Genesis 1 & 2 and the Perspicuity of Scripture

A few days ago I read something by the esteemed theologian and pastor, G.I. Williamson, that both surprised and disappointed me.  His comment was made concerning the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis. 
"The word ‘perspicuous’ here means clear—clear enough for you and I to understand it."

In short, according to Williamson, there is only correct interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 is the literal six-24 hour day view.   

I realize that the word, "perspicuous" and its derivative, "perspicuity" are not part of everyday English.  What do they mean?  How do they apply to Genesis 1 & 2?

In Reformed and Presbyterian circles, these terms have been applied to Scripture concerning salvation not creation.  This is where Dr. Williamson gets off track.  The Westminster Confession of Faith 1:7 puts it this way:  

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation (my emphasis), are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Thus, the perspicuity of Scripture has been understood to mean that the Scriptures are plain enough concerning salvation that even an unlearned person, led by the Holy Spirit, can understand what God requires for salvation. 
The great reformed theologian Louis Berkhof makes much the same point.  Contrasting the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is obscure and nearly unfathomable Berkhof writes this about the Protestant Reformers:

"Over against this position of the Roman Catholic Church the Refomers stressed the perspicuity of Scripture.  They did not intend to deny that there are mysteries in the Bible which transcend human reason, but freely admitted this.  Neither did they claim such clarity for Scripture that the interpreter can well dispense with scientific exegesis.  As a matter of fact, they engaged in exegetical labors far more than the votaries of Rome... Their contention was simply that the knowledge necessary unto salvation, though not equally clear on every page of Scripture, is yet conveyed to man throughout the Bible in such a simple and comprehensible form that one who is earnestly seeking salvation can, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by reading and studying the Bible, easily obtain for himself the necessary knowledge, and does not need the aid and guidance of the Church and of a separate priesthood."  Source: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology New Combined Edition, p. 167 of the Introductory Volume.

For those wishing to delve deeper, a better article explaining perspicuity and the problem with Williamson's line of reasoning can be found here. 
   

What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution? – Kevin DeYoung

On the heels of yesterday's post I recommend this article What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution? – Kevin DeYoung.

Here DeYoung interviews Dr. Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute about the book he recently edited, God and Evolution.  The book discusses the inherent problems with theistic evolution, not the least of which is this major flaw:

DeYoung: You also talk about philosophical and theological problems. Do you think theistic evolution presents dangers to orthodox Christianity?

Richards: THE central theological problem for theistic evolutionists is reconciling Darwinian Theory—which defines “random” to mean “purposeless”—with theism. The theist claims that God created the world for a purpose and providentially guides it. But it simply makes no sense to say that God directs an undirected process. This basic contradiction at the heart of the project leads many theistic evolutionists either to trade in equivocations, or to jettison major parts of traditional theism.

Though I've opposed theistic evolution on many different grounds I must admit that this is the first time I'd come across this objection. 

In the interview DeYoung also explores the topic of ID (Intelligent Design) with Richards.  Some creationists have a knee-jerk reaction to ID as if it originated with the devil himself.  Richards makes this salient point:

DeYoung: What is the relationship between ID and young earth creationism? Are there cautions you would have for Christians in either camp?

Richards: ID differs from young earth creationism because it is based on the evidence from nature alone, and is not an attempt to reconcile the biblical text (or an interpretation of the biblical text) with the evidence of nature. ID, strictly speaking, simply claims that there are patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of an intelligent agent. That’s consistent with a variety of different creationist views, but is identical with none of them. Of course, many ID proponents have specific views about the doctrine of creation, the age of the universe, and so forth. But ID per se is distinct from these ideas.

I live in a community filled with scientists so this book looks like one that would benefit me.  Read the article, click on the links, and see what you might learn.

Preachers in Lab Coats and Scientists in Geneva Gowns

Dr. Bryan Estelle, OPC minister and professor at Westminster Seminary California, has written a helpful piece with this title.  Here is an excerpt:

"I was struck by my brother-in-law's comment several years ago (he is a trained scientist and not a professing Christian), when he claimed that the creationists (he had in mind certain ICR—Institute for Creation Research representatives) are "preachers in lab coats." This was his way of saying they had a pretty slick way of presenting their material on the university campus in debate, which to the untrained ear sounded good; however, those creationists were not doing real science and for one that was a scientist, they were basically charlatans..."


"In contrast to the preachers in lab coats are what I am calling "Scientists in Geneva Gowns." Here I have in mind practicing scientists who depart from the rigors of their respective disciplines and make exaggerated claims with an overstated degree of certainty with respect to the contemporary scientific picture. Sometimes they will even make grandiose claims for a particular cosmological worldview. They have left the realm of science and entered the realm of "folk science."[8] Carl Sagan and his views on the cosmic structure of the universe are a good example of this.'


Estelle goes on to discuss how matters of creation, and in particular, Adam's origin, have been handled in his own church.  For example he uses as a backdrop for this article the 1996 trial of an OPC elder who taught  that Adam originated from a pre-existing hominid.  Drawing upon the wisdom and experience of Cornelius Van Til, J. Gresham Machen, and Herman Bavinck while offering comment on ID (intelligent design) and recent controversies at reformed seminaries, Estelle shows us the way forward. 

This article will not answer every question on every facet of the relationship between science and theology but it is a good first step.  Click on the link to read the entire article: Ordained Servant Online

Genesis One

Recently I began preaching through the book of Genesis.  For a long time I stayed away not quite sure how to navigate its opening chapters.  I've read as much as I can and contemplated the various views concerning the creation account. 

I won't go into a defense of any single position here but for the uninformed there are five major views of the creation account: Days of Ordinary Length, Days of Unspecified Length, Day-Age View, Framework View, and Analogical View.  Some might be surprised to learn that reformed stalwarts like B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Herman Bavinck, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Herman Ridderbos, and others held positions other than the first one listed above. 

One might be puzzled at this point as we commonly hear that the length of creation days is a test of orthodoxy.  Is it?  Consider that all five views affirm the following tests of orthodoxy:

• Creation ex nihilo
• The federal headship of Adam
• The Covenant of Works
• The doctrine of the Sabbath
• The sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture
• The historicity of the creation account

For further reading I suggest the following position papers on this topic: 

PCA Position Paper on Creation

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf

OPC Position Paper on Creation
http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

Westminster Theological Seminary Statement on Creation http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html