Appendix C

 

The Westminster Standards and

the Length and Nature of the Creation Days

RE Howard Donahoe

 

The Westminster Confession of Faith 4:1, Larger Catechism 15, and Shorter Catechism 9 all affirm that God’s work of creation was done “in the space of six days” and concern has arisen amongst some in Central Carolina Presbytery, and in the PCA, that constitutional integrity requires the further specification that these 6 days were each 24 hours in length (i.e., the Calendar Day view).

 

In June 2000, the final report from the PCA’s Creation Study Committee did not recommend adding this further specification.  The Study Committee included TE’s Will Barker, Jack Collins, Ligon Duncan, Howard Griffith, Duncan Rankin, Morton Smith and William H. Smith & RE’s Mark Belz, John Dishman, Sam Duncan (chairman), Stuart Patterson, and John White (alternate) with professor Mark Wardell as an advisor.

 

The report can be found on the web at PCANEWS.com by selecting the current Monthly Discussion Topic and then choosing Creation from the list that appears.

 

The PCA’s Study Committee did not agree on how different creation views should be treated with reference to the Westminster Standards.  The differences are cited below:

 

The advice of some who hold the Calendar Day view is that the General Assembly recognize that the intent of the Westminster divines was the Calendar Day view, and that any other view is an exception to the teaching of the Standards.  A court that grants an exception has the prerogative of not permitting the exception to be taught at all.  If the individual is permitted to teach his view, he must also agree to present the position of the Standards as the position of the Church.

 

Others recommend that the Assembly acknowledge that the four views of the interpretation of the days expounded in this report are consistent with the teaching of the Standards on the doctrine of creation, and that those who hold one of these views and who assent to the affirmations listed below should be received by the courts of the church without notations of exceptions to the Standards concerning the doctrine of creation.

 

The advice of others on the committee is that the PCA has existed for over 25 years with a variety of viewpoints regarding creation being accepted, and a diversity of presbytery and sessional practices.  These members of the Committee recognize that it would be disturbing to the Church if the Assembly sought to change the present practice of the Church which has provided for various ways of receiving candidates for office who make the following affirmations. (p. 2367 of PCA CSC’s report on website)

 

In March 2001, the Creation Study Committee of Central Carolina Presbytery sent a two-question survey to the stated clerks in each of the 53 English-speaking presbyteries.  Of the 31 presbyteries responding, only seven  (23%) consider every non-Calendar Day view to be an exception to the Westminster Standards, and of those, only four restrict the teaching of such views.  (See Appendix D.)

 

I.    Individual Views of Westminster Divines

 

Recent studies by PCA minister David Hall and others have documented at least five divines, and perhaps as many as twenty-one, who affirmed the Calendar Day view (www.capo.org).  Rev. Hall’s research addresses the views of 23 men: thirteen “explicit voting members” (Lightfoot, White, Ley, Walker, Goodwin, Twisse, Ashe, Gataker, Featley, Baillie, Selden, Caryl, Rutherford), one “explicit non-voting member” (Ussher), seven “implicit or at least not silent voting members” (Marshall, Cawdrey, Herle, Palmer, Gouge, Arrowsmith, Burroughs), and two “implicit non-voting members” (Wallis, Byfield).

 

It seems that no evidence has been found of any view other than the Calendar Day in the writings of individual Westminster divines.

 

II.  Original Intent of the Westminster Phrase “within/in the space of six days”

 

PCA Study Committee did agree on a number of facts bearing on the original intent of the Assembly (pp. 2359-60)

 

1.        The doctrine of creation is of integral importance to the theology of the Standards.

2.        The discussion of the length of creation days held by the Assembly was not in the context of the variety of interpretations of Genesis 1 available today.

3.        Throughout the ages of its history, the church has wrestled with the theological implications of the existence of light before Day 4.  This may have given rise to the statement of William Perkins, of great influence on that generation of Puritanism, who wrote, “six distinct days,” or “six distinct spaces of time.”

4.        Throughout pre-Reformation history, Augustine’s instantaneous creation view was treated with respect, and, while not adopted by a majority, was never considered heretical.

5.        John Calvin employed the phrase “the space of six days” (sex dierum spatium) in order to counter Augustine’s instantaneous creation view.  The Westminster Assembly by adopting this phrase excluded Augustine’s instantaneous creation view.

