Book Notes: The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, Second Edition, by G.I. Williamson, P & R, 2004.

In an age of trendy new theologies and super-hip theologians, it is refreshing to hear from a man like G.I. Williamson who lives in the present, looks to the future, but understands the many biblical commands to honor the righteous legacy of the past.

For decades, Williamson has been a defender of the Regulative Principle of Worship (the focus of Vision Forum’s book How We Are to Worship God, by Dr. Joe Morecraft), which was part of the great legacy of independent, separatist and puritan thought during the Reformation and post-Reformation years. Now Williamson brings his insight and wisdom to this easy to understand, biblically balanced and thoughtful study guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is a delightful read.

Williamson’s discussion in Chapter Six on Karl Barth and the quest for “relevance” at the sake of orthodoxy is timely and especially insightful.

Neo-orthodoxy (which is supposed to mean “new orthodoxy”) arose in early twentieth century Europe) from the spiritual ruins of an older “rationalism.” The “rationalists” enthroned human reason and made the Bible subservient to it. When Karl Barth (the originator of neo-orthodoxy, which is therefore also called “Barthianism”) first appeared on the scene speaking with great power against the emptiness of the old rationalism, many were impressed. He even revived the terminology of the historic Christian faith, speaking of “creation,” “the fall,” and “election.” Many hailed him as a prophet who would lead the Church back to the orthodox faith.

But the sad truth was that Barth (and others who soon followed) did not replace the authority of man’s reason with the authority of the Bible. They were merely exchanging the old form of reliance upon the supremacy of man’s reason with the new form of the same evil. Thus, neo orthodoxy claimed that it affirmed the doctrine of the fall, but then denied that there was an actual historical person who at a particular time and at a specific location on earth ate a real piece of forbidden fruit. It affirmed that the doctrine of the fall is “true,” but it meant thereby only that there is non historical (or symbolic, or mythical) meaning in it. It meant that the Bible is “true” much as Aesop’s fable is true. “The creation and the fall,” says Barth, “lie behind the historical.”

Why did neo orthodoxy take such a contradictory position? Why did it attempt to affirm (that the Bible teaches truth) and deny (that what the Bible says is actually true) at the same time. The answer is that these modernists (for that is what neo-orthodoxy really is: modernism) wanted to have their cake and eat it to. They wanted to be accepted as Christians and respected by this world. Because the earlier rationalists created a climate of opinion which regarded as completely outdated the idea of putting God’s Word above human wisdom and science, the neo-orthodox theologians could not dare to find acceptance if they did such an old fashioned thing. Respectable people had long since agreed that the Bible could not be considered scientifically accurate or historically dependable. But the neo-orthodox theologians realized that without the things spoken of in the Bible there was no “Christianity” left. Not wanting this, they were determined to believe those things anyway—-but not in such a way as to offend the modern world.

This led to a complete dilemma. There were but two choices: (1) Either accept the authority of God’s Word and lose standing with this world, or (2) retain the approval of the world and reject the authority of the Bible. It was the latter which was chosen, but the ingenuity of the neo-orthodox theologians was seen in their ability to camouflage the loss of biblical authority. They did it by removing doctrine from history.

Book Note: God’s Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1, by W. Robert Godfrey, P&R, 2004

We need to remember to pray for Christian publishers. It is important to be relevant. But the pressure to be “culturally relevant” at the expense of timeless orthodoxy can be overwhelming. More than forty years ago, P&R Publishing demonstrated a visionary and heroic spirit when they helped to launch the modern creation movement with its publication of the landmark book The Genesis Flood, by Morris and Whitcomb, two of the great defenders of the Faith in the 20th century. Employing a rigorous historical grammatical approach to Biblical interpretation, coupled with a rich depth of scientific knowledge, Morris and Whitcomb annihilated “local flood theory,” and mounted a defense for young earth creation, which has not been successfully challenged to this day.

Regretfully, last month P&R sullied its otherwise heroic record, by publishing an anti-creationist book entitled God’s Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1, by W. Robert Godfrey. The book is essentially a restatement of Meredith Kline’s Framework Hypothesis which reduces Genesis 1 to a non-historic, non-scientific, non-literal, piece of “covenantal” poetry about the Sabbath. Author Robert Godfrey bolsters his arguments by erecting straw men not only against scientific creationists, but home schoolers.

As an aside, the first page to which I providentially flipped was page 91, which includes some remarkably ignorant swipes at both home education and creation science. Here, the author demonstrates his antipathy towards home education by relegating the movement to a mere reaction and an escapist attempt at creating a subculture. He links creation science to an anti-intellectual fad, (which leaves us wondering about whether he accepts the legitimacy of the hundreds of PhD young earth creation scientists). In fact, he calls it a pseudo science. (Note: he follows the recent trend among formerly Reformed, now “relevant” teachers, of tap dancing around irresponsible statements by placing mild caveats designed to allow plausible deniability to the inevitable criticisms that come from unsubstantiated over-reaching generalizations.)

Framework Hypothesis, Progressive Creationism, Gap Theory and the various forms of Age Day Theory all share the following creation compromises in common: (1) They are novel, modern reinterpretations of Scripture, the goal of which is to reconcile Scripture with the supposedly neutral scientific conclusions of academia; and (2) they all undermine the doctrine of the Atonement by incorporating or tolerating the notion of death before Adam. Often (not always) these views include acceptance of Big Bang Theory and an ancient earth, of proto-humans which predated Adam, and a rejection of a global flood as described in Genesis.

Although it has been coated in covenantal language and rhetoric, the Framework Hypothesis is a dangerous cocktail of Reformed verbiage, evolutionary assumptions about scientific neutrality, and neo-orthodox reasoning.

As noted above in my review of Williamson’s comments on Barthian neo-orthodoxy, there is a remarkable temptation that seems to well-up within the soul of opportunists, those who lust after respectability and those who disdain the past, to find ever new and trendy means of reconciling Christianity with pop culture and pop science. Such men fail to acknowledge the religious presuppositions behind modern science and modern culture. They fail to realize that culture is religion externalized, and that science is inescapably a religious discipline. Instead of presuppositionally building their scientific and cultural paradigm from the Word of God, they become religious syncretists—-mixing paganism with Christianity, evolutionism with creationism.

For an outstanding response to the Framework Hypothesis, make sure to listen to Dr. Ken Gentry’s lectures on the subject in our Theological Bootcamp tape series. For a discussion between myself, Dr. Whitcomb, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. John Morris, and Dr. Russell Humphreys about why such theories undermine the doctrine of the Atonement, get our tape series After Eden, also available through Vision Forum.

God’s Pattern for Creation carries endorsements from Mark Futato, author of Theonomy an Informed Critique, and president of Westminster West, the bastion of Genesis revisionism and hermeneutic confusion within the Reformed community.

Postscript and Addendum: Two weeks ago I wrote a friendly appeal to P&R to reconsider its decision to abandon biblical creationism for the Framework Hypothesis.