John Owen Centre Doctrine Study Day on 'Sinai: What was the Law For?'

Well, that was good. Yesterday I attended a John Owen Centre Study Day led by Garry Williams on 'Sinai: What was the Law For?' This was the 5th of these events hosted by our Bradford on Avon Ministers' Fraternal. 

The study days take the form of a seminar where Garry leads the group in discussing a paper he has prepared on the subject in hand. The papers contain a distillation of his study, setting out the diverse views of various writers before drawing some conclusions.  

We gave attention to the character of the Sinai covenant. Was it a covenant of works, a covenant of grace administered as a covenant of works, or a covenant of grace with a special focus on law? That led to a lively discussion, especially when it came to the views of Meredith Kline. We also considered what is the 'problem' with the law? Your view on this second issue will probably be determined by your attitude to the Sinai covenant. 

It was a real 'iron sharpening iron' occasion where group members endeavored to assess the various theological viewpoints in the light of Scripture. It really made me think and just occasionally blurt out what I was thinking. With so many Bible literate colleagues around, woe betide anyone who (like me) tried quoting Scripture from memory and got it a bit wrong.

It wasn't all about high level theological discussion, though. Thought was given to how what we had learned might impact on our preaching and so be of benefit to the people Of God.

I look forward to giving Garry's paper a good read through, as we had to skip some bits on the day due to time constraints. 

I'm not going to try and summarise the paper, or the discussion it stimulated here, as this Study Day is still on the road and I don't want to 'steal Garry's thunder'. Far better to attend one near you. See the John Owen Centre website for details of other Study Days around the country, or contact them about hosting one at your Fraternal. 

Garry Williams on Puritan accounts of the human person

See here for a recording of Garry Williams' address on Puritan accounts of the person from the 2011 John Owen Centre Conference, Reaching the Human Heart.

An interview with Garry Williams, director of the John Owen Centre

GD: Hello Garry Williams and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

GW: I became a Christian aged 17 through studying RS A Level, which I took by ‘chance’ as my third subject, on a whim really. But we studied John’s Gospel verse by verse and the Reformation, so I came to a clear understanding of the Gospel through the course, and was then challenged at a more personal level in confirmation classes run by one of the teachers. So from the start of my Christian life my walk with the Lord has gone hand in hand with theological study. I was a teacher briefly myself, then did four years of theological research, taught at Oak Hill College for ten years, and have just started as Director of the John Owen Centre at London Theological Seminary. I’m married to Fiona and we have four children.

GD: What exactly is the John Owen Centre and how does it relate to the London Theological Seminary?

GW: The JOC is an activity of LTS which the Board set up ten years ago. Where LTS provides an initial two year course for pastors and preachers, the JOC is briefed to provide ongoing study opportunities for ministers in the midst of their ministry. So far it has done this through a Westminster Seminary ThM programme in historical and systematic theology, through its bi-annual conferences, and in study groups.

GD: What is your vision for the John Owen Centre as its newly appointed Director?

GW: Obviously to continue the excellent work that has been done so far. This will mean encouraging more ministers to take the ThM programme and maintaining the present Hebrew and reading groups and conference plans. But I also think that we need to extend the range of our activities to make them accessible for more ministers. Our strap-line is likely to be (it isn’t finalized yet!) ‘Theological refreshment for pastors’. This sums up the aim: to refresh pastors in their ministries by deep engagement with the teaching of Scripture, and thus to enrich their ministries among the Lord’s people for his glory. The ThM programme does this really well, but not every minister has the time, money, or qualifications to take it. So I aim to develop other more easily-accessed activities alongside it. Specifically, I plan to run a lot of study days. These will be one-off days of serious theological teaching on a subject, the kind of material that a seminary would offer in a third or fourth year, but without the protracted commitment. I plan to keep the groups small and to repeat the days a number of times and in different places. Also we are going to offer formal study breaks for ministers who have time set aside for study and I will be providing mentoring for their studies. Anyone interested in finding out about what we are offering can sign up for news by emailing johnowen@ltslondon.org.

GD: How may pastors benefit from studying for an ThM in historical theology?

GW: Really the ThM is a formalized opportunity to read the giants! The formalized aspect of it means that the reading is done carefully and in the light of the latest research, and it provides an obvious structure and discipline for the study which can help to make sure that it happens. Someone on the ThM is going to spend a long time reading some of the giants of Puritan and Reformed theology. How could that not benefit a pastor? And they will be doing it with some of the world’s experts on the subjects, namely the lecturers from Westminster Seminary. These are men who are academically rigorous but whose priority is the ministry of the Gospel.