6.        The influence of the Irish Articles of 1615 and their primary author James Ussher on the Assembly was very important.  The first confessional use of “the space of six days” is found in the Irish Articles.

7.        The Confession of Faith 4:1, Larger Catechism 15, and Shorter Catechism 9 use the phrase ‘in the space of six days” without further specification.

8.        At least five divines affirmed the Calendar Day view, possibly more.  No evidence has been found of any view other than the Calendar Day in the writings of individual divines.

9.        Among Calendar Day advocates among the divines, there were differences on other related matters, e.g., the length of the first day, the time of the year of the creation of Adam, the time of the fall of Adam, and the time of the fall of the angels.

10.     In interpreting the Standards, as in interpreting Scripture, historical and literary context must be observed as the most important indication of meaning.  Thus, as we seek to understand the original intent of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms regarding creation, it is imperative that we consider the historical time in which those documents were prepared.  They were composed by the Westminster Assembly, which met between 1643 and 1649.  (The task of drafting Chapter 4 of the Confession was assigned July 16, 1645.  The Assembly debated and concluded this chapter on November 18-20, 1645.)

As we considered these facts, three interpretations have presented themselves.  To some of us, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Assembly meant “six calendar days.”  To others of us, the evidence is not strong enough to conclude that the Assembly wished to exclude any view other than the instantaneous view of Augustine.  To yet others of us, the evidence suggests that the Assembly intended to express no more and no less that what Scripture expresses in the phrase “in six days” (Exodus 20:11).

 

WTS Statement

 

In March 1999, the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary adopted a four-page statement on “The Days of Creation.”  An extended excerpt is quoted below:

 

In the current debate among Presbyterians subscribing to the Westminster Standards attention has focused especially on the phrase, "... (with)in the space of six days ..." (Confession of Faith, 4:1; Larger Catechism, 15; Shorter Catechism, 9). Some insist that its inclusion is manifestly intended to exclude anything but the six 24 hour day view. Others maintain that at this point the Standards are simply paraphrasing the language of Scripture and do not address the question of length of days. Although the latter view is closer to the truth, as will be shown presently, both need to be called into question, in light of the likely background of the phrase.

 

The paraphrase view is doubtful because if the Standards had intended simply to utilize biblical language, "in six days" would have sufficed and been a more natural choice. The words "the space of," as the other view above recognizes, seem deliberately chosen as an interpretive or clarifying addition that functions both to affirm and to exclude or negate.

 

But what is the affirmation/exclusion in view? That question is crucial for the current debate, and the answer is surely the affirmation that the work of creation involved duration, to the specific exclusion of the view, going back at least to Augustine, that it was instantaneous.  (Underlining added.)

 

A clear antecedent to the language of the Standards is present in Calvin's comments on the reference to the first day in Genesis 1:5. "Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction." "Let us rather conclude," he continues, "that God himself took the space of six days [sex dierum spatium], for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men." Our capacity is in fact our incapacity, "our excessive dullness" and "the vanity of our minds" that renders us inattentive to "the infinite glory of God" and "his greatness" as the creator. "For the correction of this fault, God applied the most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into successive portions [in certos gradus], that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he had laid his hand upon us, to pause and reflect.

 

To cite another example, quite similar in effect and virtually contemporary to the time the Standards were written, in his Medulla theologiae William Ames asserts in proposition 28 of the chapter on creation: "But the Creation of these parts of the world, was not altogether and in one moment, but it was finished by parts succeeding one another, in the space of six days [sex dierum interstitiis].

 

In view of such examples it seems fair to maintain that the phrase in question in the Standards functions to oppose the error, longstanding at that time, of instantaneous creation. Though the framers of the Standards for the most part held personally to the 24 hour day view, that view, to the exclusion of all others, is not the point of their confessional affirmation. That affirmation, as particularly the inclusion of "the space of" shows, intends not somehow to limit but rather, over against the instantaneous creation view, to emphasize the duration of the creation days.

 

Even though Calvin, Ames, and the authors of the Westminster Standards, with few exceptions, if any, undoubtedly understood the days to be ordinary days, there is no ground for supposing that they intended to exclude any and all other views, in particular the view that the days may be longer. Such views are outside their purview; their concern, in fact, moves in the opposite direction, against the instantaneous view that denies any length.

