Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This episode examines how confessional Reformed churches navigate interpretive differences regarding Genesis 1 while maintaining confessional integrity. Using the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s 2004 committee report on creation views as a case study, the episode explores five different interpretations of the creation days that have been considered compatible with the Westminster Standards. The discussion highlights how a church can maintain unity amidst interpretive diversity by focusing on core theological commitments rather than demanding absolute uniformity on every detail. This approach demonstrates the careful balance between faithfulness to confessional standards and charitable accommodation on secondary matters within the bounds of orthodoxy.
Key Takeaways
- The OPC’s approach to evaluating creation views emphasizes the “system of doctrine” rather than requiring agreement on every detail of the Westminster Standards
- Historical evidence suggests the Westminster Divines likely held to 24-hour days, but chose wording that allowed some flexibility
- The committee examined five views: Day of Ordinary Length, Day of Unspecified Length, Day-Age, Framework, and Analogical
- All five views were deemed potentially compatible with the Westminster Standards when held within certain theological boundaries
- Essential doctrines that must be maintained regardless of one’s view include: creation ex nihilo, Adam’s federal headship, the covenant of works, the historicity of Genesis, and the sufficiency of Scripture
- Confessional unity doesn’t require absolute interpretive uniformity on every detail, but rather shared commitment to foundational truths
Key Concepts
The System of Doctrine Approach to Confessional Subscription
The OPC committee report illustrates the “system of doctrine” approach to confessional subscription, which acknowledges that receiving and adopting the confessions involves affirming their interconnected theological system rather than every single word. This approach maintains confessional integrity while allowing some interpretive latitude on secondary matters. The key is identifying which doctrines are essential to the system and which details permit some flexibility. For creation views, the committee established clear boundaries: any acceptable view must affirm creation ex nihilo, the historical Adam as federal head, the covenant of works, and the historicity of Genesis, while rejecting macroevolution. Within these parameters, different interpretations of the creation days can be accommodated without compromising the confession’s theological system.
The Role of Animus Imponentis in Confessional Interpretation
The report highlights the importance of animus imponentis—the intention of the imposing body—in understanding how confessional standards should be applied. While evidence suggests the Westminster Divines likely held to ordinary 24-hour days, the committee noted that by the time the OPC was founded, there was already a “recognized and permitted elasticity” on this specific point among conservative Presbyterians. Respected Reformed theologians like Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen held views differing from a strict 24-hour interpretation. This historical practice of the church in applying its standards provides important context for how strictly certain phrases should be interpreted. The committee’s approach demonstrates that understanding confessional boundaries requires attention not only to the original intent of the authors but also to the church’s historical pattern of application.
Memorable Quotes
“It is the judgment of the Committee that none of the five different views expressed in this report necessarily entails a denial of the integrity of the system of doctrine of our standards.”
“Unity in the church does not always require absolute uniformity of interpretation on every detail, but rather a shared commitment to the foundational truths of the gospel and the system of doctrine revealed in God’s Word, pursued with charity, humility, and careful adherence to biblical and confessional boundaries.”
Full Transcript
Over the past few months, we’ve been working through the Westminster Shorter Catechism, seeing the beautiful coherence and depth of the Reformed faith. But this raises a practical question: How does a church committed to historic confessions navigate areas where faithful members, all holding to the authority of Scripture, arrive at different interpretations?
[00:00:41] Navigating Interpretive Differences in Genesis 1
Perhaps no issue highlights this challenge more clearly today than the discussion around the days of creation in Genesis 1.
How can a church maintain both confessional integrity and unity amidst such diversity? Today, for our longer Wednesday episode, we’ll explore this by looking at how one faithful, conservative, Reformed denomination—The Orthodox Presbyterian Church—wrestled with this very issue.
[00:01:07] The OPC’s Study on Creation Views
In 2004, the OPC’s General Assembly received a detailed report from a committee assigned to study the views of creation. We’ll use insights from that report, not as a binding document, but as an instructive case study. Our goal is to see which views the committee found permissible within the Westminster Standards and how they determined those boundaries, focusing on the core theological commitments required.
The central vow for OPC officers involves receiving and adopting the Confession and Catechisms “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.” This emphasizes the interconnected system rather than every single word. The committee acknowledged that determining the precise original intent of the Westminster Divines on the phrase “in the space of six days” is complex. While evidence suggests most held to ordinary 24-hour days, the committee noted the divines chose not to use more explicit language (like “consisting of 24 hours”) which they had available. Furthermore, the church’s historical practice, or animus imponentis (the intention of the imposing body), showed that by the time the OPC was founded, there was already a, quote, “kind of recognized and permitted elasticity,” end quote, on this specific point among conservative Presbyterians. Figures like Hodge, Warfield, and even the OPC’s founder J. Gresham Machen held views differing from a strict 24-hour interpretation.
