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

Yes I have that book.

What I like about it is not only does each of the three
"camps" present their own view, but after each chapter,
the other two camps get to rebut what was presented in the
prior chapter. The format is as the title suggests, a
debate.

Another good thing about this book is that it is a good
reference for these views, and makes a good case that one
can be an "evangelical" and still hold an old earth view.
 The bad thing about it, is theistic evolution is not at
all mentioned.

I guess this goes back to the original PCA debate that you
mentioned. That debate actually presented four views as
acceptable within a confessional church. The other view
that was not part of this book is what the PCA called the
analogical view. The PCA committe considered theistic
evolution unacceptable. This committee's report can be
seen here.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:22:15 -0500
  "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>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 10:07:52 2005