GD: What does contemporary evangelicalism have to learn from Puritans like John Owen?

GW: A great deal indeed. I think that as a ‘movement’ (for want of a better word) we are very seriously disconnected from the riches of our past, and this means that we are often stumbling around trying to work out things that were worked out long ago under the Lord’s providence. The Puritans plumbed so many of the depths of God’s word that we have not. It is as if someone has already built a computer and we don’t know it, so we are fumbling around trying to figure out how to make the first microchip. Our acquaintance with the Puritans is also often very selective, focusing on their spirituality, which is obviously a really good thing to learn from, but then forgetting some of the more sophisticated theology that lay behind it.

GD: Who has had the biggest influence on your theological development?

GW: Different people in different ways. There were key moments when I have come to particular convictions under the influence of particular teachers or friends. I abandoned Arminianism as a sixth-former when Richard Fletcher-Cooke, one of my RS masters, handed me a list of passages that showed me that the Bible teaches predestination. I became a five point Calvinist as a student after ten minutes of having my Amyraldianism elegantly dismantled by David Field, later to be a colleague at Oak Hill. In terms of methods, Oliver O’Donovan my DPhil supervisor had a massive impact on me. He rarely showed much interest in me reading secondary literature and encouraged a philosophy of ‘few books, but good’. This left me firmly convinced that the classic are classics for a reason and that we almost always gain more from first-hand engagement with them than we do from those who write about them.

In terms of figures from history, I think the first answer must be Calvin. As a student I was fed largely (thought not exclusively) on a diet of liberal theology and was taught nearly no systematics. But in the middle of it I spent days in the library reading the Institutes and found there a luminous arrangement of the Bible’s teaching. And of course preaching at church had a formative effect on me, especially the ministry of St Ebbe’s in Oxford. There weren’t always people involved: I discovered Reformed Scholasticism by accident by finding a volume of Turretin’s Institutes in a bookshop in Woking (I bought it for the cover and the weight not knowing at the time what it was). My main influences now would be Edwards for the importance of the heart and the affections, Turretin and Owen for the role of reason under Scripture, and men like Thomas Blake and Witsius for the covenant as the key to the Bible.

GD: You have written on the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Why do you think that this teaching is so important?

GW: For so many reasons. Key of course is that the Bible teaches it and so we must too if we are to honour the Lord Jesus and rightly proclaim his saving work. Spiritually, clarity on the atonement grounds our assurance of the Lord’s forgiveness and favour – without it we are left with the burden of sin, which we know is intolerable. Theologically, it goes with the doctrine of God’s justice – if we redefine the atonement we are usually redefining the nature of God.

GD: Why do you think that the doctrine has become so unpopular in some supposedly evangelical circles?

GW: What we see often with a denial of penal substitution is a wholesale rewriting of a series of the more (humanly speaking) uncomfortable doctrines. Penal substitution is a glorious description of the love and mercy of God, but it also entails a belief in the retributive wrath of God, and that is always hard for people to accept. This is where the link to the doctrine of God is so important: the pressure often arises to redefine the atonement because a different god is wanted. This is obviously not the case for every critic of the doctrine, but many critics themselves rightly make the connection to the doctrine of God.

GD: Do you hope to publish a book length treatment of penal substitutionary atonement?

GW: Indeed, I hope not posthumously. I hope that it will be a biblical, historical, systematic work framed within a classic Reformed covenant theology.

GD: This year marks the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. If you had to specify the three key insights of Calvin's theology what would they be?

GW: Our utter dependence on God.
God’s sovereign fatherly goodness to his people.
The significance of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ.

GD: In the light of your experiences teaching at Oak Hill College, what do Evangelical Anglicans and Evangelical Nonconformists have to learn from each other?

GW: What an interesting question!