[00:02:38] Five Views on the Days of Creation
Given this background, the committee examined five views prevalent among officers in the OPC regarding the days of creation.
The first, often called the Day of Ordinary Length View, understands God’s work as occurring in six sequential days, each approximately 24 hours long. The report recognizes this as the traditional interpretation, the majority position through most of church history, and likely the view held by the Westminster Divines. Its primary strength comes from a straightforward reading of Genesis 1, especially the repeated phrase “evening and morning,” and the direct parallel drawn in Exodus 20 between God’s creation week and the human work week.
A second perspective discussed is the Day of Unspecified Length View. Often associated with the “Princeton tradition” and figures like E. J. Young, this view agrees that the Genesis account describes seven contiguous, historical, and sequential days. However, it argues that Scripture simply doesn’t give us enough information to determine the exact length of these days – they might have been short, or they could have been very long. While strongly emphasizing the historical nature of the account, proponents find certain exegetical challenges, like the amount of activity on Day 6 or the unique nature of Days 1-3 before the sun’s creation, as reasons to avoid insisting on a strict 24-hour duration.
Then there is the Day-Age View. This interpretation suggests that the Hebrew word yom, translated as “day” in Genesis 1, can refer to long, indefinite periods or ages. Historically, proponents like Charles Hodge and J. Gresham Machen often held this view, sometimes seeking to harmonize the sequence described in Genesis with the findings of modern geology or cosmology. The report highlights this view’s focus on concordism – the attempt to show agreement between Scripture and science – and points to the lexical possibility of yom signifying a longer timeframe, while also acknowledging potential difficulties in applying that meaning consistently throughout the Genesis 1 narrative.
A fourth interpretation examined is the Framework View, most notably associated with Meredith G. Kline. This view approaches the seven-day structure primarily as a literary or figurative framework rather than a strict chronological sequence. It often emphasizes the topical parallelism between the first three days, where God forms the creation realms (light/darkness, sky/seas, land/vegetation), and the last three days, where He fills those realms with their respective rulers (luminaries, birds/fish, animals/man). While affirming that God’s creative acts were real historical events, the Framework view sees the arrangement of these acts into a week of ordinary-seeming days as a theological structure designed to highlight God’s work culminating in His Sabbath rest, rather than intending to provide a precise timeline.
Finally, the committee looked at the Analogical View. This perspective shares some similarities with the Framework view’s emphasis on the Sabbath pattern. It understands the “days” of Genesis 1 as God’s archetypal work-days, which are analogous—similar in pattern but not necessarily identical in duration or nature—to our human work days. It affirms that these days represent broadly sequential periods of God’s real, historical, supernatural activity in creation. However, it emphasizes that the primary purpose of depicting God’s work in this six-plus-one pattern is to establish the divine model for the human rhythm of labor and rest commanded in Exodus 20. Proponents like Herman Bavinck and C. John Collins argue that the relationship between God’s creation week and our week is one of analogy, not strict identity, pointing to factors like the unique nature of God’s “rest” and perceived textual challenges with a literal 24-hour reading.
[00:06:43] Committee’s Conclusion and Recommendations
After examining these five distinct views, what was the committee’s conclusion? Crucially, they stated, quote, “It is the judgment of the Committee that none of the five different views expressed in this report necessarily entails a denial of the integrity of the system of doctrine of our standards.” End quote. This is a significant statement. While individual committee members (and presbyters) might find certain views exegetically weaker or even inconsistent with specific confessional points, the committee as a whole concluded that holding any of these five views did not automatically place an officer outside the bounds of the theological system contained in the Westminster Standards.
How could they reach this conclusion amidst such interpretive diversity? The key lies in focusing on the non-negotiable elements of the system that all views must uphold. This is reflected in the report’s First Recommendation, which provides a checklist for examining candidates, regardless of their view on the days: Does the candidate affirm creation ex nihilo, the federal headship of Adam, the covenant of works, the doctrine of the Sabbath, the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, and the historicity of the creation account? Can they refute macroevolution? Do they understand the priority of Scripture over science? These core doctrines form the essential structure of the Reformed system concerning creation and origins. The committee reasoned that as long as a particular view of the days could be held consistently with these foundational truths, it could be considered permissible within the church’s confessional framework, even if not universally accepted as the best interpretation.
[00:08:31] Final Thoughts and Reflections
This OPC report serves as a valuable case study. It demonstrates how a confessional church, committed to the authority of Scripture and its standards, can navigate interpretive differences on a secondary point by focusing on the integrity of the core theological system. It highlights the importance of understanding the historical context of the confessions, the role of the church’s corporate interpretation (animus), and the need to distinguish between essential doctrines and areas where some latitude has been historically permitted. It reminds us that unity in the church does not always require absolute uniformity of interpretation on every detail, but rather a shared commitment to the foundational truths of the gospel and the system of doctrine revealed in God’s Word, pursued with charity, humility, and careful adherence to biblical and confessional boundaries.