The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Analogical Day Theory

First of all,

Methinks you have stated what should be the obvious in regard to why people reject the historic 6 day/24 hr creation view; they lack faith in the Word of God. Yes, it is also a hermeneutical question, but the way the question(s) are posed, it seems to me that there is already a presupposition of unbelief behind them. There are far too many walls they have to traverse to make any other view reasonable. For example, the basic hermeneutical principle; Historico-Grammatico has to be abandoned if one embraces any other view. Are we to accept that not only did the people in Moses day have no true understanding about how God created the world and all it contains? And, even further, that with very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the most godly men and Christian scholars throughout history have totally misunderstood what Scripture teaches concerning the creation? There is also the issue of the Fourth Commandment; the Lord's Day which is based upon both creation and the redemptive acts of God. To reject the 6-day/24-hour creation view, one of necessity has to reject this commandment as binding upon all believers. There are also NT passages where even the Lord Christ Himself affirms the 6-day/24-hour creation view, etc., etc....

Secondly, I can only guess, but it appears to me that Dr. Poythress has gone the way which some other noble men have gone, e.g., B.B. Warfield and E.J. Young, et al. They have given in to worldly pressure for the sake of Academia and/or personal credibility in regard to being a scholar. Additionally, in some cases some have allowed God's authority, the inspired, infallible written Word of God to be shared or overshadowed by the opinions of godless science. No, I am not saying that science, in and of itself is godless and thus should not be pursued. But rather, the presuppositions that govern most science(tests) is godless and thus the conclusions reached or deduced from what can be empirically seen (raw data) is often wrong. This is surely the case with the conclusions reached concerning the age of the universe/earth and its objects whether measured via light synthesis, carbon dating, etc. The 'measurements' might be accurate, although this is not a given, but how those measurements are to be understood is going to be directly influenced by one's presupposed cosmology. In short, I believe Dr. Poythress, John Frame and any/all professing Christians who reject a 6-day/24-hr creation view have bartered their faith by allowing godless science's understanding of God's natural revelation to intrude upon God's special revelation where it has no warrant to do so. They have believed the lie... "Hath God said...?"

That's my

I'm sorry but I can't share your optimism. History has shown that rarely does one come back to the historic/traditional view after leaving it, especially with those in the academic community. Pride is one of the strongest sins to overcome.