Dr. Bryan Chapell has done the PCA a service by spelling out and publicizing what can be taught at Covenant Theological Seminary on the doctrine of creation. Such forthrightness is needed for the advancement of the peace and purity of the church. Dr. Chapell's report not only educates the church at large but also gives an opportunity for interaction and further probing of the issues raised.
        Dr. Chapell contrasts the position of Covenant Seminary with a new and surprising rigidity regarding the doctrine of creation that has arisen in some PCA circles in recent years. He offers the following description of this overly narrow view:

Now there are those claiming that if one does not hold their precise view of how the universe was created then he cannot be allowed to minister in our churches.

        If this statement is intended as a description of the claims made by most who disagree with Dr. Chapell on this issue, then this statement is an overstatement in my opinion. As far as I know, few if any are making the claim that every detail of interpretation regarding the creation account is a fundamental of our system of doctrine as described in the second ordination vow. Take, for example, the candidate for ordination whose position is that the Bible does not provide adequate information for one to know with certainty the length of the six days of creation. Our hypothetical candidate agrees that the six days are an historical chronological sequence. He accepts the divinely revealed order of events, with earth's vegetation being created before the sun, moon and stars. He acknowledges that each day of creation had one evening and one morning. He agrees that death did not enter the world until Adam's first sin. How many presbyteries in our denomination, if any, would take the position that this man"cannot be allowed to minister in our churches" because of his uncertainty on the length of the six days of creation?
        The more common question is how far one may deviate from our Standards' teaching on creation and still legitimately claim to be in full agreement with them. The minutes of the 13th GA (1985) describe an allowable exception:

As to Presbytery allowing an exception which does not undermine the system of doctrine as set forth in the WCF and does not strike at the vitals of religion, Presbytery may do so.¹

The minutes of the 14th GA (1986) give further insight into the limitations associated with an allowable exception:

When a man is ordained with the allowance of exceptions to his full acceptance of the PCA standards, he thereby obtains (1) approval of his suitability to function within the ordained office, and (2) liberty to believe and live in some way not fully in accord with some portion of those standards. This allowance of exceptions, however, does not warrant his teaching or preaching of that matter so as to disturb the peace and purity of the church. The court of jurisdiction must determine in each situation whether such unwarranted actions have occurred.²

        I believe most in the PCA would agree that a doctrine such as a lower species origin for Adam's physical body is a denial of a fundamental of our system of doctrine, even if some "giant in the faith" may have defended this doctrine in days past.³ The current discussion is over the confessional teaching that creation occurred "in the space of six days." Is the belief that creation took place over long ages an allowable exception to our Standards which should not be taught so as to disturb the peace and purity of the church? Or can one hold to this and be received as one in full accords with our Standards?
        Dr. Chapell in his report does not explicitly mention a watershed distinction among the long age views of the six days of creation. The Confession says creation occurred "in the space of six days." Some are uncertain about the length of the six days or believe that the six days were each longer than a normal 24 hour day. Others teach that the six days are not a chronological "space" at all but merely a literary device. This second view is called the literary framework hypothesis. Dr. Chapell does not mention this view by name, but he does list advocates of this viewpoint in his list of "giants of the faith." Earlier in his report, Dr. Chapell states that

... there has been an informed allowance for differences among Bible-believing Presbyterians about how best to interpret these accounts, so long as they were believed to be accurate and historical.

