Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Good Post on "Recovering the Reformed Confession" and 6 Day Creation

Yesterday, while doing some browsing on the subject of six day creation, I came upon this article: Two-Edged Sword: Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation. It was a good read, so I pass it on to you.

The author ("Lee") makes five points concerning the arguments Dr. R. Scott Clark makes in Recovering the Reformed Confession regarding six day creation:
  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.
  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. [a personal pet peeve of mine!]
  3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past.
  4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement.
  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).
Lee then deals with each of these five points and shows how Clark got it wrong. Go over to Two-Edged Sword and read it all.


  1. Thank you for posting this. It was interesting to read.

    My question, to those who hold a framework/day-age view, what do you gain by this?

  2. 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.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Thank you. I think your last point is the most telling.