A few years ago, in 2006, it was big news when Dr. R.C. Sproul, of Ligonier Ministries, embraced six day creation. Yet, the latest Ligonier National Conference (March 15-17, 2012), and more recent posts at the Ligonier website, suggest that he has changed his mind once again.
At a panel discussion at the Ligonier Conference an old earth view was supported by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Horton, whereas Dr. Del Tackett and Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr (the son of R.C. Sproul) both affirmed a young earth. Dr. R.C. Sproul (senior) said he was not sure.The Bible, he said, does not give us a date of creation, although it does give hints and inclinations of a young earth. On the other hand, scientific evidence made Sproul wonder if the earth is old.
What R.C. Sproul Says
A series of follow-up posts at the Ligonier website provide elaboration on Sproul's position.
Dr Sproul reasons as follows. Since "all truth is God's truth", we must accept truth found in creation, which is part of God's general revelation. Both special and general revelation are infallible, but our interpretations of both are not. Sproul contends that unbelievers can come to an accurate knowledge of earthly things, although not heavenly things. Hence, on earthly matters, we should listen to unbelieving scientists.
Here Dr Sproul refers to the classic example of geocentricity. He argues:
Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, “Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.”
And so I think that we can learn from nonbelieving scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation. So I have a high view of natural revelation is what I’m saying.
The issue at hand being the age of the earth, Sproul's implication is that, if nonbelieving scientists have proven that the earth is billions of years old, then we must accept that. After all, following Sproul's reckoning, this would not contradict actual biblical teaching; it merely corrects our fallible interpretation of the Bible.
What's Wrong With Dr Sproul's Reasoning
Is Dr Sproul's reasoning valid and Reformed, as he claims? A few comments are in order.
1. First, Dr Sproul--like many others-- misunderstands geocentricity. The issue was not whether the Sun was the center of the solar system, as Sproul puts it. Rather, the issue was whether the earth--or the Sun--was in a state of absolute rest. Since science can deal only with relative motion, this issue must be settled via extra-scientific considerations. There can therefore be no valid scientific objections if the Bible takes the earth to be fixed in an absolute sense. Science has not disproven Biblical geocentricity (See my post A Moving Earth?).
2. Further, Dr Sproul fails to properly acknowledge the fundamental role of worldview presuppositions in science. Unbelieving scientists ignore what the Bible says about history. Given the unbiblical presuppositions of mainstream science, it is hardly surprising that its conclusions about history will clash with Scripture. In his analysis of science Dr Sproul over-rates common grace and ignores the comprehensive nature of the antithesis.
3. Moreover, Dr Sproul drives an untenable wedge between an infallible Bible and our fallible interpretation. This denies the perspicuity of Scripture and exaggerates the difficulty of reading Gen.1-11. Contrast this with Sproul's own earlier (2006) words ("What is RC Sproul's Position on Creation"):
For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
Is Dr Sproul now repudiating his Reformation hermeneutic of following "the plain meaning of the text", thereby reverting to his earlier hermeneutical gymnastics?
4. Finally, Dr Sproul severely underestimates the implications of an old earth. It undermines much else in Gen.1-11, including the historicity of the Biblical Adam (see my post Grudem's Old Earth Inconsistency). Indeed, Dr. Sproul's argumentation for accepting mainstream science on the age of the earth sounds remarkably similar to Biologos' argumentation for accepting mainstream science on evolution.
If all truth is God's truth, how can we recognize truth as truth unless God tells us? Too often we are deluded by falsehood masquerading as truth (cf. 2 Thes.2:10-12). Unhappily, Dr. Sproul provides no objective parameters for distinguishing between scientific truth and falsehood or, for that matter, for distinguishing between genuine Biblical teaching and mere human interpretation.
In conclusion, I urge Dr. R.C. Sproul--and his Ligonier Ministries--to return to a Reformed hermeneutic that upholds "the plain meaning" of the Biblical text and to a Reformed epistemology that consistently judges science in light of that plain meaning of Scripture.