        Does a man who believes that the six days of creation are a mere literary device believe the creation account to be "historical"? At least in one sense of the word, he does not.
        This view that the six days of creation are a mere literary device is especially troubling to me. Our Standards do not teach that God created the world in an event symbolized by the space of six days. If the words "in the space of six days" mean anything, they mean that the days of creation are a chronological sequence of historical days, regardless of their length. This very language "the space of six days" is found in Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1:5 where Calvin argues against the theory of instantaneous creation, which was associated with Augustine.⁴ According to Augustine, the six days of creation are a literary device with no literal chronological significance. Men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one usually believe in creation over long ages and not in instantaneous creation. Still they agree with Augustine that the days of creation are a non-literal teaching device and not six days in an historical narrative. In this sense, men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one hold to the same general position which Calvin argued against using the very words "the space of six days." To allow literary framework men to say that they are in full agreement with the confession is to allow the language of the confession to encompass a form of the very position which that language, as previously used by Calvin, was meant to exclude.
        Should men who believe that the six days of creation are not an historical "space" of time, be allowed to say that they are in full agreement with the Confession's teaching that God created the world "in the space of six days"? These men can defend their position by saying that they have learned "to read the Confession through the lens of Scripture, not to read Scripture through the lens of the Confession," to use Dr. Chapell's words. What is to prevent a minister from applying this same principle to other issues such as paedocommunion, hyper-preterism, dispensationalism, etc.? All a man has to do is to say,

            1. I hold to view X;
            2. I believe view X is taught in Scripture;
            3. I interpret the Confession in the light of my understanding of Scripture;
            4. therefore, I am in full agreement with the Confession as I interpret it.

        Though Dr. Chapell would no doubt be appalled by such a use of this principle, I do fear that this potential for abuse exists within this explanation of the relationship between the Confession and Scripture.
        It is up to our church courts to determine on a case by case basis what views on creation are in full accords with our doctrinal Standards. Dr. Chapell makes a similar statement in his report. I have my own opinion on this matter. I believe the only views on this issue which are in full accords with our Standards are those which teach that there is a basic continuity between the length of the six contiguous cycles of evening and morning during the creation week and the length of days after the creation week. Positions which involve creation over long ages should be declared exceptions to our Standards for the sake of the integrity of the documents. Our Standards teach that "the last day of the week" was the sabbath "from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ." This implies some basic continuity between the creation week and the weeks which followed as to the nature of their days. Also, we have no evidence that any of the Reformers or any of the Westminster Divines held to any of the various long age views of the six days of creation. Furthermore, Calvin in his commentary on Genesis uses the very language "the space of six days" in his argument against a view that the six days are a mere teaching device. Also, this is an issue of hermeneutics, and the principles of interpretation are basic and critical to any system of doctrine.
        Dr. Chapell's report is filled with other details which merit discussion. I will limit myself to commenting on his statements about William Ames, Augustine and Aquinas, and his comment on previous actions of the PCA General Assembly.

        Dr. Chapell says the following regarding William Ames (1576-1633):

At least one of the Westminster divines' mentors, William Ames, went on record with an opinion that the creation week was not limited to 144 hours.

        If what Dr. Chapell says here is correct, then William Ames was an historical anomaly. Louis Berkhof makes the following statement in his Systematic Theology about the rise of long age views of the six days of creation:

The prevailing view has always been that the days of Genesis 1 are to be understood as literal days. Some of the early Church Fathers did not regard them as real indicators of the time in which the work of creation was completed, but rather as literary forms in which the writer of Genesis cast the narrative of creation, in order to picture the work of creation -- which was really completed in a moment of time -- in an orderly fashion for human intelligence. It was only after the comparatively new sciences of geology and palaeontology came forward with their theories of the enormous age of the earth, that theologians began to show an inclination to identify the days of creation with the long geological ages.⁵

        Was William Ames an exception to what Berkhof has said? Some argue that Ames held to the intermittent days view, the view that the days of creation were six 24 hour days with indefinite spaces of time between them. This theory regarding Ames' view of creation is based on one sentence in paragraph I.viii.28 in William Ames' book The Marrow of Theology. John Eusden in his published translation of Ames' book translates this sentence as follows:

The creation of these parts of the world did not occur at one and the same moment, but was accomplished part by part in the space of six days.⁶

        Interestingly, this sentence is a polemic against Augustine's position of instantaneous creation. Ames' statement as translated by Eusden has nothing in it to suggest that Ames held to an alternate view which did not otherwise appear in the history of interpretation until a few centuries later.

