R.C. Sproul on Creation

By on February 11, 2011 in Creation, Culture

I’m encouraged to see even some of the “big gun” theologian/scholars taking a stand on biblical creation. I’ve talked in the not to distant past about Al Mohler’s stand on creation and his ping pong of essays with BioLogos and now R. C. Sproul has posted an except from Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith: Volume 1: The Triune God that dogmatically tells you where Sproul is at on the issue. If you are unfamiliar with Sproul then you need to get familiar with him. He is a pastor/scholar/theologian and is a gift from God for the church. He founded Ligonier Ministries which produces a lot of great content for the church as well. Here is what Sproul says about creation;

I now hold to a literal six-day creation. . . 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.

I’m thankful for the stand men like Mohler and Sproul are taking when many of their colleagues are undermining the authority of the Bible by reading the Bible through the lens of science. Science must be read through the lens of the Bible for it is our ultimate authority for our life.

If you have a moment be sure to duck over to Sproul’s blog to read the article in it’s entirety—it will be an encouragement to your soul.

  • http://www.twitter.com/jrgordon13 James Gordon

    Greg,

    So I just don’t buy that accepting something other than a six day literal creation undermines the authority of Scripture. Scripture is authoritative in that its illocutionary meaning is binding for our lives. That is, whatever it tells us to do, think, and believe, we must do, think, and believe. However, a doctrine of creation is not expressly spelled out in the Biblical witness. I mean, even a facile literary analysis of the Genesis creation account inclines us to think that chapters 1-11 are something other than historical narrative. In addition, no specific doctrine of creation has ever been endorsed by a church creed (in the same way that no specific view of the atonement has). God created. That’s what Scripture demands we believe. We need not commit to a given process solely based on the authority of Scripture. If there is any truth in Scripture that entails that we hold to a six day literal creation, then I am willing to change my mind. But, I have yet to come across one.

    Also, consider this. Most of the same people who argue that science must be interpreted in light of Scripture go quite far out of their way to scientifically show that when the Bible says “wine” it means something akin to “Welch’s.” So much for the “plain” sense of the text, I guess.

    Anyway, interested to hear your thoughts, and hope all is well.

    Cheers,

    JRG

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      James, good to hear from you as always. Since we don’t have any context together in this discussion let me say first and foremost what I post is primarily for my church and the people in the Sunday School I teach. That is to say that it is not very technical and aimed at your average church laymen.

      From the literary level itself I believe that Genesis is representative of biblical narrative. The structure and abundant use of wayyiqtol throughout the chapters pushes me in that direction. So if it is narrative it is a story, God’s story of creation. I don’t think we are dealing with any type of hyperbole and I see no reason to treat it as allegory.

      The silence we hear in church history through the creeds I think comes from the fact that there were not creation debates until the last two centuries. Much of church history is silent on the issue because it wasn’t an issue. I think much of it was simply assumed. Just like much of early church history doesn’t speak to the types of computers we use or the cars we drive. The technology hadn’t been invented yet.

      I don’t think we get any clear writing and documentation until we get to some of the reformation writers, Calvin and Luther specifically.

      The reality is that many reject a literal six day creation based upon the witness of modern science (c-14 dating, radiometric dating, etc). Science is merely a tool and was itself created by God. When I speak of biblical authority I am speaking to the fact of some people using science to interpret what the Bible says. I say let the Bible speak for itself.

      Regarding your comment about Welch’s and wine…let’s just say I’m not on that side. Wine is wine no mater how you try to dissect it. The difference is if it is good wine or bad wine.

      Thanks for chiming in James…hope all is well for you in the windy city.

  • David “the B”

    Greg, nice site. Would expect nothing less from you :) Have you read/looked into Walton’s Lost World of Genesis One? Published last year I think. He’s made me a convert of his functional ontology reading of Gen. 1-2 and I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      David,

      Thanks for the compliments…

      I have not read Walton yet but I have it on the shelf ready to read. I’ll get into it probably this summer. I am planning to rework a lot of the material I teach for Pentateuch so I’m planning on going through a bunch of material. So unfortunately I have no opinion on it yet. What is the gist of his argument?

      • David “the B”

        The idea is that the ANE world was not concerned with material creation as we are, owing to our modernist, scientific sensibilities. The ANE world is concerned with the function of things, not their material. For a thing not to function is it not to exist in that cognitive atmosphere.

        Thus, in the beginning, the material of the world is not said to not exist, but is said to be “thw wbhw” (“uninhabited and unproductive” usually trans. “formless and void”). Thus, in “creating” God was not giving material to things previously immaterial, but was giving function and order.

        A few implications of this reading that are of particular interest to guys like Ken Ham are that (1) the Genesis account says nothing of material origins, thus it says nothing about the age of the earth, (2) assignment of function, though it may have happened in six twenty-four hour days, allows for an indefinite period of biological evolution before the “creation.”

        Walton’s data points are primarily (1) ANE peer literature, (2) lexical data on the verbs brh and ‘sh, and (3) exegetical data from the Gen. 1, 2 accounts.

      • David “the B”

        BTW, a more technical ms. on the subject is due out this year through Eisenbrauns. The one pub. last year is a popular read, but still plenty to represent his view.

      • David “the B”

        Ole’ Kenny don’t like it one bit: http://bit.ly/h2leNq

        • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

          I follow Kenny on his blog and read that when it came out a week or so ago. I think he is a little strong in titling it as “False Teaching” because that has more of a heretic conotation, which I don’t know that he means to imply that. However, I would soften by maybe saying “wrong teaching” or “I don’t agree with teaching.”

          To be honest, some the ANE conversation has me confused. My first exposure to ANE was through Enns book and then that book got him fired. So ANE studies don’t sit super well with me yet…which is primarily based upon my understanding of what ANE is trying to communicate.

          Anywho…thanks for the info and the summary and the DL on the Eisenbraun publication.

  • Paul Leverson

    Greg…
    How does what R.C. say compare with what Driscoll says in his book “Doctrine — What Every Christian Should Believe”?

    Personally, I’m inclined to embrace those things about God which do not diminish His power or elevate mine. It is not enough for me to be able to say “God created” for it does not elevate Him above man…for man creates. We must go deeper — if we really believe God to be INFINITELY greater than us.

    I am not fancy or formally educated in the things of theology but know in my heart 2 things:
    1. I am not God
    2. I have a strong desire to be God

    Because of just these 2 facts, I shy away from anything that could bring God to my level (diminish Him), or elevate myself to His level (honor myself).

    • http://gadietrich.com G. A. Dietrich

      Paul:

      I’m not 100% on what you are implying and I have not read Driscoll’s book ( I did listen through that sermon series a couple years ago). What specifically does Driscoll say that you are referring to?

      Both God and man do create but man has never created something from nothing. This makes God infinitely greater than us and in no way diminishes his holiness or his sovereignty. Are you saying that in someway in what I have said has diminished God?