Genesis One Versus the Framework Hypothesis
Professor of Historical Theology
City Seminary
Sacramento, California
Printed by Permission Trinity Covenant Church
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Pastor: C. W. Powell
[Reformated into html from the
original pdf document]
Commenting on various allegorical
interpretations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, John Calvin
wrote that "we ought to have a deeper
reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to
disguise its natural meaning" (in loc.). In
the preface to his commentary on Romans, he made a similar
remark concerning the doctrine of election.
There he said, "We ought to have such respect for the Word
of God that any difference of interpretation
on our part should alter it as little as possible.
“It is therefore presumptuous and almost
blasphemous to turn the meaning of Scripture around without
due care, as though it were some game that we
were playing."
These two remarks by one who is considered
by many to be the father of modern exegesis echo the
approach that I will take in this session. I will
examine two competing ideas: what Genesis 1 actually
says and what the Framework Hypothesis claims
that it says. These two things are so different that,
although the latter claims to be the true and only
interpretation of the former, we are forced to conclude
that it is nothing more than "playing
games" with the sacred text.
The Framework Hypothesis
We will begin with the Framework
Hypothesis. Professor Arie Noordzij of the University
of Utrecht first
used the Framework Hypothesis as an
interpretive tool for Genesis in his 1924 article, "God's Word and
the Witness of the Ages." Since then,
his opinion has been championed by many scholars of almost every
denomination.
The most basic feature of the Framework
Hypothesis is that it applies a literary approach to Scripture. The
fact that one recognizes literary genres
(e.g., poetry, history and law) or literary forms (e.g., figures of speech
and parallelism) is not problematic in
itself. After all, the Bible is a book or, more correctly, a book of books.
However, modern literary approaches go
well beyond the conventions of literature in a deliberate attempt to
impose a philosophy on that literature.
The reader begins with a set of
assumptions that he imports into the text from outside. Naturally, these
assumptions are rather subjective, being the result
of the reader's previous experiences. They, in turn, draw
out a reader specific response. The goal of
the literary approach, therefore, is not to arrive at the author's
intended meaning but to incorporate the literature
into the reader's frame of reference. This implies that there
is no fixed meaning, no truth, in the text
because each reader's assumptions and, consequently his responses,
are always changing. Interpretation becomes
nothing more than an interaction between the reader
(at whatever
stage of development he finds himself) and the
text.
Tremper Longman III, an accomplished Old
Testament scholar, understands that this program tends to separate
the Biblical narrative from actual history.
After all, literature is a form of art. If the painting of an apple is not a
real piece of fruit, how can we expect the
story of Abraham to be about a real person? Longman writes, "To
identify Genesis as a work of literature pure and
simple is to move it out of the realm of history. This seems to
be the tendency of some if not much of the
literary approach to the study of the OT." [Tremper
LongmanIII, “The
Literary Approach to the Study of the Old
Testament: Promise and Pitfalls,” JETS 28, no. 4 (Dec. 1985): 394]
However, in spite of its pitfalls, Longman
believes that the literary approach promises to unlock doors hitherto
inaccessible.
We must ask, though, whether Longman or anyone
else who applies the literary approach to Scripture ever succeeds
in averting the perceptive criticism of C.S.
Lewis, who wrote,
Whatever these men may be
as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack
literary
judgment, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the
texts they are reading.. These men ask me to
believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the
evidence is their obvious inability to read (in
any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They
claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant
ten yards away in broad daylight. [C.S. Lewis, Fern-Seed
and Elephants (Glasgow: Collins,1975),
106, 111. cited in Longman, 39]
My opinion is that the Framework
Hypothesis inescapably employs principles of interpretation that are alien to
Scripture and subversive
to its message. It is
a self-destructive theory.
Meredith G. Kline: "Because It Had
Not Rained"
Three scholarly articles are of particular
importance for the Framework Theory. The first, written by Meredith
G. Kline, appeared
in 1958 under the title "Because It Had Not Rained." [Meredith G.
Kline, “Because It Had Not
Rained,” WTJ 20 (1958): 146-57.]
The title of this article comes from
Genesis 2:5. Kline argues that there was no plant life of any kind anywhere
during the period of time this verse discusses.
He says, further, that there are two reasons given in Genesis 2 for
this universal absence of vegetation: first,
there was no water because the Lord had not yet sent rain; and second,
there was no man to cultivate the ground. With
no water and no cultivator, plant life was impossible.
