive agreement to keep comments closed, they only overwhelmingly agreed on two other subjects.
First, only two members of the blog thought Young Earth Creationism was valid. Two out of at least 23. That is less than 10% of the people held to a Young Earth view. Not only that, but also many of them held a Young Earth view in a great deal of contempt. One mentioning that he had "outgrown the T-shirt", and another making sure we all knew that Young Earth and the science behind it "dishonors the creator". I have to admit this took me by surprise. With evolution faltering in the secular world and science favoring William Paley as much as it favors Charles Darwin, I fail to see a reason for such venom. Even if one wants to snub ‘Creation Science’ as a mistake for some reason (some of it is bad, but not all), it still seems unwarranted to doubt the Biblical data. Archbishop Ussher would be disappointed his chronology is rejected, but beyond Rev. Ussher’s timeframe, biblical reasoning for Day-Age or Framework is hard to find. The plain and simple reading is literal days, a fact many Day-Age and framework people admit. I would be very interesting in discovering exactly what provokes such an Old Earth view in the gang at the Boar’s Head.
Second, not a single member of the Boar’s Head agreed with Cessationism, the idea that the miraculous gifts are not longer around. It is true that some admitted to practically being a cessationist, but they still thought the Bible did not end the gifts. One did admit he thought the theory of cessationism was fine, but failed in practice, whatever that means. Again some venom was spewed forth here as well. One wonders if they believe that the Bible is complete? If prophecy is still around, then how can one close the Bible? A question I would like to see them answer.
The final and most disturbing point is one that seems to tie the first points together. Ten out of twenty three people denied the inerrancy of the Bible. Only eleven affirmed with two admitting they did not know. Thus, the majority of the people answering the poll did not affirm the fact that the Bible did not contain errors. Many would put forth the Bible was infallible, but would not say that it was inerrant. This fact not only blows the mind, but also makes one wonder if this is a new sensation sweeping through Christianity. Of course a Bible with errors makes it easier to reject creationism and necessitates continuing revelation (since previous revelation is full of errors). Yet once the door of the Bible is opened to error, what can be left for the Christian to hold? Every truth of the Bible must be challenged, and what will be the final arbiter of truth? Some of the polled claimed that inerrancy missed the point because the point of the Bible was Jesus Christ. Yet, how can one know anything for sure about Jesus if the Bible that reveals him is wrong often or even from time to time. Is the Virgin Birth wrong? Is Jesus both God and man, or is that wrong? What about the Trinity? All such doctrines are attacked by secularists and non-believers as much as the Young Earth doctrine, why not jettison those as well? And if not, why not? How can you know what is right and what is wrong in the Bible? It is true that no one at the Tavern is openly arguing for errors, but they seem to be advocating the idea that they could exist since God is not the ‘author’ of Scripture, but rather the ‘director’. The Boar’s Head is a place where many of differing stripes gather to talk and discuss things. However, this development of the theology of the Boar’s Head should put the Church on notice. We cannot take for granted the fact that those in the pew believe the Bible is without error, and the only source for truth. There is an obvious growing movement within the church itself against inerrancy.

The Dilemma of the PCA

In 2001, the Presbyterian Church in America decided that the phrase, God created, “in the space of six days” in the Westminster Confession of Faith could mean a variety of things. Most of these views had little or nothing to do with “six days.” One should notice that recommendation number 2 states that the “diversity of views” means that the Westminster’s view must take a back seat to allow everyone else’s view a place at the table. People at the time worried that this would lead to a slippery slope that would expand beyond the creation controversies into other areas of the Confession or theology.

Welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope. The “diversity of views’ argument is being tossed around by almost all the Federal Vision adherents. They want the Westminster’s view to take a back seat again, and allow the many other views on doctrines like justification and the sacraments. They can cite Norman Shepherd and his redefinition of faith to say in thesis number 11 “Justifying faith is obedient faith,” as a diversity of views. Then they can have the Westminster’s phrase “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, (XI.2)” to actually mean ‘receiving, resting, and acting.’ Or one could redefine the ‘righteousness of God’ as his faithfulness rather than his moral perfection and apply that to any passage he wanted. This would allow them to deny a covenant of works (VII.2) among other things. This then is the dilemma how to stop such redefinition. Sadly, the answer is plain. The PCA has no ability to stop them. In fact, the precedent is in favor of allowing the diversity of views to exist. Creation was sacrificed in order not to look anti-intellectual in the world’s eyes, and now all the Confession is sacrificed to the Federal Vision and to whoever else comes along. Gone are the days when the Confession said what it meant. Now, are the days when the Confession says one thing, but all other voices are acceptable.