 

This point bears emphasizing within the context of the current debate about the days of Genesis. To establish that the Standards mandate the six 24 hour days view requires more than demonstrating that the Divines, perhaps even to a man, held that the days were ordinary days. To demonstrate that of itself establishes nothing. What needs also to be shown, which we believe cannot be shown, is that they intended to exclude the views that the days are longer in some respect or that they represent a literary framework.”

 

If there was a record of any Westminster debate on the phrase “in the space of six days,” it might be easier to determine what was intended.  However, none of the standard histories of the Westminster Assembly note any debate on the nature and length of the creation days.  Therefore, determining the discourse meaning of that phrase is quite challenging.

 

Perhaps ironically, if research had discovered the prevalence of non-Calendar Day views at Westminster, other than Augustine’s, the case might be stronger that the phrase “in the space of six days” was intended to exclude such non-Calendar Day views.  In one sense, controversy is the mother of intention.

 

Prominence of the Issue Near the Time of the Westminster Assembly

 

In the 16th century Reformed church, while the doctrine of God’s creation was of great importance, the length of the creation days does not seem to have been of similar weight. This was noted recently in the Westminster Theological Journal by OPC minister Robert Letham (Ph.D. Aberdeen, professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary and Sr. Pastor Emmanuel OPC, Wilmington, DE):

 

None of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter.  The French Confession (1559) concentrates on creation as a work of the trinity (Chapter 7).  The Scots Confession (1560) stresses the sovereign action of God in creating all things for his own glory (Articles 1-2).  The Belgic Confession (1561) states that the Father created ex nihilo all creatures “as it seemed good to him, giving every creature his being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its creator” (Article 12).  The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) focuses on the ex nihilo work of God’s creative act and does not remotely come near mentioning the process of creation (Q 26).  The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) attempts a trinitarian doctrine of creation, opposes the Manicheian idea that evil was co-created but neither does it approach our topic (Article 7).  The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571) do not deal with creation at all!

 

This universal absence of any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation establishes that it was not a confessional issue in the slightest in the Reformed churches.  It was not a matter of definition since it was not a matter of controversy or even a point for discussion…

 

The Reformed tradition of the sixteenth century interpreted creation theologically.  The classic Reformed creeds consider it in the context of the doctrine of God, as an ex nihilo work of the Trinity.  In so doing, they affirm their continuity with the historic teaching of the church.  The question of the days of creation was not even a matter of discussion.  It does not appear in theses for debate by students.  Its absence is striking.  It was never a matter of confessional significance…

 

Dr. Letham later reaches a similar conclusion regarding the Westminster divines:

 

The single most astonishing and noteworthy feature of English Puritan theology before 1647, and the Westminster divines in particular, is the virtually complete absence of interest in creation…  the days of creation were not a matter of contention…    (“In the Space of Six Days”: the Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly, WTJ 61, 1999, 149-174.)

 

Discourse Meaning

 

Even if there had been debate on the length or the creation days, it might still be challenging to determine the intent of the phrase “in the space of six days.”  For example, consider the question of the divines’ intention in the phrase “such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate” (WCF 24:6).  As shown below, compared to the  issue of creation days, there was far more discourse at Westminster on marriage and divorce.

 

The Westminster divines took up the question of marriage and divorce in 1646, the year the Confession was completed (apart from the proof texts requested by Parliament).  The minutes record the following actions.  The committee assignment was made February 23.  The report on marriage was presented June 17 and debated August 3-4.  The report on divorce was presented August 10 and debated September 10-11.

 

The proposed chapter “Of Marriage and Divorce” as a whole was debated November 9, and the section on wilful desertion was recommitted.  The committee reported back the next day, and, following further debate on wilful desertion, the Assembly on November 11 adopted the chapter “Of Marriage and Divorce” as we now know it. (Divorce and Remarriage Report, M20GA, p. 521, citing Minutes of the Session of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, ed. Alexander F. Mitchell and John Struthers, Edinburgh, 1976, pp. 190, 244, 262-264, 266, 279-280, 299, 300.)