However, in verses 6 and 7 God satisfies
these concerns by watering the ground with a mist and forming the first
man. This passage is critical for Kline
because, as he sees it, it proves that God's modus operandi during the
creation
week was ordinary providence. Except for the
creative fiats (the calling of things out of nothing), the Lord governed
his creation during the first six days in
ways that would seem normal to us today. This assumption, which he no doubt
regards as an exegetical conclusion, is then
imported into the first chapter of Genesis and used as a grid for its
interpretation. Genesis 2:5, Kline argues, creates an unavoidable
conflict for those who hold to the literal six-day view
of creation. God's modus operandi during the
period of creation was ordinary providence.
The problem is that the
literal six-day view does not allow enough time for ordinary providence to
work. A literal
reading of the first chapter of Genesis, for example,
pictures God gathering the waters into seas, drying entire
continents and causing vegetation to grow to maturity all within
a single twenty-four-hour period called "the third
day" (Gen. 1:9-13). By anyone's calculation, such
stupendous feats require extraordinary or miraculous providence.
Thus, Kline leaves the literal
six-day view with a difficult dilemma: he must either accept the irreconcilable
conflict
between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or he must abandon his
six-day view and interpret the days of creation as a literary
device, that is, in a non-consecutive, non-chronological
way. Kline seems to believe that his arguments are so
overwhelming that orthodox theologians will have to abandon the
traditional view of Genesis 1. He
writes, "It is a
strange blindness that questions the orthodoxy of all who reject
the traditional twenty-four-hour day theory when
the truth is that endorsement of that theory is
incompatible with belief in the self-consistency of the Scriptures." [Kline,
152] Later
he adds, "Once the figurative nature of the chronological pattern is
appreciated, the literalness of the
sequence is no more sacrosanct than the literalness of the
duration of the days in this figurative week." [Kline,
156-7.]
At this point we must ask ourselves
whether sound exegesis requires Kline's view of Genesis 2:5. It does not. The
six-day believer can just as easily handle the
conflict Kline proposes in another, less obtrusive way. He can simply
deny that Kline is correct. Indeed, there are several unspoken
assumptions in Kline's thinking that simply are not
necessary. One assumption is that Genesis 2:5
describes the condition of the whole world -there were no plants
anywhere on the entire face of the planet. But is
not the second chapter of Genesis describing the home God made
for Adam? Is not the reference specifically
to the Garden of Eden? If so, the plants that are absent in Genesis 2:5
are those that would eventually be placed in
Paradise. The correct interpretation would be that this one particular
part of the earth called Paradise was a barren
and uninhabitable wasteland when everything else was finished, but
God graciously transformed it into a
comfortable place in which man would live. [This also takes care of another
assumption Kline makes, namely, that Genesis 2:5
describes the third day of creation. Shortly after the appearance
of Kline’s article, E. J. Young argued that
the situation could just as easily, and more probably, be Day Six. See
Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964). 64]
But this particular issue is not the focus
of Kline's theory. Rather, his main point is that Genesis 2:5 shows
unmistakably that God's mode of operation during the
creation week was normal providence. This, he maintains,
"is not
affected whether the lack of vegetation mentioned be earthwide
or local (the Eden area) and no matter to
which 'day' the vegetationless
situation pertains." [This also
takes care of another assumption Kline makes, namely,
that Genesis 2:5 describes the third day of
creation. Shortly after the appearance of Kline’s article, E. J. Young argued
that the situation could just as easily, and
more probably, be Day Six. See Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One
(Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964). 64] Yet,
his insistence that Genesis 2:5 provides the interpretative
guide for Genesis 1 raises a more serious
problem: it assumes that the use of ordinary providence in one instance
rules out the possibility of extraordinary
providence in another. Without this assumption his theory falls apart.
It hardly needs to be pointed out, though,
that God did not supply the cultivator by ordinary means.
Normal childbirth is
"extraordinary" enough, but Adam's direct creation by the word of God
is even more so. The
Lord formed his body from the dust of the
ground and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Now, if
God provided the cultivator in such a
stupendous way, why should we deny that he could and, in fact, did dry up
the continents in a single day?
