Notes on a Lecture Given by Rev. Scott Wilkinson

Introduction

The PCA takes a "total tolerance" view of the mixture on Creation days. Great men in the Presbyterian tradition, like Gernstner and Sproul, held to this view. "To hold to a dogmatic view on the days of creation is outside the Reformed tradition," some say (NAPARC). A famous Reformed seminary has stated that it is outside the Reformed and Augustinian circles to make the creation days a litmus test of orthodoxy (see R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession on the chapter on QIRC). Those who hold to an orthodox 6/24 Creation and making it a test of orthodoxy, is clearly not a Reformed view, Professor Clark would say. Notice that this seminary (WSC) uses Augustinian twice in that critique. Why? Because his view was clearly an instantaneous Creation, which does not necessarily mean that it is literally a week-long period, i.e., 6/24 hour days. WSC claims that this issue should not be the test of confessional fidelity, despite the fact that the Westminster Divines were very clear, i.e., that there is a specific 6/24 hr. creation in view.

Points of Contention

• Historic Adam and Eve
  
• Animal sacrifices before Adam's sin
  
• Methods of interpretation of the days
  
  • Allegorical: instantaneous = could be days, years, seasons, etc.
    
  • Literal: Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines
    
  • Gap theory: Thomas Chalmers, which taught that creation to be a period of millions of years.
    
  • Day-age view: B. B. Warfield, E. J. Young, C. Hodge.
    
  • Frame-work hypothesis: Herman Ridderbos, M. G. Kline, Lee Irons.
    

The final three deal with evolution and try to make sense of modern science. Meredith Kline himself claims that the young earth is a deplorable view in the service of the Church. Is there reason to deny modern science of the origins of Creation aside from the obvious presuppositions that are antitheistic? Because men almost without reserve hold to the old earth of modern science, that lead theologians to hold to any of the last three options. Clearly this is an issue of presuppositions, not science.

If modern science claims that evolution is a natural process, and not a miraculous creative act, why not deny other miraculous acts that we find in the Bible, like the Resurrection? This then leads us to see that Kline's primary goal is to eliminate the traditional 6/24 Creation view. While Kline accepts a naturalist view of the origins of the earth and Adam, he asserts that he still holds to the Biblical truths that Adam was a historical figure who prefigured a covenantal future Adam, i.e., Jesus himself, and all that is affirmed in the Scriptures. There is a major problem that I think every (thinking) Christian should think about:

1. Firstly, if you affirm with modern science that Creation is not a supernatural act by God but a natural process, there is no logical reason why you or anyone else would affirm what clearly contradicts what modern science denies, i.e., supernatural acts.
   
2. The second does away with the notion of Scripture. By its very definition, it is a supernatural gift given by God. If one affirms the first part of (1), then by modus tollens (if P, then Q; ~Q; therefore ~P) holding to Scripture is not only illogical but unjustifiable. There is no real reason why anyone in their right mind, if they hold to natural selection, would hold to supernatural revelation if he affirms a naturalist view of creation, since by definition the Scriptures—like creation—is a supernatural gift. Both Creation and Scriptures, to the conservative Christian, are both supernatural.
   

Holding M.G. Kline's view, one is set on a slippery slope to accept unbiblical ideas and puts that person in a horn of a vicious dilemma: either you're a naturalist or a supernaturalist.