At a panel discussion at the Ligonier Conference an old earth view was supported by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Horton, whereas Dr. Del Tackett and Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr (the son of R.C. Sproul) both affirmed a young earth. Dr. R.C. Sproul (senior) said he was not sure.The Bible, he said, does not give us a date of creation, although it does give hints and inclinations of a young earth. On the other hand, scientific evidence made Sproul wonder if the earth is old.
What R.C. Sproul Says
A series of follow-up posts at the Ligonier website provide elaboration on Sproul's position.
Dr Sproul reasons as follows. Since "all truth is God's truth", we must accept truth found in creation, which is part of God's general revelation. Both special and general revelation are infallible, but our interpretations of both are not. Sproul contends that unbelievers can come to an accurate knowledge of earthly things, although not heavenly things. Hence, on earthly matters, we should listen to unbelieving scientists.
Here Dr Sproul refers to the classic example of geocentricity. He argues:
Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, “Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.”
And so I think that we can learn from nonbelieving scientists who are studying natural revelation. They may get a better sense of the truth from their study of natural revelation than I get from ignoring natural revelation. So I have a high view of natural revelation is what I’m saying.
The issue at hand being the age of the earth, Sproul's implication is that, if nonbelieving scientists have proven that the earth is billions of years old, then we must accept that. After all, following Sproul's reckoning, this would not contradict actual biblical teaching; it merely corrects our fallible interpretation of the Bible.
What's Wrong With Dr Sproul's Reasoning
Is Dr Sproul's reasoning valid and Reformed, as he claims? A few comments are in order.
1. First, Dr Sproul--like many others-- misunderstands geocentricity. The issue was not whether the Sun was the center of the solar system, as Sproul puts it. Rather, the issue was whether the earth--or the Sun--was in a state of absolute rest. Since science can deal only with relative motion, this issue must be settled via extra-scientific considerations. There can therefore be no valid scientific objections if the Bible takes the earth to be fixed in an absolute sense. Science has not disproven Biblical geocentricity (See my post A Moving Earth?).
2. Further, Dr Sproul fails to properly acknowledge the fundamental role of worldview presuppositions in science. Unbelieving scientists ignore what the Bible says about history. Given the unbiblical presuppositions of mainstream science, it is hardly surprising that its conclusions about history will clash with Scripture. In his analysis of science Dr Sproul over-rates common grace and ignores the comprehensive nature of the antithesis.
3. Moreover, Dr Sproul drives an untenable wedge between an infallible Bible and our fallible interpretation. This denies the perspicuity of Scripture and exaggerates the difficulty of reading Gen.1-11. Contrast this with Sproul's own earlier (2006) words ("What is RC Sproul's Position on Creation"):
For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.
Is Dr Sproul now repudiating his Reformation hermeneutic of following "the plain meaning of the text", thereby reverting to his earlier hermeneutical gymnastics?
4. Finally, Dr Sproul severely underestimates the implications of an old earth. It undermines much else in Gen.1-11, including the historicity of the Biblical Adam (see my post Grudem's Old Earth Inconsistency). Indeed, Dr. Sproul's argumentation for accepting mainstream science on the age of the earth sounds remarkably similar to Biologos' argumentation for accepting mainstream science on evolution.
If all truth is God's truth, how can we recognize truth as truth unless God tells us? Too often we are deluded by falsehood masquerading as truth (cf. 2 Thes.2:10-12). Unhappily, Dr. Sproul provides no objective parameters for distinguishing between scientific truth and falsehood or, for that matter, for distinguishing between genuine Biblical teaching and mere human interpretation.
In conclusion, I urge Dr. R.C. Sproul--and his Ligonier Ministries--to return to a Reformed hermeneutic that upholds "the plain meaning" of the Biblical text and to a Reformed epistemology that consistently judges science in light of that plain meaning of Scripture.
*****
35 comments:
Why is OEC a denial of perspicuity? WCF I.7 actually establishes a general principle of "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all", and then follows with an exception that "yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded..."
Is 6/24 necessary for salvation?
I know it might sound rude to say it's not totally surprising...did not RC Sproul change his eschatological views many times as well?
RubeRad,
"Is 6/24 necessary for salvation?"
