Framework hypothesis advocates are sensitive to the related charges that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is novel and that this novelty is, at least in part, due to making concessions to modern scientific timelines of the age of the earth. The charge of novelty is a serious one. If the framework view is so apparent in the text of Genesis 1, as some advocates have contended,1 how could the church have missed it for so many years? This is tied to the next question: why is it that this view of the text did not arise until after the arrival of modern geological, astronomical and biological theories of the age of the earth?
In response to these questions, the framework proponents trump Augustine as an example of an early advocate of the view. Henri Blocher, for example, contends, “… the framework theory, is not, as is too often imagined, an innovation of the modern age. Augustine…constructed a brilliant and startling interpretation of the days in De Genesi ad litteram.”2 Lee Irons is even more adamant. “The framework interpretation in its modern form builds upon Augustine’s view and is in fundamental continuity with it.”3
The claim that Augustine’s interpretation is a precursor of the framework hypothesis is highly contestable, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is indeed a forerunner to this view. This granted, the claim that the framework hypothesis is novel is proved false and the suspicion that it arose in order to allow the Bible to comport with modern scientific dogma is less credible.
Turning for the moment to the interpretation of the Westminster Standards, framework hypothesis advocates look to Augustine once again. Here the difficulty is the phrase “within/in the space of six days.” This phrase seems to be straightforward; God created the world in six literal days. Not wanting to be at variance with the Confession’s teaching, framework proponents have put forth a number of arguments to show their view to be in agreement with it. Some have argued that the language is borrowed from Scripture and is, thus, not specifically addressing the duration of the six days. A similar position is that phrase is intentionally ambiguous, leaving the matter open to a number of views regarding the days of creation. Perhaps the most prevalent argument is that the phrase is used to exclude Augustine’s position of instantaneous creation. The basic argument is that this language (“in the space of six days”) is picked up from Calvin who, in the context in which he used it, was arguing against the Augustinian view. By employing this language the divines were merely trying to guard against the error of instantaneous creation and did not intend to define the duration of the creation days as literal 24 periods of time. Thus, defenders of this view conclude that differing views on the duration of these days should be countenanced by churches that have adopted the Westminster Standards.
This view is highly implausible in that it not only contradicts the prima facie meaning of the phrase, “with/in the space of six days,” but also fails to adequately address the historical research that has been done that shows that all of the divines present at the Assembly who wrote on the days of creation held a literal view. However, let’s again assume, for argument’s sake, that this is indeed the original intent of the divines. That is, the divines simply employed the phrase, “in the space of six days,” to exclude the Augustinian view of instantaneous creation and nothing else.
In making this assumption, though, a tension immediately emerges with our previous assumption. Recall that the first assumption was that Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is a precursor to the framework hypothesis. In other words, there is fundamental agreement between Augustine and the framework view in the interpretation of Genesis 1. But it was, according to our second assumption, precisely Augustine’s view that the Westminster divines wanted to protect the church from when they used the phrase, “in the space of six days.” It appears, then, that these two appeals to Augustine undermine themselves and that the framework hypothesis is, on its proponents own terms, contrary to the Westminster Standards.
The retort of framework advocates can be anticipated. They will likely reply that this charge of inconsistency is unfounded because it was Augustine’s conclusion that the world was created instantaneously that the divines sought to guard against and not the exegetical procedure he used to arrive at this conclusion. Though using a similar procedure, the framework hypothesis is not excluded by the Westminster Standards because it does not arrive at the admittedly erroneous conclusion that God created all things instantaneously.
At least two considerations show that this defense is unsuccessful.
(1) It was precisely Augustine’s “literary” approach to the text that made his conclusion possible. It is incumbent upon framework advocates to show exactly where Augustine went wrong in his “literary” interpretation. They must show, in other words, that while Augustine’s procedure was basically sound, he committed a major blunder in the execution of this procedure. Without such a demonstration, such a defense by framework advocates would simply be arbitrary.
(2) Framework advocates themselves state that their view is silent on duration. Meredith Kline, for example, asserts, “The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.”4 In a similar vein Lee Irons writes: “One who holds to the framework interpretation, then, is not bound to any particular view regarding the age of the earth. On such matters the framework interpretation itself is silent.”5 But if the Bible leaves open the question of the duration of God’s creative work, then it is possible that he created all things instantaneously. The framework hypothesis is, thus, agreeable with the one position, ex hypothesi, the Westminster divines took pains to exclude. As such the position is out of accord with the Standards.
Where do these observations leave us? First off note that if the assumptions we have made about Augustine and the Westminster Standards are wrong, the contention that the framework hypothesis has historical antecedents in the ancient church and that the divines did not intend to exclude non-literal views of creation is seriously damaged, if not completely discredited. But second, if these assumptions are indeed correct, the framework hypothesis is shown to be out of accord with the original intent of the Westminster Standards. Either way, the position taken by proponents of the framework hypothesis is seriously undermined. Proponents must either concede that Augustine is not a precursor of the framework theory or that their understanding of original intent of the divines is erroneous (or both), or they must admit that their position is contrary to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
A blatant example of this inconsistency is Westminster Theological Seminary’s Brief Statement on the days of creation. This document argues that churches in the Augustinian and Reformed traditions have always allowed divergent opinions on the days of creation and thus should continue to allow divergence. (Notice the naturalistic fallacy involved in this reasoning: it argues from what is or has been the case to what ought to be the case. Notice also the assumption of a static view of the history of theology in that it assumes that the church cannot make progress or refinements in its understanding of certain doctrines.) Two pages later, however, the Statement contends that the Augustinian view of instantaneous creation is the one view the Westminster divines meant to exclude by the phrase, “in the space of six days.” Thus by their own reasoning, Augustine himself, who is as good a representative of the Augustinian tradition as any, would be excluded from serving in churches that have adopted the Westminster Standards — the very position the Statement hoped to avoid.
Notes
1 According to the “The Report of the Committee to Study the Framework Hypothesis,” of the Southern California Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one exegetical consideration in favor of the framework hypothesis is so compelling that it claims “the Spirit has gone out of His way” so that we would not miss it. Report, 8.
2 Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984), 49.
3 Lee Irons, “The Framework Interpretation: Explained and Defended,” by author (February 4, 1998), 5.
4. Meredith G. Kline, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 48:1 (March 1996), 2. Emphasis mine.
5. Irons, 3. Kline and Irons may counter that natural revelation shows us that the world was not created instantaneously. But the “interpretation” of natural revelation is subject to great controversy. Moreover, the notion that natural revelation gives us insight into the duration of God’s creative work is a misunderstanding of the nature of this type of revelation.
