The author ("Lee") makes five points concerning the arguments Dr. R. Scott Clark makes in Recovering the Reformed Confession regarding six day creation:
- 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.
- 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. [a personal pet peeve of mine!]
- Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past.
- Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement.
- 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).
Thank you for posting this. It was interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteMy question, to those who hold a framework/day-age view, what do you gain by this?
Rachel, I'm guessing they would say that they gain a "truer" or "better" understanding of Scripture (at least the Frameworkers would say that, I think). However, both views (framework and day-age) are bad exegesis, and absolutely contrary to our reformed confessions. I do believe an underlying desire to reconcile Scripture with "science" is also involved.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I think your last point is the most telling.
ReplyDelete