        Ames expands on his view of creation later in his book. Below are his statements in I.viii.51-56,59 as translated by Eusden:

The order of creation was this: In the first day after the constituting of the highest heavens, the angels, and the unformed mass, the most delicate part of that mass was called upward and became light, i.e., a shining fire. On the second day, air was made out of that very delicate part nearest to the light. On the third day the thicker parts of the mass were divided so that the sea stood forth by itself as the greatest part of the waters gathered in hollows. And the earth appeared adorned with herbs and trees. On the fourth day were made the luminaries of heaven to give light to the earth. On the fifth day fishes and birds, living in the water and the air, were brought forth. On the sixth day all terrestrial living creatures were brought forth, first the unreasoning animals and then man. And thus the heavens and earth were perfected and all the numbers of created things. ... The power of God shown forth in that he created the plants, the herbs, and the trees before the sun and stars which customarily are causes in this production.⁷

        There is nothing here to indicate that Ames held to anything but the traditional view of the six days of creation.

        In the late nineteenth century, a time when theologians were under the pressures which Berkhof mentions above, John Macpherson published his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. In that work, he references sentence I.viii.28 in The Marrow of Theology and mentions Ames as an alleged example of those who "suggest that the active creative periods were six natural days, with indefinite intervals between them."⁸ What is at issue here is the proper translation of the Latin phrase sex dierum interstitiis in Ames' sentence.⁹ Eusden translates this "in the space of six days." Macpherson interprets it to mean "[during] six natural days, with indefinite intervals between them." Which is correct?
        I can understand the rationale behind the published Eusden translation. Interstitiis is an ablative of time within which. This plural noun is interpreted in a collective sense and thus translated in the singular: "in the space of six days." Sex dierum is in the genitive case, which expresses possession. The Latin literally says, "within intervals of six days." According to the Eusden translation, the intervals are the collective temporal space taken up by the six days of creation.
        Allow me to suggest another possible interpretation. The intervals could refer to the short periods of active creation which occurred during the six days of creation. This suggestion is consistent with Ames' context of arguing against instantaneous creation. Even though God could have created everything in an instant, God chose to take six days to set an example for humanity regarding weekly work and rest. That does not mean that God was engaged in constant acts of creation for the entire six days. For example, God may have used only a brief interval of time to create light on day one, a brief interval of time to create the firmament on day two, and so on.
        I have consulted a Latinist who reads ecclesiastical Latin. He has assured me that the Eusden translation is valid and that the Macpherson interpretation is not.¹⁰ Sex dierum is in the genitive case, which expresses possession. Interstitiis is most naturally translated as an ablative of time within which. The Latin sex dierum interstitiis literally says "within intervals of six days," not "[during] six days with indefinite intervals between them."
        I also want to comment on the positions of Augustine and Aquinas. Dr. Chapell lists both of these as "giants in the faith who have taught Genesis was not necessarily (or definitively) limiting God's creative activity to 144 hours." This statement gives the impression that both of these men taught that creation occurred over a period greater than 144 hours. Many would probably interpret this statement to imply that Augustine and Aquinas believed in creation over long ages. On the contrary, Aquinas says the following about his own position in his master work Summa Theologica:

Thus we find it said at first that "He called the light Day": for the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called day, where it is said that "there was evening and morning, one day." [Book 1, Question 69, Article 1, Reply 5]

The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed. [Book 1, Question 74, Article 3, Reply 7]

        And Aquinas says the following about the position of Augustine:

Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 34; v, 5), the things which we read of as being made in the works of the six days, were made together at one time; and so all the six days must have existed instantly from the beginning of creation. [Book 1, Question 62, Article 1, Objection 3]

If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24), and not succession in time, ... [Book 1, Question 68, Article 1]

I answer that, On this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22; De Civ. Dei xi, 9; Ad Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only. Now, these two opinions, taken as explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely different. For Augustine understands by the word "day," the knowledge in the mind of the angels, and hence, according to him, the first day denotes their knowledge of the first of the Divine works, the second day their knowledge of the second work, and similarly with the rest. Thus, then, each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge thereof on the angelic mind; which can know many things at the same time, especially in the Word, in Whom all angelic knowledge is perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the natural order of the things known, and not a succession in the knowledge acquired, or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic knowledge is appropriately called "day," since light, the cause of day, is to be found in spiritual things, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. iv, 28). In the opinion of the others, however, the days signify a succession both in time, and in the things produced. [Book 1, Question 74, Article 2]

        Lastly I want to examine Dr. Chapell's comments on two General Assembly votes. Dr. Chapell states that

Twice (once in 1995 and 1997), the PCA General Assembly has voted not to make a 24-hour-day view of Creation a required interpretation of the PCA Standards.