More to the point, we must
question Kline's assumption that God's modus operandi during the
creation week was
ordinary providence. It is doubtful that this can be
established from Genesis 2:5. Genesis 2 deals specifically with
the creation of man and his environment, enlarging upon
the brief account given in chapter 1. As we study it, we
have to keep in mind that man was unique among the rest of
creation. He alone was formed in the image of God and,
therefore, able to love God and walk with him. He alone was
given a mandate to exercise dominion over all things.
He alone had the
responsibility to tend and keep the Garden of Eden. The fact that man was
responsible for his
environment as a viceregent of God
entails ordinary providence. Adam had to observe meteorological conventions
and learn how to irrigate the Garden in dry spells. Note is
taken of this in Genesis 2 because the creation of man
brought about a radical change in the way God exercised his government
of the world. During the first five days
God ruled the world
entirely by extraordinary providence. There is no evidence in Genesis 1 of
anything else.
But with the creation of
man (to whom the Lord gave a fair amount of responsibility) ordinary providence
was
put into effect. Genesis 2:5 must be understood in
relation to man's unique place and responsibility. Indeed, this
seems to be the only acceptable possibility when we take
into account the topical recapitulation of Genesis 2:4-7.
[Pipa]
To say the very least, these are serious problems with Kline's
presentation. To
overthrow the almost unanimous
opinion
of church history, these questions would have to be answered clearly and
decisively in Kline's favor. I, for
one, do
not believe that this can be done. Given the fact that Genesis 1 precedes
Genesis 2, it is far more likely that
the
former should guide the interpretation of the latter, rather than the other way
around. Given the fact that Genesis
1 clearly
defines what it means by the word day, both by the use of ordinals
(first, second, third, etc.) and the sixfold
repetition
of the phrase evening and morning, we are unavoidably confronted with
God's interpretation of the kinds
of days
depicted in the creation account. The days of creation were solar days, not
poetic devices.
Mark D. Futato:
"Because It Had Rained"
The second article that I mentioned a
moment ago was written by Mark D. Futato in 1997 and
is titled "Because It Had
Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with
Implication for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1-2:3." [Mark D. Futato,
‘Because It Had
Rained: A Study of Gen. 2:5-7 with
Implications for Gen. 2:4-25 and Gen. 1:1 -2:3,” WT] 60, no. 1 (Spring 1998):
1-21.]
The title alerts us to the fact that Futato has considered the issues raised against Kline's
paper. Though he ends more or
less in the same place, he prefers to get
there another way. For Kline it was important that it had not rained. Futato's
argument begins with the notion that it had rained.
A large part of Futato's paper is taken up with an identification of the
kinds of plants mentioned in Genesis 2:5 and the
meaning of the word mist in verse 6. He believes the
plants are desert shrubs and cultivated grain. The wild shrubs
of the desert did not grow because of a lack of rain.
God remedied this by providing a mist, or, as Futato
understands
it, "rain clouds." [Futato, 5ff.]
Similarly, the cultivated grain
had no cultivator, so God raised up Adam to tend the
Garden. The basic outline of Futato's
case to this point is similar to Kline's, though there are some interesting
variations
in the details. He then proceeds to argue that Genesis
2:5-7 is part of the larger unit of Genesis 2:4-25, which exemplifies
a specific Hebrew stylistic structure known as
"synoptic/resumptive-expansion." [Futato, 12.] From there he draws
inferences from his theory for Genesis 1-2:3. It is his opinion
that the first two chapters of Genesis form a "highly
integrated literary unit" (in contrast to the liberals who
find two distinct accounts of creation in Genesis), are
"topically
arranged" (and not chronologically arranged, as the church has generally
maintained), with a focus on
"vegetation
and humanity" - two themes that recur often in his presentation. [Futato, 14,15,17.]
But the most disturbing
part of Futato's paper comes in the last major
section. There we see for the first time where he
wants to go. Kline used his literary analysis of Genesis to
argue for a sabbatical theology. Futato wants to
demonstrate
something quite different. He wants to show that the early
chapters of Genesis constitute a polemic against Canaanite
Baal
worship. In Canaanite theology,
Baal was god of the storm, controller of clouds and rain. Although Jehovah had
provided for the Jews in Egypt and in the wilderness, their
way of life would change drastically as they entered the
promised land. They had been accustomed to farming methods
that required irrigation from the Nile. In their recent
experience God provided their water from a rock. But the
question they faced as they prepared to enter the promised
land was, Would God still provide for them in a land that
depended on irregular rainfall? They
constantly faced the
temptation to consult their Canaanite neighbors for agricultural
advice, which, no doubt, came with a mixture of pagan
theology. This, says Futato, led to
a long struggle between Jehovah and Baal that lasted until the impressive
contest
between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18.