If you've been reading any 6-24 creationist literature at all, you already know the answer to this brother. Dr. Byl has touched on it himself I believe. See also http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview.
I'm not sure it's so obvious or universal among 6/24. There are some extremists that believe it is necessary (like this guy that showed up on my blog a long time ago).
I'm sure that Dr. Byl agrees that men are saved by faith in Christ's work for their sins, not by faith in 6/24; and Dr. Byl is Reformed, which is why I offered the question of how a Reformed confession of the doctrine of perspicuity fits with his assertion that Sproul is denying it.
Ruberad
Let me stress that I do affirm that we are saved only through faith in Jesus Christ.
That being said, I do believe that the Bible is authoritative in all that it teaches. This in turn requires that its meaning be plain.
Although some parts may be less clear than others, Sproul himself affirmed that creation in 6 days is the plain sense of the Gen.1-2 text (as does WCF 4.1).
Since Sproul now--on the basis of mainstream science--questions the plain sense of Genesis and seeks other interpetations, is this not a denial of Scriptural perspecuity?
It seems to me that the main problem theologians have with Genesis is not that it is unclear but, rather, that it is intellectually unacceptable by current worldly standards.
Dear Dr. Byl,
It seems to me that the main problem theologians have with Genesis is not that it is unclear but, rather, that it is intellectually unacceptable by current worldly standards.
That is indeed the elephant in the room. That is exactly what they then go to extreme lengths to deny.
Thank you for your important work on this issue.
Sproul himself affirmed that creation in 6 days is the plain sense
Yes, so Sproul contradicted himself (which is usually what happens when somebody changes their mind; things they said before they change their mind will conflict with things they say after).
Presumably, Sproul can even still affirm that statement, because there is no question that creation in 6 days is the plain sense; the question is whether the plain sense, or some more difficult sense, is the correct sense of Gen 1.
I.e. the question is whether Gen 1 is perspicuous. And my point is that, confessionally, we are only guaranteed perspicuity in passages of scripture setting forth what is necessary for salvation. So why are you asserting that Gen 1 is perspicuous?
IOW, Sproul is not denying the perspicuity of Scripture; he is denying the perspicuity of Gen 1.
Thanks for your work, Dr. byl.
It's amazing to me how many Who adopt an old earth view but reject theistic evolution use the same arguments or the same reasoning that theistic evolutionists use.
In the end, these people (or those whom they persuade) will either have to embrace theistic evolution, on force of consistency, or come up with better reasons for accepting the old earth position.
As Schaeffet pointed out, one or two generations can hold two ideas in tension. But the subsequent generations tend to work out a more consistent set of beliefs, trimming away what was handed down merely because of tradition or habit. I'm not sure people like Sproul have the necessary tools to resist a movement towards a more "Enns-sian" position, if I can coin a term. Nor do I think people like Enns have the necessary tools to resist a Richard Carrier position when some of their own hermeneutical moves are applied to the NT.
Ruberad,
Actually Grudem in his systematic theology shows, convincingly I think, that there is no reason to limit the perspicuity of Scripture to matters of salvation. And Gregg, in his historical theology, shows there is little historical precedent for such a narrow construal.
Ruberad,
You ask why Dr. Byl is asserting Gen. 1 is perspicuous. But even many OEC have admitted that a plain reading of Gen 1-3 favors the YEC model.
The question then is why are trying to make it unclear? Because the text itself is really confusing or because of some extra-biblical concern?
Well of course a plain reading favors the YEC model! That's not the question. The question is whether the plain reading is the correct reading. Just because a plain reading of a text exists, does not make that text perspicuous.
And yes of course OEC are driven to a reading other than the plain one partly from extra-biblical concerns, but there are plenty of biblical reasons as well, for instance the non-ordinariness of the seventh day in which we now live, the non-ordinariness of three days with light but no sun, the differing chronologies of chs 1 and 2, Kline's "Because it had not rained" argument, the prophetic or protological nature of the text, etc.
