Jul 5, 2008

R.C.Sproul Changes his Mind on the Days of Creation

See this article on R.C. Sproul's recent shift in position. According to the article,

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.


Cal Habig said...

That's fine for him, but I am not sure why it is news. I have always believed in a 7-day creation, even though my understanding is that the Hebrew of Gen. 1 does not demand a "day" as being 24 hours. But what I am troubled by are those (like some relatives of mine) who make a 7-day creation belief one of the requirements for a "true believer." I believe one can hold a high view of scripture and still not see this passage as absolutely literal. That is not what your post was about, but it was my reaction to it.

Charles Savelle said...

I appreciate your response and you raise some excellent points.

Why is it news? I suppose it is news because of the stature of Sproul within the Evangelical community. Apparently, Sproul thought it was important enough to note that he has changed his opinion. By the way, I am a bit impressed that Sproul has announced that he has changed his mind about something as significant as his view of creation. I think it speaks well of a person to admit that they have come to the conclusion that an earlier position that they held was wrong.

I am sympathetic to your concern that belief in a literal seven day creation (I suspect you mean here seven 24-hour days) is a "requirement" for a "true believer" in the opinion of some people. However, I think I would like to ask what is meant by "requirement."

Similarly, I would want to probe what you mean by "a high view of Scripture." For example, I recently had discussions with some Jehovah's Witnesses who appeared, at least at some level, to have a high view of Scripture, yet denied the Trinity. I am not trying to equate those who might deny a seven day creation with Jehovah's Witnesses, but only to make the point that it is often not one's view of Scripture, but how one is interpreting the Scriptures that is determinative.

I do think that one's view of creation is significant. That is, what are the hermeneutical implications for reading Genesis 1-2 in a particular way. Would it be hermeneutically consistent to reject a literal seven day creation on the one hand and accept a literal Adam and Eve and their fall on the other. How do you make that move? But, if one rejects a literal creation, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Fall. then what are the implications soteriologically for doctrines such as the sin nature, the imputation of Adam's sin, Christ as the second Adam, etc.?