 

The 1992 report of the PCA’s Study Committee on Divorce and Remarriage commented on this question:

 

It is therefore not at all clear how the divines as a whole may have understood desertion or, for example, whether they would have regarded unremedial physical abuse as tantamount to desertion, as justification for divorce, and, if so, for remarriage.  As it is, no record of the substance of the Assembly’s debate on desertion is extant. (M20GA, Roanoke, p. 530)

 

The Confession, as finally adopted, does not explicitly restrict desertion as just cause for divorce to mixed marriages, a point observed at some length by John Murray in his widely-circulated Divorce.  This may or may not have been intentional.  (M20GA, p. 530)

 

In summary, it is difficult to state with absolute confidence the extent of the latitude which may have existed within the Puritan consensus on divorce and remarriage…  It is to be admitted that none of the Puritan works surveyed states the case for ‘desertion in the broader sense’ as bringing with it the right of divorce and remarriage in as summary a way as did the continental divines.  Nevertheless, available evidence warrants caution in proposing a single interpretation or application of the Confession’s phrase “such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied.  (M20GA, p. 533)

 

If it is difficult to determine the divines’ precise intention regarding desertion and mixed marriages, it is understandably more challenging to determine what their intentions may have been regarding the phrase “in the space of six days.”

 

Interpretation by the Church

 

While it is important to determine the original intent of a confessional phrase, it is also important to discover how the church has historically understood and interpreted a particular confessional phrase.  That is, the meaning of a confessional phrase is also derived from the history of the confessing churches.

 

For example, take the catechism’s statement on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer (LC #191).  We are to pray that “the church [may be] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate…” What did Westminster mean by that?  Westminster meant that the magistrate should tax the citizenry and use the money collected to pay the salaries of ministers.  (On this point, the majority at Westminster was apparently sympathetic to one aspect of the Erastianism held by divines John Lightfoot and Thomas Coleman, and statesmen and lawyers such as Selden, Whitelocke and St. John.)  But what has that identical phrase meant in the latter church?  In American churches, we changed the chapter on the civil magistrate, but not LC #191.  However, it is clear that we now mean something different than what the divines meant in LC #191.  We mean something like: “that he will approve, embrace, and permit the lawful practice of the true religion.”

 

III.    Post-Westminster Views of the Reformed Church

 

How has the Church historically understood and interpreted the confessional phrase “in the space of six days?”  It is to that historical data that we now proceed.

 

1650 to 1800

 

In the Reformed tradition since Westminster, one’s view on the length of the creation days does not appear to have been a matter of confessional integrity.  Most agree that in the Reformed community, there was no significant diversity on the matter of creation days between 1650 and 1800.  The earliest commentators on the Confession and Catechisms (Dickson, Watson, Flavel, Vincent, Ridgeley, Henry, Fisher, Doolittle, Willison, Boston, Brown) affirm “six days,” reject Augustine’s instantaneous view, and generally concentrate more on the assertion of creation ex nihilo.

 

1800’s

 

Most agree that in the Reformed community, there was no significant diversity on the matter of creation days between 1650 and 1800.  The earliest commentators on the Confession and Catechisms (Dickson, Watson, Flavel, Vincent, Ridgeley, Henry, Fisher, Doolittle, Willison, Boston, Brown) affirm “six days,” reject Augustine’s instantaneous view, and generally concentrate more on the assertion of creation ex nihilo.

 

In the nineteenth century, however, other creation-day views began to develop. These other views apparently did not provoke ecclesiastical sanctions from the various Presbyterian bodies.  During this time of transition, while there were many men in our tradition that held a Calendar Day view (Hugh Martin, Ashbel Green, Dabney, Giradeau), there were also men in our tradition that did not.  This group included Charles and A.A Hodge, Warfield, Shedd and others in America, Shaw, Miller, James Orr, and Donald MacDonald in Britain, and Kuyper and Bavinck in the Netherlands.

 

Many respected commentators on the Confession did not believe that the Calendar Day view was the only acceptable interpretation of the phrase “in the space of six days” (i.e., John MacPherson, Alexander Mitchell, T. Chalmers and W.G.T. Shedd).  The most famous nineteenth century commentators on the Confession (Shaw, Hodge, Beattie and Warfield) did not personally hold a Calendar Day view and asserted that the Confession was unspecific on the matter of the length of the days.

 

1900’s

 

During the twentieth century, a certain level of diversity has generally been permitted on the length of the creation days.  A number of the most highly respected Reformed men have held non-Calendar Day views (Machen, Allis, Adger, Buswell, Harris, E.J. Young, Barnhouse, Schaeffer and Gerstner).