I think that evangelical Anglicans have been very strong in two areas: evangelism and training of different kinds. Of course many non-conformists have been too – your questions invites me to generalize. On evangelism: I mean by this that the Anglicans have sought to provide accessible contexts in which non-Christians can hear the Gospel, and they have preached it to them boldly. This explains a lot of the remarkable growth of Reformed Anglicanism over the last thirty years. Anglican evangelistic outreach welcomes people in an environment that is up-to-date and friendly. Unless the Lord intervenes in an extraordinary way, we need to get to the point of having sustained contact with people to tell them the Gospel, and we are in danger of just looking as if we come from another world. It is the Gospel which must offend. A concern for how we present ourselves does not mean that we have ceased to look to God to work and to trust in him: divine sovereignty can never excuse an indifference to the means that we use. Nor do I mean that issues of style are free from theological considerations, which they are not. But much of the style that we cling to is not theologically grounded. I am focusing here of course on reaching the younger generations, but if we do not do so then our churches will soon close. Many Anglican churches have been very effective in reaching out to the sports club, the local university, the workplace, the young mums. On training: the Anglicans have been deliberate and proactive about passing on the Gospel to a new generation of ministers, about identifying them, training them informally and formally, and deploying them. I do think that in some cases this has resulted in men being encouraged into ministry who should not have been, but on the other hand the shortage of non-conformist pastors is not found among Anglican churches – some evangelical Anglican students now struggle to find churches because there are so many of them for comparatively few churches.

The Anglicans on the other hand have clearly sometimes, perhaps often, displaced their emphasis on evangelism so that it fulfils a function that was not intended for it by becoming the primary factor in governing what the church does on the Lord’s Day. Or, in some cases, not even on the Lord’s Day at all because if Wednesday church will be easier for people to attend so they can play sport on a Sunday, then it can just be moved to fit around the sport. Clearly evangelism must be a factor in ordering church services, but not the primary factor. This is pragmatism carried too far, and it can happen because there is a vacuum for the pragmatism to fill created by a low understanding of the church and sacraments, and by a view of preaching that reduces it to being a talk or just ‘someone explaining the Bible’, rather than an encounter with the living God on his resurrection day. I say a ‘low’ view of the church. It is often said that evangelical Anglicans don’t have an ecclesiology, but this is surely wrong. It is just that it is a very low ecclesiology, by which I don’t mean the kind of low ecclesiology that one should have (one opposed to an Anglo-Catholic highness), but simply a low view of what the church is in its gatherings.

This is where I think the Anglicans can learn from the strengths of the Nonconformists. Nonconformity seems to me to be more clear on the dignity and weight of the church, and on the fact that preaching is very different from lecturing and just explaining a passage. There is often much more of a sense of occasion about a Nonconformist service, as if something very serious is about to happen. There is a right kind of reverence: not cold stuffiness, but warm seriousness. And there is more affection, in the formal theological sense of the term. There is more of the heart, with preaching aimed at evoking the affections as well as stimulating the mind. This strength goes with I think a generally deeper acquaintance with the heritage of Reformed theology and practice among Nonconformists that fosters such a view of the church and of the affections. Nonconformity is much more self-consciously Reformed in its heritage than Anglicanism. Indeed, some evangelical Anglicanism is self-consciously not Reformed in some quite strong ways. To some evangelical Anglicans elements of the Reformed tradition, elements that are taught in Scripture, come as a real surprise, and are sometimes greeted with intense scepticism, even determined opposition (for example the Lord’s Day, the role of the law in the Christian life, effectual atonement, Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper, covenant theology). Put simply, the strength of Nonconformity is simply that it is often more Reformed (by which I mean more of course biblical). This grounds its higher ecclesiology (again, in the right sense of ‘higher’).

Somewhere between these two there must be a healthy combination. I would love to see a combination of Anglican evangelism and training with non-conformist seriousness about the church and the heart, and an embrace of full-orbed historic Reformed theology.

As I said, these are all generalizations contradicted by endless exceptions, and having pontificated I must now go and remove the very large log from my own eye!

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure from post-biblical church history would you most like to meet, and what would you say to them?

GW: Probably Jonathan Edwards because I find him fascinating as a man and I think I would gain a lot from meeting him and observing him that goes beyond what we find in his books. I think I’d have very little to say: I’d keep my mouth shut and listen and soak it all up!

GD: Care to name your top three songs or pieces of music?

GW: They change, but I love Shostakovich’s 24 preludes and fugues for the piano and Bach’s sonatas and partitas for the solo violin, and I am enjoying getting to know Bob Dylan.

GD: What is the most helpful work of theology that you have read in the last twelve months? It is a must read because...