Ruberad,
i) What do you propose makes a text perspicuous?
ii) Actually, the only thing in your list that I think is a good piece of evidence that may favor a non-plain reading of the text is the 7th day continuing. But eve this doesn't strike me as particularly strong.
iii) I see that the prophetic reading links to your own blog, so let me try to explore that just a bit. I haven't taken the time to read the 115 comments so I apologize if this issue was raised and answered:
Your argument seems to be:
1 - whatever is given to men via special revelation about historical events that no one has witnessed (SRnW for short) is prophecy.
2 - Parts of Genesis 1 & 2 are SRnW.
3. Parts of Genesis 1 & 2 are prophecy.
4. Whatever is prophecy isn't necessarily literal.
5. Parts of Genesis 1 & 2 are not necessarily literal.
Would you be happy with that summary of you argument?
Ignoring other issues, what first came to mind was this:
6. Parts of the resurrection narratives (namely the resurrection itself) are SRnW
7. Parts of the resurrection narratives are prophecy.
8. Parts of the resurrection narratives (namely, the ressurection) are not necessarily literal.
Would you be comfortable with 6-8, assuming I've correctly portrayed your case in 1-5?
i) I dunno. I don't know if you're Presbyterian or Reformed like Dr. Byl and myself, but Westminster confesses that things necessary for salvation will be so clear "that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Beyond that, I'm sure everybody would claim that any part of scripture they feel is easy to understand is perspicuous, and any part of scripture they feel is difficult to understand is not.
ii) I'm not surprised.
iii) There are two links, to two blogs (personal, team), Prof. Robert Strimple argues much the same.
1-5 are represented I suppose fairly enough, but none of 6-8.
What part of the resurrection narratives were not witnessed? (Acts 26:26 these things were not done in a corner)
On the other hand, there do exist resurrection prophecies that are not literal (like John 2:19, Luke 12:50)
i) While the WCF that things necessary to salvation are clear, this does not of course entail that only things necessary to salvation are clear, as I'm sure you recognize.
One would think questions on the perspicuity of Scripture are primarily driven by the text itself, yes? In other words, one should not take a text that would otherwise be thought clear and say it is unclear because of something in the psychology of the reader. So, for example, would you agree that Scripture's teaching against homosexuality is clear--despite that some homosexuals try to say it is unclear and that there is room for a pro-homosexual reading?
iii) The resurrection itself, as I already specified.
Sorry, I've been busy over the weekend.
i) Yes I realize; my point is merely that "perspicuity" is not a magic wand that can automatically be waved at any passage of scripture. And no, I think there is no room for a pro-homosexual reading, especially given how strongly Paul reiterates the O.T. ban in Romans 1.
iii) OK, I'll bite. That Christ actually died, and that he was later alive, is abundantly witnessed, and scripture goes to great pains to highlight these witnesses. Therefore there can be no question that Christ resurrected. But I would admit there is room for fruitless speculation about precisely when and how Christ resurrected. I would say that an improper application of prophetic texts analogous to hardcore 6/24 might insist on the basis of the verses I cited above that it had something to do with a pile of stones, and some water.
But the analogy falls apart pretty quickly, because there is no evidence in this case (and I can't imagine there ever could be).
RubeRad,
You say: "i) Yes I realize; my point is merely that "perspicuity" is not a magic wand that can automatically be waved at any passage of scripture. "
I don't think anyone has said it's a magic wand.
You say: "And no, I think there is no room for a pro-homosexual reading, especially given how strongly Paul reiterates the O.T. ban in Romans 1."
Then you would agree that perspicacity must have something to do with the text itself, right? And so asserting the text is not perspicuous for external factors is not a legitimate move?
You say: "iii) OK, I'll bite. That Christ actually died, and that he was later alive, is abundantly witnessed, and scripture goes to great pains to highlight these witnesses. Therefore there can be no question that Christ resurrected."
Granted, but the resurrected bit is still prophecy, and hence not necessarily literal, according to you, right?
You say: "But I would admit there is room for fruitless speculation about precisely when and how Christ resurrected."
Well we would have to include the meaning of the term itself. That's not necessarily literal, given that it's prophecy. I'm not sure other uses of the term would help, since they could be assuming that non-literal usage (same as Exodus when it refers to six days and the sabbath--on a non-YEC reading).