 

Little, if any, discussion of the length of creation days appears in the writings of Geerhardus Vos, Cornelius Van Til and John Murray.  Perhaps they did not deem it significant enough to warrant much debate.

 

Near the time when the PCA was formed, the length of the creation days was not an issue of much contention.  One example makes this point.  In 1969, in Mobile, the Southern Presbyterian General Assembly revisited the issue of creation and evolution.  Unfortunately, that 1969 PCUS Assembly concluded:

 

… the relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889, and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our church.  (PCUS, M1969GA, pp. 60-61; also found in Did God Create in Six Days? pp. 22-23)

 

In response to this unsound decision of the PCUS, Central Mississippi Presbytery adopted an eight-point declaration and overtured the next PCUS Assembly to adopt their declaration as well.  One “whereas” alleged that “the position of the 1969 General Assembly is one that goes counter to the historic position of our Church on this subject, and appears to be a departure not only from our Constitution, but also from the Scripture, thus confusing our people on this subject.”  The Assembly declined to adopt the overture.

 

Central Mississippi’s declaration was made just four years prior to the formation of the PCA.  Most pertinent to the present question is the parenthetical note in the third of the Presbytery’s eight declarations:

 

3.  God performed His creative work in six days.  (We recognize different interpretations of the word “day” and do not feel that one interpretation is to be insisted upon to the exclusion of others.)

 

(Morton Smith in Did God Create in Six Days? p. 24  -  Central Mississippi’s declaration is also referenced in the Personal Resolution from TE Joseph Pipa which the 27th PCA GA answered in the affirmative, as amended, making ten declarations – none of which specifically mention the length of the creation days.  (See M27GA, 1999, Louisville, p. 179)

 

While the theory of natural evolution was rightly seen by Central Mississippi as “a departure from our Constitution,” different views on the nature of the creation days evidently were not.

 

When the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy deliberated on the subject of the duration of the Genesis 1 creation days at their second summit held in Chicago in 1982, none of the Hebrew and Old Testament professors who participated concluded that the Genesis creation accounts mandated six consecutive 24-hour creation days.  (The proceedings of this summit can be found in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: Proceedings from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. Earl D Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984, pp. 285-348 and 900-903.)

 

IV.         Reformed Seminaries

 

Many of the major evangelical Reformed seminaries have had, and continue to have, professors who hold various non-Calendar Day views (Laird Harris, Meredith Kline, Willem VanGemeren, Nigel Lee, R.C. Sproul, Bruce Waltke, Jack Collins, Mark Futato and others).

 

One example is especially worth noting.  Dr. Laird Harris chaired the translation committee of the NIV and defended the inerrancy of Scripture in his book, Inspiration and Canonicity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957).  More than a decade before he was elected as Moderator of the 10th PCA General Assembly in 1982 in Grand Rapids, he explained his creation views (non-Calendar Day) in a book titled, Man, God’s Eternal Creation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).  While his non-Calendar Day view was fully known, he was elected repeatedly, and chaired repeatedly, the Theological Examining Committee of the PCA General Assembly.

 

In March 1999, the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary adopted a statement containing the following:

 

The Seminary has always held that an exegetical judgment on this precise issue (twenty-four-hour days of creation) has never of itself been regarded as a test of Christian orthodoxy or confessional fidelity, until some have sought to make it so in the modern period.

 

In January 1998, Dr. Bryan Chapell, president of Covenant Theological Seminary, delivered a statement to the Board of the Seminary.  Here are some excerpts:

 

The creation issue, quite frankly, is surprising to us since for generations there has been an informed allowance for difference among Bible-believing Presbyterians about how best to interpret these accounts…

 

Covenant Seminary has not changed its position on this issue in its 40 years of existence.  That position is that the Genesis accounts are entirely true, factual, and historical.  No one here denies God’s creation out of nothing, the historicity of Adam and Eve, the special creation of man, the reality of the fall.  No one here endorses Evolution…

 

All of our professors affirm that the first chapter of Genesis can be reasonably interpreted as teaching that God’s creative activity occurred in six solar days.  Not all of our professors, however, believe that this is the best interpretation…

 

Despite some of the current debates in the PCA… we now teach nothing at Covenant that was not taught here 40 years ago when the seminary started…

 

What seems most apparent, however, is that the timing of the creation days was not really an issue at the time of the Assembly, and so, clearly definitive statements were not made (and probably were not intended to be made) on this issue.  (Excerpts found in Did God Create in Six Days? pp. 29-33.)