GW: Samuel Petto’s seventeenth-century work on the Mosaic covenant (The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant) has been a real thrill. Petto argues a very nuanced case for the Sinai covenant being in some carefully defined ways a republication of the covenant of works, the covenant that God made with Adam. This issue has a big impact on how we fit the story of the Bible together, on the relation between Adam, Israel, and Christ, and it involves close exegesis of passages such as Galatians 3. Petto has some very important things to say on it. I plan to make good use of him in a JOC Study Day on the subject!

GD: What is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?

GW: I wouldn’t want to generalize: different problems are more acute for different parts of what is a quite fragmented and often diverse movement, even if we confine our view to the conservative end of the spectrum within just one country. I do think that our culture is going to become much more hostile to the Lord Jesus Christ quickly, as we see when the Bible becomes guilty of a hate crime. So I think that we will need to be much more on the front-foot in terms of apologetics and evangelism, taking the battle to an increasingly aggressive pagan world much as the early Christians did. We have more in common with the early church than we do with the Reformers in terms of our wider context in Britain today, and we need to learn from the way that they preached the Gospel so boldly among their neighbours and devastatingly exposed the vacuity of incoherent and unfounded pagan worldviews.

GD: Well, thanks for dropping by for this conversation Garry. May the Lord richly bless you in your new sphere of service at the JOC.

The Lloyd-Jones Memorial Lecture by Philip Eveson

The Gospel and Creation - the Significance of a Theology of Creation for Preaching

On the Monday Evening of the Creation the Bible and Science Conference, Philip Eveson, Principal Emeritus of the London Theological Seminary gave a this year's Lloyd-Jones Memorial Lecture. He began by saying that "the Doctor" would have approved of the subject in hand. In his sermons on Romans 8 and Ephesians 1, Lloyd-Jones emphasised that salvation is about far more than dying and going to heaven. God is going to renew the whole cosmos. The preacher urged Evangelicals to recapture the sheer grandeur of biblical eschatology.

In the report that follows, I have drawn on my hastily scribbled notes. But this blogged-up sketch cannot really convey the power of this gripping tour de force. Lloyd-Jones said that preaching is "theology on fire". Well, there was certainly fire in this address on creation and the gospel. By the end I just felt amazed and awed by the stunning glory of our triune Creator and Redeemer God.

The Gospel is for created beings. The Bible's redemption hope includes creation. We need to foster an appropriate attitude to God's world.

I. What a theology of creation will include

There is a danger of controversy over Darwinian evolution overshadowing the Bible's positive teaching on creation. The biblical creation account is not there to be argued over. Its purpose is to call us to worship the Creator, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). When God gave Job a guided tour of creation, he was humbled to the dust before the majesty of his Maker. It is by faith we understand that God created all things. Scripture must inform our doctrine of creation. A biblical theology of creation will include these twelve points:

1. God is an uncreated Creator
No one made the eternal God. He simply exists - Psalm 90:2.

2. The Creator created creation
Contatry to the Gnostics, he did not use intermediaries or demigods. "God created the heavens and the earth".

3. The Creator made one creation
Multiverse theory is nothing but postmodern speculative nonsense.

4. The uncreated God created all things from nothing.
He used no pre-existing material in the original creation. Creation is not an emanation from God's being. Having been made ex nihilo, the creation is dependent upon God, yet distinct from him. This rules out pantheism and the Gaia hypothesis of extreme environmentalism.

5. The Creator created time
"In the beginning God created...". Creation was made with time. God worked in time to form the earth in six days.

6. Creation is good
Matter is not evil. God declared the completed creation "very good" (Genesis 1:31). The Bible warns against false asceticism 1 Timothy 4:1-5. God has richly given us all things to enjoy. We should give thanks to the Lord for the provision of our bodily needs.

7. The Creator God rules over the whole creation
The Lord reigns over all. "Everything under heaven is Mine." Says the Lord to Job (Job 41:11). Nothing is off limits for him.

8. Creation is the work of the Triune God
The Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck is especially strong on this in his Reformed Dogmatics. Creation is the work of the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Creation does not reveal the Trinity of the godhead, but creation presupposes the action of the Triune God. The unity in diversity of the Trinity is displayed in creation. Islam with its monadic conception of God cannot cope with the sheer diversity of life. Postmodernism tends to fragmentation at the expense of unity. But the God who is one in three has made a Universe that is teeming with diversity. God did not need the creation to complete himself, for he is eternally complete in the rich communion of the persons of the Trinity. Creation exists not necessarily, but according to God's sovereign will, Revelation 4:11. It displays his glory, Psalm 19:1, Romans 11:36. Creation is the free expression of the Triune God who is love.