        All I wish to do is to examine these two votes in some detail. I will have to take an educated guess as to which two votes Dr. Chapell is referring to.
        A vote on this issue occurred at the 1997 General Assembly during the report of the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records. One presbytery had approved a candidate for licensure who described Genesis one as a "poetic account." The presbytery had noted this as an exception to the Standards. The Review Committee recommended that the presbytery be cited with an exception of substance because "there was no admonition from Presbytery not to teach this view." The recommendation failed. Nothing was done to invalidate or question the presbytery's action in noting this position as an exception to the Standards.¹¹
        In recording this action, the published minutes at the bottom of page 206 have the following note:

NOTE: The following Exception was stricken because the General Assembly has not made a definite determination that there is only one possible interpretation of Genesis 1:

        I have a letter from the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly dated November 24, 1997, stating that this note at the bottom of page 206 has been deleted as a correction to the minutes.¹²
        A vote on this issue also occurred at the 1995 General Assembly during the report of the Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records. The background of this ruling was the 22nd General Assembly (1994) when a presbytery was cited with an exception of substance in its minutes because

The minutes do not give adequate information regarding the examination of a TE and the exceptions to the WCF 4-1 (Creation), 28-3 & 7 (Baptism), and BCO 7-2 and 9-3.¹³

        Two of the issues involved were six day creation and the limitation of the diaconate to men. The explanation on six day creation given in response at the 23rd General Assembly (1995) was the following:

Concerning WCF 4-1 (Creation), the TE believes that "It is not scientifically impossible for God to create the universe in six days since He is omnipotent. The point is that the Word of God does not set out such a scientific plan but rather emphasizes the unique power of God to create out of nothing and in accordance with His perfect will."¹⁴

        Concerning the office of deacon, the TE with exceptions was quoted as saying,

... the Diaconate is not an office of ruling authority and therefore the PCA should discuss on a local and national level whether it is right to continue to ordain only men to that office.¹⁵

        The Committee on Review of Presbytery Records recommended that the 1995 General Assembly instruct the presbytery in question to re-examine the Teaching Elder "in the area of six day Creation" and "in the area of the office of deacon being limited to men." A substitute motion was made that the presbytery's response to the previous year's exception "be approved as satisfactory in that it does provide adequate information." The substitute motion became the main motion and then passed.¹⁶
        The man's presbytery had listed these positions as exceptions to the Standards, and the General Assembly never questioned this. Whatever relevance this vote has to alternate views of the six days of creation, it has a similar relevance to the position that women should be allowed to be deacons.
        Do these facts substantiate the claim that "Twice (once in 1995 and 1997), the PCA General Assembly has voted not to make a 24-hour-day view of Creation a required interpretation of the PCA Standards"? The answer probably depends on what one means by a required interpretation. On one occasion, the General Assembly chose not to require a man with a certain non-24-hour-day view of creation to be re-examined by his Presbytery and not to regard his position as a denial of a fundamental of our system. On the other occasion, the General Assembly chose not to cite a presbytery for not giving a licentiate an admonition not to teach his views on the days of creation. Yet on both these occasions, these non-24-hour-day views of creation were on record as exceptions to the Standards. The minutes of the 7th General Assembly (1979) comment on the limited relevance of the review process:

The Stated Clerk ... set forth the following points regarding the binding character of the different kinds of actions of the Assembly. ... Review and Control of Presbyteries and Committees are binding upon the particular Presbytery or Committee.¹⁷

 

 

FOOTNOTES