 

While Reformed Theological Seminary has not issued any formal statement on the length of the creation days, RTS has had, and continues to have, some professors that do not hold the Calendar Day view.

 

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary is perhaps the only Reformed seminary which has taken the view of six-24 hour days of Genesis One and requires it of all faculty.

 

V.      PCA Formation - 1973

 

When the PCA formed in 1973, there was an allowed diversity of opinion on the nature of the creation days.  This early diversity of opinion is acknowledged by Dr. Morton Smith, first Stated Clerk of the PCA and current dean and professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  (Dr. Smith’s present view, however, is that the Biblical materials teach the 24-Hour Day view and that this is the position of the Westminster Standards.  He is quoted below only to establish that an allowed diversity existed when the PCA formed.)

 

The question of the length of the days as reflected in the action of Central Mississippi Presbytery taken just four years before the separation of the PCA from the PCUS in 1973 (i.e., opposing the PCUS allowance of theistic evolution), was not a part of that earlier debate, and thus not directly a part of the founding of the PCA.  Certainly, the six literal day view with the immediate activity of God throughout the creation week was a most acceptable view.  It was probably held by most of the non-ministerial members of the Church, as well as by many of the ministers.

 

Other ministers, on the other hand, including your speaker, had been affected by the Princeton-Westminster tradition on this matter, and allowed for a certain variety of opinion on the length of the days, though generally speaking no form of evolution was condoned.    (“The History of the Creation Doctrine in the American Presbyterian Churches” by Dr. Morton Smith in Did God Create in Six Days?  Edited by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall, Greenville Seminary, Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press and Oak Ridge, TN: Covenant Foundation, 1999 p. 25 – parenthetical comment added.)

 

When Joining and Receiving was accomplished with the RPCES in 1982 an even greater diversity existed amongst the teaching eldership - without its being a controversial issue.

 

Granted, the Framework view was probably not widely understood and embraced by the PCA ministry in 1973.  Likewise, the Anthropomorphic or Analogical view was not widely taught until a decade and a half after the start of the PCA.  However, amongst PCA ministers in 1973, the Day-Age view was widely held, but not widely considered as constitutionally significant.  Therefore, the allowance of non-Calendar Day views is not a modern revision from the standard practice in the 27-year history of the PCA.

 

VI.    PCA Judicial Precedent

 

There are seven cases that touch on the creation issue.  In no case did the PCA hold that constitutional integrity requires the specification that God created the universe in six consecutive 24 hour days:

 

Grace Covenant Church vs. New River                    1991                    Snapp vs. James River                    1999

Bowen vs. Eastern Carolina                     1991                    Long vs. James River                    1999           

Antioch Session vs. Eastern Carolina                    1994                    Black vs.Eastern Carolina                    2001

Mt. Carmel Session vs. New Jersey                    1998

 

In Grace Covenant vs. New River, the GA affirmed the presbytery’s ruling that a man (non-ordained) could not teach youth Sunday School while he held multiple exceptions to such doctrines as inerrancy, creation (held to theistic evolution), the fall of man, original sin, and the role of confessional standards.

 

In Bowen vs. E. Carolina, the GA affirmed the presbytery’s judgment that infant baptism and limited atonement “are to be considered fundamentals to our system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers of the church.”  Regarding creation, the reasoning section of Bowen included this statement: “Other doctrines in which the PCA has granted a measure of freedom are: in the area of creation, where some may hold to a literal six 24-hour day for God’s creative acts, and others may hold to a form of ‘age-day’ creation…”

 

In Antioch Session vs. Eastern Carolina, the presbytery sustained a man’s licensure exam but prohibited him from “teaching his views on creation and the flood.” A complaint against the licensure was denied by the presbytery.  The GA affirmed the Presbytery’s judgment.  The SJC reported that the man believed Noah’s flood was local, not universal, and that his creation views were not the same as “theistic evolution” and that he affirmed “special creation, inerrancy, that matter did not pre-exist before creation, the historicity of the Garden of Eden, and his opposition to naturalistic evolution.”  The SJC considered itself “not qualified to give a definitive pronouncement excluding certain exegetical opinions of the Candidate, while still eager to guard the scriptural teaching without compromise.”  The SJC and the Assembly affirmed the presbytery’s “attempt to safeguard by prohibiting the Candidate to publicly teach or preach his views on this subject.”