9. The Creator God is relational
We are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) for fellowship with God and with each other.

10. The Creator and the creation is all that exists
There are no intermediaries between God and his world.

11. Creation must be distinguished from providence
God rested on the 7th day from the work of creation (Genesis 2:2-3). Providence is God's work of upholding, directing and renewing creation. Providence is Trinitarian. The Father upholds all things by his Son through the power of the Spirit. A biblical doctrine of providence rules out a "God of the gaps". There are no gaps where God is not at work in sustaining and guiding the Universe. The distant god of Deism is not the God revealed in Scripture. He is active in the historical process, directing all things in accordance with his will.

12. There is a need for a new creation
The final glorified state will include a renewed creation. The world was subjected to God's curse because of sin, Genesis 3:17-19. Creation has been subjected to vanity, Ecclesiastes 1:2, Romans 8:18-23. With the resurrection of the believing dead, creation will be liberated from bondage to decay. The new creation will not replace the old world. Jesus, the last Adam who will bring the creation to its intended goal in God's purposes.

II. The message of the Gospel and the redeeming work of Christ

The God of creation is also the God of redemption. We find this emphasis in Exodus and Isaiah. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). The scope of this salvation includes the whole of creation. Through redemption in Christ, the creation finds its eschatological goal, which was frustrated by the fall of man into sin.

The Christian hope is not just spiritual. Creation looks for its exodus - its liberation from bondage to decay - Romans 8:21.

III. Creation and Christ

1. Creation through Christ
He was an active agent in God's creative work, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16.

2. Christ and providence
He upholds the universe and brings it to its grand conclusion, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega of creation.

3. The incarnation of Christ
Jesus, the image of the invisible God was made in the image of God when he became man. In Jesus the Creator became a creature. He is the last Adam, the head of God's new humanity. The first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Christ came to atone for sin and destroy death's power (1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 2:14 & 15). Jesus was fully man, sharing our humanity. He came to re-establish man's dominion over the world - Hebrews 2:5-9 cf. Psalm 8.

4. The resurrection of Christ
The resurrection of Jesus - 1 Timothy 3:16 - affirms that matter matters. Jesus rose bodily from the grave. The last Adam is a life giving Spirit, the man from heaven (1 Corinthians 15: 45, 49). We shall bear the image of the risen Jesus, 1 John 3:2.

5. Christ and re-creation.
He is the beginning of the creation of God, Revelation 3:14. In Colossians 1, Paul teaches that Christ will reconcile to God the world that was made through him. When Christ returns, the dead will be raised and the whole creation will be renewed, Philippians 3:21. This will not mean the destruction of the world, but its glorious liberation by the power of Christ. Then we shall have spiritual bodies, bodies renewed and transformed by the Spirit and fitted for life in the new heavens and the new earth (2 Peter 3:13).

IV. The significance of a theology of creation for preaching

We need to have a positive doctrine of creation that will challenge the rampant atheism of our time. Paul preached creation in his proclamation of the Gospel in Lystra (Acts 14) and Athens (Acts 17). We must preach creation, incarnation, resurrection and re-creation in Christ. Let us hold before the people the stunning grandeur of our triune Creator God. The heavens declare his glory. Science helps us to further appreciate the wonder of creation. But the aim of the Bible's creation account is to awaken us to God's existence rather than provide scientific information. The witness of creation prepares people to hear the gospel of salvation. But there is more to creation than a pre-evangelistic aid. Believers should delight in God's world. Solomon studied plant and animal life. "The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2). We have been called to serve the Lord in our bodies, Romans 12:1. We will be rewarded for the works done in the body, Revelation 14:13. Reflecting on the power of our Creator can be a great encouragement to us, Isaiah 40:27-31. This is our Father's world. But the effects of the fall upon creation make us a little ambivalent about this life. We must set our minds on things above, not on things the earth, Colossians 3:1-2. Our citizenship is in heaven, Philippians 3:20-21. While in this world, we groan, longing for the new creation, Romans 8:22, 26. The church's message is the unique declaration of the redemption of creation in Christ. Sinners must flee from the wrath to come and embrace God's offer of salvation. Our creation theology will teach us to:

1. Adore our Maker
2. Appreciate the kindness of God, Psalm 145:9.
3. Administer creation's resources wisely, caring for the environment.
4. Ache for the renewal of creation.
5. Anticipate the glory to come.
6. Act by spreading the message of creation and the gospel.