You say: "I would say that an improper application of prophetic texts analogous to hardcore 6/24 might insist on the basis of the verses I cited above that it had something to do with a pile of stones, and some water."
Perhaps, assuming that the relevant portions of Genesis are not literal, which itself doesn't necessarily follow from your prophetic argument. This is what my example of the resurrection is supposed to point out. Besides the whole thing appearing very ad-hoc (is it common among Bible scholars to read any non-witnessed event as prophecy--because it is non-witnessed?), it doesn't actually confer any advantage to your position, that I can see.
Sorry for "perspicacity" bit, auto-correct on ipod.
Re: magic wand; maybe that language is unnecessarily adversarial, but it was Dr. Byl that first asserted that Sproul is denying the doctrine of perspicuity, as if that's obviously the case. If Sproul is indeed denying a confessional doctrine he has sworn to uphold, then he should be presenting himself to his presbytery for examination, and/or somebody should be bringing him up on charges.
Granted, but the resurrected bit is still prophecy, and hence not necessarily literal, according to you, right?
I don't see how Christ could be literally alive, and then literally dead, and then only figuratively resurrected, and then literally alive.
You say: "If Sproul is indeed denying a confessional doctrine he has sworn to uphold, then he should be presenting himself to his presbytery for examination, and/or somebody should be bringing him up on charges."
Consider whether in other circumstances--that is, a different topic of discussion (e.g., homosexuality)--if a minister changed his view on the Bible because a new study (e.g., from the APA on the normalcy of homosexuality) convinced him that the Bible couldn't be saying what he always thought.
In such instances, if you think this raises concern then why not here? But if in such circumstances you don't... then okay :)
You say: "I don't see how Christ could be literally alive, and then literally dead, and then only figuratively resurrected, and then literally alive."
You appear to be missing the point. Perhaps I've been unclear. I wasn't trying to prove Christ was figuratively resurrected under the logic of your argument. I was only trying to prove that any "witness" Scripture has to the resurrection is actually prophecy and *for that reason* not necessarily literal.
This shows, as I said, that your attempt to cast parts of Genesis as prophecy don't really do anything for you.
Let me try to explain a bit more:
To say that something is prophecy *because* no one was witness to it is just to say that prophecy is a non-witnessed event. Naturally, nothing significant follows from the fact that parts of Genesis (or the resurrection) are non-witnessed. The argument might as well be stated "Some parts of Genesis have not been witnessed, therefore they are not necessarily to be understood literally." The fact that something happens not to be witnessed by humans does not give that thing any greater probability of being non-literal than literal. However, I understand why it is you are trying to make the move. Many Christians believe that some prophecies in the Bible do not have a literal fulfillment. Among Reformed people, we might have a more acute sense of this due to our arguments with Dispensationalists. And so you're trying to smuggle in some association of non-literalness into Genesis by grouping it with other accounts which we do not take to be literal. (I don't mean to imply that you have nefarious intentions by using the word "smuggle".) It is sort of like a guilt by association argument, only there is no guilt (and again I don't want to impugn your motives).
Yet that won't work, for no one thinks a prophecy (in Ezekiel for instance) is non-literal *because* it was not witnessed. And I even suspect that they do not think it is prophecy *because* it was not witnessed. I think they have (or should have) independent reasons for thinking a non-witnessed event is to be understood non-literally.
This seems key: I wasn't trying to prove Christ was figuratively resurrected under the logic of your argument. I was only trying to prove that any "witness" Scripture has to the resurrection is actually prophecy and *for that reason* not necessarily literal. This shows, as I said, that your attempt to cast parts of Genesis as prophecy don't really do anything for you.
So your point is, if my argument doesn't prove that the resurrection isn't literal, it can't prove that Genesis isn't literal?
I would reply that prophetic, unwitnessed assertions of resurrection alone would leave open the possibility of only a figurative resurrection. But the abundant enscripturated accounts of witness close that door definitively. In the case of creation, however, we do not (can not) have human witness accounts that would reinforce a plain reading (in fact we have the opposite; the entire end of Job is God taunting us: Where were you when I created?)
