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

Ted,

As you may know, this is my ecclesiastical background--Irons was OPC
and Kline still is. The whole conservative Presbyterian tradition is
caught up in this debate. The OPC issued a report at their most
recent GA. They chose *not* to side with the Duncan/Hall school, i.e.
requiring that genuine subscription to the Westminster Confession
*required* 6-24 days. The question was left open and pastoral advice
in handling the controversy was the main point. There was a jab at
evolution as might be expected and I'm still trying to sort that out
with folks from the committee that I know.

For the record, the southern Presbyterian (Old School) tradition
rejected the "innovations" of Hodge and Warfield. Thornwell, Dabney,
Giradeau and other conservative southern Presbyterian theologians
continued to maintain the 6-24 hour view well into the 20th century.
I believe you reviewed in PSCF the story of James Woodrow, a southern
Presbyterian theologian who has removed from his seminary position
because of his more open views toward old earth geology and
evolution. The PCA "old schoolers" tend to see themselves as heirs
and defenders of that southern Presbyterian tradition. (Are you
familiar with Greenville Presbyterian Seminary?)

For anyone who cares the PCA report is available at the ASA web site:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PCA-Report2000.html
Perhaps we can get the OPC report up there as well (and others if you
want to send me links/references).

I'm glad you find the book useful. It is narrowly focused on the
debate among us conservative Presbyterians (even with the
contribution of Archer and Ross--their inclusion, I think, points to
a real bifurcation among conservative Presbyterians--if you're not
YEC then you tend to hold to the framework view).

TG

>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

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801