The conference was held under the auspices of the John Owen Centre. CD's of each address and a nifty MP3 CD containing all the addresses can be ordered here. If you don't order anything else, get the recording of this lecture.

Creation the Bible and Science Conference: Day One

Interpreting Genesis 1 & 2
Dr. John Currid

The conference kicked off appropriately enough with a consideration of Genesis 1 & 2. In his opening remarks, John Currid, Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Virginia made mention of alarm in the UK media concerning "noisy American creationists". Currid is certainly a creationist, but is not of the strident, shouty variety that seem to do so much damage to the cause. Currid pointed out that the Reformers rejected the allegorising tendencies of the medieval church in favour of sober biblical interpretation. The main point of Reformed interpretation of Scripture is to discover the authorial meaning of the text rather than read hidden meanings into Scripture. Essential to responsible exegesis is the identification of the literary genre of a particular biblical text. This is especially important when approaching Genesis 1 & 2. It is often said that the opening chapters of Genesis are "poetry". But Currid sees no evidence of this in the text. The two key features of Hebrew poetry are absent namely: Line parallelisms e.g. Psalm 19:1 and figures of speech e.g. Psalm 42:1. Moreover a device invariably present in Hebrew narrative prose writing - "vav consecutive plus imperfect" is used again and again in Genesis 1 & 2. Passages of the Old Testament that make reference to these chapters seem to accept them as historical narrative rather than poetry, e.g. Exodus 20:8-11 and Psalm 104. Currid rejected the "framework hypothesis", which tries to accommodate Genesis 1 & 2 with theistic accounts of evolution. This view, associated with Meredith Kline amongst others tries to read our chapters as poetry. But what we have in fact is a highly structured, exalted prose narrative that is suited to the unique event of God's original creation.

In expounding the text itself, Currid drew attention to God's activity in the six creation days. The earth was originally "without form and empty" (Genesis 1:2). In days 1-3, God ordered the earth by three acts of division. In days 4-6, he filled the creation with stars, marine creatures, birds and animal life. Then, after the creation of man, God rested from his creative activity (Genesis 2:1-3). This pattern of ordering and filling followed by rest is replicated by human beings as God's unique image bearers, Genesis 1:26-28. Man orders creation by subduing the earth (Genesis 1:28) and naming the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). He is called to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28 again). God's rest is the pattern from human rest, (Exodus 20:8-11). This rest day on the completion of creation anticipates the eschatological rest that the creation will receive in Christ.

This well-argued and cogent exegetical paper laid the ground for what was to come in the conference. In the discussion that followed, questions of genre, historicity and the length of the creation days amongst other issues were aired.

Genesis 1 & 2 - History of Interpretation
Dr. Robert Letham

It fell to Bob Letham of WEST to summarise the church's pre-Copernican understanding of Genesis 1 & 2. The church rejected Maronite and Gnostic accounts of creation, which tended to view matter as evil. Early theologians rightly insisted that God created the world ex nihilo. Irenaeus suggested that God used his two "hands", the Son and the Spirit when he created all things. This did not imply subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father as both were regarded as one with God in the work of creation. Irenaeus understood creation Christologically. Christ is the image of God in whose image we are made. Redemption is an act of recapitulation with the second Adam undoing the work of the fist Adam. Origen could make little sense of Genesis 1 & 2 when understood literally. He was opposed to the idea of six 24 hour creation days. His platonic leanings and allegorical bent drove him to try and find secret meanings behind the "flesh" of the biblical text. Basil the Great understood the creation account more literally. He saw God acting purposefully in creating the world from nothing, which he then ordered in the creation days. Augustine taught instantaneous creation. God made the world and time. He taught that the creation days were stages in our knowledge of creation. The One Day was replicated in the other days, with number six representing perfection. Augustine's view seemed to hold sway from his own day right up to the Reformation. Robert Gristeste [not sure of spelling!] taught that the firmament of Genesis 1:7 was some kind of crystallised water, in accordance with the best science of his day. (A warning for us not to follow current scientific trends too slavishly). Aquinas saw a three-fold division of God's creative work in Genesis 1 & 2, creation and division on Days 1-3 and adornment in Days 4-6. With the Reformation, we see a greater concentration on the actual text of Scripture, with a more literal reading of the creation account. Luther held that the world was 6,000 years old. He rejected allegorical interpretations. While Calvin noted that divine revelation is accommodated to our capacity, he taught that God created the world in six 24 hour days, rejecting the view of Augustine. Letham insisted our understanding of the creation days should not be given confessional status. The Westminster Standards take little interest in the matter. The plethora of views on Genesis 1 & 2 should make us cautious in our pronouncements. Copernican science forced Bible scholars to read Scripture differently. We should be open to similar correction. The question of Job 38, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?", should give us pause for thought.