Knowing this would become a problem, the Lord caused Moses to structure the Genesis account
to proclaim that
"YHWH, the God of Israel, is the Lord
of the rain, the resultant vegetation, and life." [Futato,
20] This is demonstrated
in the fact that it had rained in Genesis
2. Futato's
version of the Framework Hypothesis is extremely complicated,
and my short précis does not do it justice.
Nonetheless, I have given enough so that you can see the problems with
his theory.
First, Futato has adopted many of
Kline's assumptions and has added several of his own. Our earlier criticisms
need not be repeated.
Second, there is neither an explicit mention nor
an indirect reference to Baal anywhere in the early chapters of
Genesis.
Certainly, the creation account shows that Jehovah is the God of rain and
vegetation. But it also shows
that he
is God of fish, birds, insects, oceans, stars and all the distant galaxies.
This is true because he is the one
who
called all things into existence by the word of his power. In this sense,
Genesis 1 is a polemic against all
idolatry.
But the notion that it is a polemic specifically against Baalism
can only be brought into the text from
outside. The mention of water in Genesis 1 and 2,
though secondary to the creation of man, allows Futato
to make
connections that are tenuous at best. He is playing connect the dots, but the
picture is not the one that
was intended.
Third, Futato's
presentation does little more than adapt the criticisms of liberals, though he
avoids using the
documentary hypothesis. Compare his opinions to the very liberal
comments of Harper Bible Commentary
on
Genesis 2:
Like P,
the J creation account begins with a temporal clause, this time one that
describes the
precreation
state as a waterless, lifeless desert. There may be echoes here of the
Canaanite myth
of Baal's
struggle with a demonic adversary Mot (Death), as there are similar
reminiscences
of the
combat myth of the creator-god Baal versus the Sea in 1:1-2 ( Baal). The
Israelite
adaptation
and reuse of the Canaanite myths of Baal versus the Sea in Genesis 1 and of
Baal
versus
Death in his desert domain in Genesis 2 recall Yahweh's victory over the sea
(Exod. 14-15)
and the
desert (Exod. 16-17) in the creation of Israel.
And fourth, if the Genesis
narrative was intended as a polemic against Baal worship, Futato
himself admits that the
Jews missed the point, since Baal worship
was a recurring theme from the time of Moses to Elijah (a period of almost
six hundred years).
In fact, if Moses intended
the early chapters of Genesis as a polemic against Baal worship, that fact has
eluded everyone
until modern scholars applied literary criticism to the
Word of God. Futato's argumentation is not only
suspect, it is
misleading, false and downright dangerous. It will do nothing
but deceive those who are not well grounded in the
sacred Scriptures.
Meredith G. Kline: "Space and
Time"
The third article that we
will consider briefly takes us back to Dr. Kline, whose "Space and Time in
the Genesis
Cosmogony" appeared in
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith in 1996. Although this piece was
actually written
before Futato's article (and even
suggested some of Futato's main points), I have
chosen to deal with it last because
of its even more radical theology.
In this article Kline
argues for a two-tiered view of reality. He writes, "Central in biblical
revelation is the relationship
of God, whose dwelling place is heaven's glory (Ps.
115:16), to man on earth. A two-register cosmos is thus the scene
of the biblical drama, which features constant
interaction between the upper and lower registers." In a footnote to this
paragraph he favorably compares his two-register cosmology to
mythology, which he defines as "a portrayal of human
affairs in terms of a dynamic interrelating of divine and
human realms" (a definition that applies rather well to his own
two-layer perspective). He boasts that his new insight has
become his "main point" and the "umbrella" under
which his previous arguments "are accorded an
ancillary place." And from it he concludes that "as far as the
time frame [of Genesis] is concerned, with respect to both
the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left
free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic
origins." Accordingly, science has become in his thinking
an autonomous endeavor.
