Horton is advocating confessional maximalism. He still believes not just the broad outlines (from some perspective or other) of the faith confessed by the Reformed churches but he actually believes the stuff between the first article and the last.
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/frame-horton-triperspectivalism-subjectivism/
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good (WCF 4.1).
http://www.wscal.edu/about/missionandcommitments/westminsterconfession.php
The meaning of "day" in Genesis 1 has been debated in the church at least since the days of Augustine. The literary form of the passage in its relation to other Scriptures is important for its interpretation. Responsible Reformed theologians have differed as to whether Genesis 1 teaches a young earth or allows for an old earth. While one of these interpretations must be mistaken, we believe that either position can be held by faithful Reformed people.
http://www.wscal.edu/about/missionandcommitments/testimonytoourtime.php
If the days of creation are not 24 hour days, then maybe the Sabbath day is not 24 hours either.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the open question is whether the Gen. 1 days are 24 hour days. The exegesis appears sound to me that they are. I think the open question is whether the days are literal or metaphorical; i.e., whether Gen. 1 is intended to portray chronological events, or whether it's stylized prose (in the nature of a rhyme or pnemonic, used as a catechism), or whether Meredith Kline's framework hypothesis is correct (tying Gen. 1 to the Sabbath week as a model for the ancient Israelites).
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the post, the point at issue is not the original intent of Moses, but the original intent of the Westminster Divines. Not, how might 21C Christians interpret Gen 1?–but how did 17C Divines interpret Gen 1?
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand. I have several friends who are PCA elders, and (at least as far as the PCA is concerned), their official position is, that the WCF teaches six-24-hour-day creation (the "young earth" view), but it is an allowable scruple for an elder to hold to the old-earth view. Even Kline's view would be allowed, because it really doesn't forestall the others, it could just be an additional layer of the text.
ReplyDeleteSo seemingly, the PCA, while agreeing that the Westminster Divines put forth view A, are saying essentially that they will allow an elder to hold to view B, and it's not necessary to change the actual text of the WCF to allow for it.
So there's at least one confessional denomination that agrees with Horton.
Oh, I should also mention, that when teaching on the subject, if the elder holds to the old earth scruple, he still must teach both sides of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI'm not debating the pros and cons of strict subscription. I'm simply drawing attention to the convenient gap between the rhetoric of confessional maximalism and the actual practice.
ReplyDelete