I would have thought Tim Keller’s (one of the founders of The Gospel Coalition) participation in BioLogos, a group which affirms full-fledged theistic evolution and even denies an historical Adam, would be a real concern for church leaders (has been for me) but Justin Taylor thinks its “young earth creationists” who need to be taken to task… REALLY!?
To make matters worse he quotes R. C. Sproul at the opening of his article clearly in a way to give strength to his argument. However, Taylor fails to acknowledge that Sproul has publicly changed his view and published this in 2006.
I left the following comment on Taylor’s blog:
I don’t think I have ever commented on one of your posts and I am unlikely to again. However, I feel compelled to based on your opening quote.
Justin, I would, at least place a footnote to your R. C. Sproul quote to the following:
Sproul, R. C. Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub, 2006.
“For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four hour periods…”
Most of your other points have been addressed by others over the years, so I am not going to repeat those critiques here. However, I do think one ought to be careful when quoting well known figures from one period of their life when their view has changed.
Update (30 Jan 2015)
Thanks for the comment, Joe. The quote I gave from Dr. Sproul was actually made after the book you quote above: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/age-universe-and-genesis-1-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/
Thank you for the link… I now remember reading that myself a couple of years ago.
However, a more compete quote would be, “When people ask me how old the earth is I tell them “I don’t know,” because I don’t. And I’ll tell you why I don’t. In the first place, the Bible does not give us a date of creation. Now it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth.”
Yet, this quote from Sproul seems to be completely irrelevant anyway. Your title deals with the length of “day” in Genesis 1 as does most of the article along with the conclusion. However, your introduction addresses the question of the age of the earth.
You seem to be implying that those who hold to “day” in Genesis 1 being 24 hours also claim to know how old the earth is. Or, at least, you’ve introduced one subject just to switch to another for the rest of the article.
As for a quote from Sproul that is related to the title of, content of, and conclusion of your article I would suggest the quote I gave above is more relevant. Though it would lead in the opposite direction of your article.
Based upon Sproul’s published statements it is clear he would not agree with most of your article, but including a quote by him in the introduction seems to imply he would.
I am no Sproul “fan boy”. I am concerned though when “names” are quoted as though they would agree with something when, in fact, it is unclear they would.
A friend pointed out on FB:
Also, Tim [Keller] affirms a literal Adam – http://samluce.com/2014/07/ask-tim-keller-transcript-via-cambassador21/
I replied on FB:
Keller may hold to a literal Adam but there are many within the BioLogos community who do not.
There are other issues at stake with BioLogos than just a literal Adam. The attempt to integrate the mindless, random natural selection of Macroevolution with the Bible is deeply concerning.
There are folks within the BioLogos community who have moved from YEC to denying even an historical Adam. I would be greatly concerned for anyone who has willing aligned themselves with the organisation and its teaching.