No, my argument is not that being able to prove Genesis is non-literal is conditional on being able to prove the resurrection is non-literal... That would be absurd and I'm not sure how I gave you that impression.
Besides, as you have constructed it, I would be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Your reply to what you think is my point does nothing to give your prophetic argument any significance, unless you think there is a presumption of non-literalism in prophecy, but you haven't given any argument for that... Im a bit busy right now, but may try to come back later and give clarification one last shot.
unless you think there is a presumption of non-literalism in prophecy
Yes, I would say that prophecy for which the fulfillment or realization has not been witnessed, is hard to understand (i.e. I would not presume perspicuity of prophecy). Again with the resurrection, John explains to us that people were confused by this "destroy this temple and I will build it up again in three days" language -- confused until they witnessed the resurrection, at which point it made sense in a way they probably never would have thought of from the plain sense of the initial prophecy.
If your primary objection is "not necessarily non-literal" is not enough to convince you that Genesis should (or even may) be taken non-literally, then I'm OK with that.
RubeRad
You say: "Yes, I would say that prophecy for which the fulfillment or realization has not been witnessed, is hard to understand (i.e. I would not presume perspicuity of prophecy)."
Well, first, with Genesis you're really just using "prophecy" to mean non-witnessed. Second, I don't know why you presume that a non-humanly witnessed event is hard to understand. I can understand why we might not presume perspicuity, but why you would presume imperspicuity makes no sense to me.
Guess I just don't share your assumptions.
You say: "If your primary objection is "not necessarily non-literal" is not enough to convince you that Genesis should (or even may) be taken non-literally, then I'm OK with that."
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course it's possible that parts of Genesis are non-literal (and as I pointed out on my blog, you don't need your "prophecy" label to arrive at that conclusion). What doesn't convince me is the built in presumption of imperspicuity and, apparently, the assumption that any of this favors a non-literal reading over a literal one.
Anyway I'll leave it at that.
Sorry if this discussion has gotten too far off track from the original post.
I don't know why you presume that a non-humanly witnessed event is hard to understand
History? (and with an answer of "History" I mean to indicate that I am not presuming, but realizing) Even though Jesus came in order to fulfill all that was written, how well did that fulfillment match the expectations of the Jews? Hindsight is 20/20; it's hard to unsee the New Testament and put ourselves into their shoes. Even now, how certainly do we understand Revelation?
Thanks for the discussion. And thanks to Dr. Byl for allowing us to have it in his combox.
I've responded to your last comment on my blog.
"Sproul is not denying the perspicuity of Scripture; he is denying the perspicuity of Gen 1."
Ahem, Gen. 1 is just the tip of the iceberg. As Dr Byl says in another recent thread, Dr Grudem is inconsistent in asserting OEC alongside the origin of natural evil at the Fall. Do we have documentation of Dr Sproul's view of the Fall - and of the extent of the Flood, another issue that broadly settles the question of age?
So - it's also Gen. 2-11, and many, many NT texts besides.
The stakes could not be higher.
Dan Baynes
I don't see any hints in the quotes provided here, but I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if Sproul allowed his changing views on Creation affect his view of the Fall.
As for his view of the flood -- again, lacking quotations I'm just guessing here -- I would say that OEC usually goes hand-in-hand with a non-global flood, so it would not surprise me if Sproul went that way.
But that's not a given; I can quote Meredith Kline as saying that for Calvin College, "all the evidence is in" and they have come down for local flood, but for Kline, "I'm ready to wait"
Dr. Byl:
It seems to me that in the statement you provide in which Dr. Sproul asserts a high respect for natural revelation we could conclude that Dr. Sproul prefers his own perspicacity to the Bible's perspicuity.
In the discussion that follows in the comments, it seems that some might have a different idea of what perspicuity means. The paragraph from the WCF which was cited uses the words 'plain' and 'clear', but some seem to think it must therefore include 'simple' or 'not hard to understand'. I would object. Some of the more difficult things can be made as clear as can be and yet still be hard to understand: that does not mean they are not perspicuous. The fault is in the person and not in the perspicuity of the teaching, if he fails to understand it.