 

In Mt. Carmel vs. New Jersey, the GA affirmed the presbytery’s judgment and denied a complaint against New Jersey’s adoption of a set of 15 affirmations and denials.  The last set stated “We affirm that one natural interpretation of Genesis One is the 24-hour exposition.  We deny that the 24-hour day interpretation is the only exegetically possible interpretation.”  The Session of Mt. Carmel complained against Presbytery’s adoption of this resolution as its position on creation.  Presbytery denied the complaint and wrote that “it is by no means clear that the Westminster phrase ‘in/within the space of six days’ must be interpreted as involving 24-hour days.”  The SJC affirmed the presbytery’s judgment by a vote of 12-9.  Because more than one-third of the SJC signed a dissenting opinion, that dissent automatically became a substitute motion to the majority’s report.  However, the GA failed to adopt the substitute as the main motion and the GA approved the judgment of the majority.

 

In Snapp vs. James River, a man was ordained holding a self-described “anthropomorphic” view of the creation days.  No exception to the Standards was noted by Presbytery.  The complaint was against the ordination itself, not simply the failure to record an exception.  GA denied the complaint, affirmed the presbytery, and upheld the ordination.  The SJC opinion reasoned that “the highest court of the PCA has not made any determination that ‘anthropomorphic’ days are out of accord with our confessional standards and the creation account in Genesis 1.”  The SJC vote in Snapp was 12-6.  A dissenting opinion, signed by five members of the SJC, concluded that the majority of the SJC did not consider the man’s view to be an exception to the Westminster standards.

 

In Long vs. James River, the complaint was against Presbytery’s restricting the newly ordained minister’s teaching of his “anthropomorphic” view of the creation days.  The GA denied the complaint and affirmed the presbytery’s decision to restrict teaching.  Citing BCO 39-3, the SJC reasoned that James River Presbytery had better knowledge of the candidate, the issues, and the internal well being of the presbytery.  The SJC vote was 13-8, with a dissenting opinion signed by five members.

 

In Black vs. Eastern Carolina, a Westminster Seminary doctoral student moved to the Raleigh area to begin developing a RUM ministry at NC State and sought to transfer his license from Philadelphia Presbytery.  The licensure transfer exam was sustained at a stated meeting of ECP in April 1999.  A subsequent motion to record his non-Calendar Day view as an exception was postponed to the summer stated meeting, in order to first hear the PCA’s Creation Study Committee’s report to the 27th GA in Ft. Lauderdale.  At its summer stated meeting in July 1999, ECP ruled that the licentiate’s no-Calendar Day view regarding the length of the creation days did not constitute an exception to the Westminster Standards.  TE Black’s complaint against this July 1999 ruling was considered at ECP’s stated meeting in October 1999.  A motion to deny the complaint failed.  A motion to sustain the complaint also failed.  In November 1999, TE Black complained to the General Assembly.  A three-member SJC Panel heard his complaint on March 2, 2000 and unanimously judged that Eastern Carolina Presbytery did not err in its July 1999 ruling.  The full SJC reviewed the panel’s decision in October 2000 and approved it by a vote of 13-3.

 

 

VII.            Overtures 7 and 23 to the PCA’s 29th General Assembly in Dallas

 

Overture 7 from Calvary Presbytery (South Carolina) stated:

 

“the 28th General Assembly affirmed that ‘… a diversity of views on creation days… is acceptable’ and thus, in essence, invalidated any definitive creedal statement.”

 

Overture 7 from Calvary and 23 from Mississippi Valley asked the 29th GA to declare:

 

“until evidence to the contrary is found, we understand the Westminster divines intended the phrase ‘in the space of six days’ to specify that the six days of creation were days of normal duration with evening and morning.”

 

The overtures also petitioned the Assembly to rule that:

 

“any future candidates who differ with this original meaning should request an exceptions to the sense of the Confession unless documentation that the Westminster divines held other views is firmly established or unless the Standards are duly amended.”

 

The 29th GA chose not to adopt these overtures.  (The Committee of Commissioners on Bills and Overtures, by a vote of 23-8, recommended the Assembly answer these overtures in the negative.  A B&O Minority Report was offered as a substitute but was not adopted.)