Re: Cobb County--George Murphy and heresy, related matters

Hi, George, I know I don't say much on this list anymore but it isn't b/c I
don't pay attention--it's just that I am so terribly behind in everything
I'm supposed to be and trying to be doing. I'd love to chime in more
often.

Given the recent exchange you've had with Vernon about heresy, however, I
thought I'd just note the wonderful coverage that you have been given on the
"Answers in Genesis" website. Perhaps you've seen it, but in case you
haven't I thought I'd pass along the URL:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1025symposium.asp

One of the things I've been doing this month is teaching a J-term course (3
weeks of pretty intense teaching) on the American controvery about origins.
I'm using a book I had not seen until a few months ago as one of the texts:
The G3N3S1S Debate, ed David Hagopian. It's very conservative, growing out
of the PCA strife over the Westminster language (following Calvin) about the
creation having been accomplished "in the space of six days." As you
probably know, the PCA had a pretty intense debate a few years ago, about
whether this language in their key document and their interpretive tradition
allowed one to hold to an old earth--evolution was of course so far beyond
the pale that it came up only when advocates of interpretive latitude
vigorously denied that they were evolutionists.

In any event, this particular book features actual, genuine coversation
between adherents of these positions:
24 hour days (Ligon Duncan and David Hall)
Day-Age (Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer)
Framework (Lee Irons and Meredith Kline)

Unlike the Three Views book from Zondervan, in which outside commentators
all represent one position, this one limits the discussion to the authors of
the 3 sections--and they do have quite a lively exchange. Overall, the
authors of the 24 hour position claim (most unconvincingly) that they are
agnostics on the age of the earth and universe, yet they bring all the
standard YEC arguments into the picture--no death before the fall, no
deviation from literal days before 1800, Adam's miraculous ability to name
animals, etc. It really does strike me as disingenuous, why they don't come
right out and own up to their YEC position I don't know. The amount of
weight that Duncan and Hall place upon "their" (my quotes) Reformed
interpretive tradition (which ends with the early 19th century, since
obviously Hodge and Warfield and others since then have given up the ship)
is almost unbelievable. Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the
Westminster divines they quote were almost or entirely geocentrists. The
fact that one could make an IDENTICAL argument about
heliocentrism/nonliteral "days" just does not seem to occur to them. Too
bad the Westminster confession has nothing quite so explicit about the
earth's place in the universe, even though it's probably there by
implication.

But the students see all this, and they appreciate the careful attention to
the creation texts that the book as a whole does provide. If anyone else
has used it or read it, I'd be interested in their comments.

Ted
Received on Fri Jan 21 09:23:02 2005