In the discussion afterwards the matter of doctrinal progress was raised. That was a good point. Letham should have given more emphasis to the positive gains made by the Reformers and the fact that the Reformation gave rise to modern science. We should recognise that the Reformers had a better and more accurate understanding of Genesis (see Currid's paper) than Augustine and the medievals. We must be open to revising our understanding of Scripture as we understand the world better. But the theory of evolution plays havoc with the Bible's basic plot line. Doctrines are often clarified in response to heresy and error. Witness the clarification of Christology at Chalcedon. Perhaps the modern creation/evolution debates will have the same effect upon the doctrine of creation? The fact of interpretive diversity in church history does not mean that it is impossible for us to come to a more accurate understanding of Genesis 1 & 2. To suggest that it is is a councel of despair. It seems to me that the best reading of the opening chapters in the Bible is that of the Reformers, which sees God literally creating, forming and filling the world in six days.

Genesis 1 & 2 - A Scientist's Perspective
Prof. Stuart Burgess

The first too papers had been a little demanding, what with all that exegesis and historical theology. It was perhaps a bit ironic that the most accessible and engaging paper of the day was given by a scientist. Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature in Bristol University argued from Romans 1:20 that God reveals his attributes in the creation of time, space and matter. We can see his power in creating and forming the world by divine fiat. He made the stars with his fingers. God's wisdom is revealed in the skilful work of creation. In Proverbs 8, wisdom, is like a master craftsman working at God's side as he made the world. God's goodness is shown in giving us a day of rest, in creating a world full of beauty, with food that is good to the taste. Psalm 104 celebrates the abundant goodness of God in creation. Burgess appealed to evidence of design in nature, referring to the clockwork motion of the stars and the way that fruit provides us with perfectly packaged fast food. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that nothing can come of nothing, which raises the question of a supernatural creator.

In addressing the age of the Adam, Stuart appealed to the the biblical genealogies and historical evidence to suggest that man has only been around for 6,000 years or so. It is a remarkable fact that as far as we can tell, human technology and culture only began to develop 6,000 years ago. If evolutionary time scales are accepted, it is unbelievable that human life should have existed for so long before the wheel was invented or agriculture developed. On the age of the earth itself, he argued for six 24 hour creation days, suggesting that starlight was supernaturally sped up on day 4, thus enabling light from far distant stars to reach our planet. With his background in engineering, Stuart could understand why God did not create the sun and moon to throw light upon the earth until day 4. An architect would build a stately home and only then design and install lights to illuminate the building. Interestingly Hebrews 3:4 compares God to a builder.

The "young earth" position requires that by day 6, the earth looked artificially mature, with fully grown trees and an adult Adam. But there is no deception here. It was God's purpose to create a planet capable of sustaining and enhancing human life and that is what we have. Engineers have found a way of artificially ageing car engines so they no longer have to be "run in". There is no element of deception in placing a mature looking engine in a brand new car. Stuart closed his paper with some thoughts on extraterrestial life, the existence of which (apart from angels!), he holds to be incompatible with Scripture. A lively discussion followed this presentation. It became clear that professional scientists are under considerable pressure not to question the hegemony of Darwinian evolution. This was confirmed on Tuesday with the announcement that Michael Reiss was forced to resign from his role in the Royal Society after calling for creationism to be taught in science lessons (see story in The Times).

So ends my report of the three main addresses from day one. Reports to follow on Monday evening's Lloyd-Jones Memorial Lecture by Philip Eveson and the three papers delivered on day two. The conference was held under the auspices of the John Owen Centre. CD's of each address and a nifty MP3 CD containing all the addresses can be ordered here.