Kline himself
apparently does not object to the term mythology. The German words Geschichte
and Heilsgeschichte
may be
too loaded for him, although perhaps somewhat descriptive of his position. In
any case, his two-register
theory
has the effect of separating the actual historical events of this world from a
supra-historical heavenly plan
or
decree. The creation of the world took place in six "days" in the
upper register, but by the time it worked its
way out
on earth the days took on a topical nature.
Again, he argues that the
seventh day of creation is an upper level designation for eternity, while the
Sabbath
ordinance refers to a recurring period of rest here below.
There is a correlation between the two registers, but the
nature of that correlation is not disclosed.
As Kline applies his
two-register theory to Scripture (especially the first chapter of Genesis), his
assignment of
the details to upper or lower register comes across as
rather arbitrary. The creation of heaven, the brooding of
the Spirit, the creative fiats and the Sabbath belong to the
upper level. But since the brooding of the Spirit is
specifically connected with the waters of the lower creation, we
are left wondering why he classifies it as an upper
level phenomenon.
The Sabbath
raises another question. If this is a description of the upper register
behavior of God and if God's
modus operandi during
the creation week was ordinary providence and if the heavenly Sabbath is an
eternal rest
from the
activity of the first week, are we to assume that God ceased to exercise
ordinary providence after
making
heaven and earth? On the other hand, the creation of earth, the deep and the Sabbath
ordinance apply
to the
lower level.
Similar problems arise in connection with
this classification. Even more basic is the question about Kline's sources:
how does he know which events and occurrences
belong to which register?
Kline leaves us with the
impression that he, too, is playing games with the text of Scripture. While Futato connects
the dots to make a brand new picture, Kline connects the
same pattern of dots on two different pages and makes
two different pictures. The troubling thing is that he thinks
this is acceptable exegesis. To those of us who prefer to
uncover the picture that is really hidden in the dots, Kline's
approach sounds more like eisegesis.
Speaking more broadly, one
wonders how far Kline will take his two-register cosmogony. Ultimately, if carried
to its logical conclusion, it leads inevitably to total
skepticism because all that can be known about God occurs
within the upper register. The lower register may have
parallel or coordinate occurrences, but these are necessarily
limited by the nature of lower register knowledge. Even when
God opens man's eyes to the upper register, what
man sees is couched in terms familiar to him and,
therefore, still of the lower register.
Man has no access, either
directly or indirectly, to the higher knowledge of the upper register. Kline
seems to
acknowledge this criticism with his frequent use of the word
invisible in regard to the upper register. Indeed, he
hints that it will be only in the consummation of history
that "the visible-invisible differentiation of space
comes to an end," "the boundary of heaven and
earth disappears" and "all becomes one cosmic holy of holies."
Genesis One
As I mentioned
earlier, Calvin wrote that "we ought to have a deeper reverence for
Scripture than to reckon
ourselves
at liberty to disguise its natural meaning." The most natural
interpretation of Genesis 1 is that God
made all
things "in the space of six days," as Calvin, Ussher and the
Westminster divines insisted. [14 See
Calvin’s commentary on Gen. 1:5; Art. 18 of the Irish Articles; Westminster
Confession 4:1, Larger Catechism
15 and Shorter Catechism 9. In his commentary on the Westminster Confession, A. A.
Hodge argues that the
divines
were simply using the language of Scripture. However, this argument comes
across as disingenuous for
two
reasons: First, nowhere does the Bible use the phrase “in the space of six days”
in reference to creation.
Second, the
phrase in question had already a decisive and clear meaning when the
Westminster divines borrowed
it. In
both Calvin and Ussher, whose theology had a significant impact on the
Westminster standards, the phrase
meant six
literal solar days in contrast to Augustine’s non-literal understanding of the
days. The present writer
finds it
incredible that anyone would still claim that the divines did not intend to
limit creation to six literal days;
yet,
forms of Hodge’s argument are still found among those who should know better
(cf. “Westminster Theological
Seminary and
the Days of Creation:
A Brief
Statement” [article online]; available at http://www.gospelcom.net/wts/news/creation.html; Internet;
accessed 15
May 1999).]
Contrariwise,
the Framework Hypothesis says that the "days" of Genesis 1 are not
chronological periods of
approximately twenty-four hours in duration. This opinion is based on an
extremely doubtful interpretation of
Genesis
2:5. Conclusions from the latter passage
are then carried back into and made part of the former.