Perspicacity is always to be expanded, and perspicuity is that which it strives to attain to; and WCF, I, 7, indicates various levels of understanding. That's why our elementary schools have twelve succeeding grades; that's why WCF, I, 7 refers to the necessary things and different levels. It doesn't mean that things of greater wisdom cannot become perspicuous, given the effort and training.
Anytime someone prefers his own knowledge over the Bible's intended revelation he is denying perspicuity, however much he may be defending it. All our respected forefathers deeply respected the Bible's finished revelation, and strove to understand it rather than to judge it by their own standards or levels of intelligence or wisdom. If they had done the latter, judge it by their own standards, they would have denied perspicuity, and disqualified themselves from the respect that is due someone who was "rightly dividing the word of truth."
Dr. R.C. Sproul, founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, has not changed his hermeneutic. He denies the "big bang theory" and his view of creation continues to affirm six sequential 24-hour days as noted in this blog post (http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-rc-sprouls-position-creation/).
The video you reference, and the blog series that followed, both indicate that Dr. Sproul favors a young earth but is not dogmatic about it.
Regards,
Nathan W. Bingham
Internet Outreach Manager
Ligonier Ministries
Nathan,
It would be interesting to hear Dr. Sproul's explanation as a theologian, from the Scriptures, why he is not dogmatic about a young earth. To wit, what he feels is the compelling Scriptural evidence for leaving this question open.
In his interview with Tim Challies here:
http://www.challies.com/interviews/an-interview-with-rc-sproul
he has said this:
"I could be wrong in my understanding of Genesis. It’s a very difficult to deal with the literary genre in the opening verses of the beginning chapters of Genesis. I think there has to be some room for some flexibility on it."
What 'understanding' of this 'difficult' literary genre does he wish to offer as an alternative? Theologically speaking.
Hello Nathan
Thanks for your comment. You assert that Dr. Sproul has not changed his hermeneutic, that he still denies the “big bang” theory, continues to affirm creation in six 24-hour days, and favors a young earth.
Regretfully, I find no evidence of this in Dr. Sproul’s video and blog series. There Dr. Sproul does not affirm 6 day creation, nor does he reject “big bang” theory. Nor does he favor a young earth.
On the contrary, he explicitly says:
“When people ask me how old the earth is I tell them “I don’t know,” because I don’t”.
See:
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/age-universe-and-genesis-1-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/
The Ligonier blog writer comments:
It is far wiser to say, with Dr. Sproul, “I don’t know,” than it is to assert falsehoods to be the teaching of Holy Scripture.
He then stresses the danger of mis-interpreting Genesis and argues for room for non-literal views of the creation days. As to Ligonier teaching fellows, the post states:
“More than one view of the age of the universe and the days of Genesis 1 is held among them without strife and enmity and without charges of compromise on the one hand or obscurantism on the other. This is due to the fact that these men understand the implications of what Dr. Sproul said in the response we have been examining for the last several weeks. Would that more Christians would take Dr. Sproul’s wise words to heart.”
What else can one conclude but that Dr. Sproul—and Ligonier Ministries-- no longer promote six 24-hour creation days as the plain meaning of Genesis 1?
Good thoughts Dr. Byl (as always).
I've always wondered how someone can go along with the unbelieving world in denying the biblical account of creation while still attempting to believe in a Jewish man who walked on water, claimed to be God and rose from the dead?
Doesn't the hermeneutic that destroys Genesis 1 keep on hacking and slashing once it gets to the gospels?
If the uniform testimony of "science" is that mankind came to be through the process of natural selection, what is the uniform testimony of "science" on dead folks staying dead?
Thanks for your comment. Yes, you are quite right. Consistent application of the epistemology and hermeneutics that deconstruct Gen.1 will deconstruct the entire Bible, if consistently applied.
Hence theistic evolutions who still believe in Christ's miracles must at some point be inconsistent and arbitrary.
no.as long as christians follow theosis(faith and works)all is well.only god knows the heart
Post a Comment