The arguments
in favor of a literal understanding of the word day in Genesis 1 are
unassailable. Here are the
main
ones:
First, the Hebrew word for day (m/y) never signifies anything other than a normal
day or at least the lighted part
of a day.
The plural form of the word means "several days" (cf. Gen. 5:4, 5, 8,
11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31). Sometimes
the
number of days even adds up to many years, yet the word never loses its literal
meaning. This is especially clear
in the
singular. Even Genesis 2:4 is not an exception. Moses wrote, These
are the generations of the heavens and
of
the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens.
Some scholars
assume that the word "day" in this verse comprises all that took
place during the "six days" days
of
creation, but is it not more likely a reference only to the first day, in which
God not only created light but also
formed
the matter from which all other things were made (Gen. 1:1-2)? Nor does the fact that one day is with
the
Lord as a thousand years (2
Pet. 3:8) speak against this, since Peter's point is that God is not subject to
time
at all.
He is no more limited by days than by years.
Second, Moses carefully separated the days of
creation by numbering them sequentially. There is a first day, a
second
day, a third day, and so forth. If the days were topical, as Kline and Futato argue, such numbering would
be
deceptive and misleading.
Third, each of the days of creation consisted
of evening and morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Kline says that
this is
nothing more than "a detail in the creation-week picture." It is,
indeed, a detail, but even in poetry the details
mean
something. If the purpose of the creation narrative is merely to provide a
foundation for the Jewish Sabbath(s)
with the
"six days" making up the work-week, the description of those days as
consisting of evening and morning
would be
meaningless overkill. Rather, the Lord used this detail to confirm in yet
another way that the days of
creation
were days of normal duration.
Fourth, the entire Bible treats the creation
narrative as true in its details. Second Corinthians 4:6, for example,
says that
God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our
hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This is clearly an allusion to the
creation of light on the
first
day.
Apparently,
Paul understood the creation narrative as it was given. The same is true of
Peter, who wrote that by
the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water (2 Pet.
3:5). He
was
referring to the events of Days Two and Three.
Last, the fourth commandment requires that the
days of creation be twenty-four hours in length. We are to work
six days
and rest one because this is the pattern that God himself followed when he made
heaven and earth. Since
it is
obviously true that God has the right to command us to do something whether or
not he gives us a pattern
to
follow, the fact that he gives us a pattern in this instance can only be
attributed to his marvelous grace. He did
not have
to fabricate a story of six-day creation to gain our obedience.
To say that the days of creation
are analogous to our days, as adherents of the Framework Hypothesis must say,
is inadequate because it turns the fourth commandment
into a logical fallacy and nonsense: God worked six topics
and rested one topic in the upper register; therefore, we
must work six days and rest one day in the lower register.
The Framework Hypothesis
holds that the days of creation are topical and not chronological. Why then did
Moses
go out of his way to emphasize chronology in the
creation narrative? And what should we
do with the other writers
of Scripture who made a point to argue from the details
of the creation account? The Biblical evidence is not only
overwhelming; it is conclusive.
God made the world in six days which were chronological periods of light
and
darkness as recorded in the book of Genesis.
Conclusion
More than four hundred
years ago, Calvin warned against playing games with the Word of God. He said
that such
game-playing shows disrespect for the Scripture and is
presumptuous and almost blasphemous. Sadly, the various
literary approaches to the Bible, of which the Framework Hypothesis
is one, are all too common. This is not to say
that those who use literary approaches are necessarily
outside the kingdom of God. We must let God judge the hearts
of others. Yet, literary approaches themselves are
antithetical to sound doctrine when they try to second-guess what
God has plainly
revealed. The danger is real.
Historically, it has seldom
been true that unbelief strolls in the front door of the church announcing
itself. It usually
sneaks in a little at a time. First an obvious error is
tolerated – often for the sake of love or harmony. After all, the
one who holds the error is a sincere Christian. In time
that error becomes the majority opinion.
Before long no one can
tolerate the truth. At that point, nothing is left. The doctrine of creation in
this sense is a key
doctrine because it reveals our attitude to the whole of
Scripture.
May God keep us faithful and true to his inspired
and inerrant Word! Amen.
------------
Phone: 719-590-1477
Write
Trinity Covenant Church
6050 Del Paz Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
Email: Pastor C. W. Powell
Note: The above has been edited very
slightly in order to
adapt it to this tract format. It has been further edited for html format.