Volume IV, Issue 2

Dismantling the Framework Hypothesis – Part Three

      This is the third installment on the Framework Hypothesis.  You might recall that this view attempts to identify non-literal elements in the Genesis creation account so that its adherents can claim that it need not be understood literally.  So far we have defined this view and critiqued the first major argument used to support it.  Now, it is time to turn our attention to the second major argument used by Framework advocates.

      This argument is known as the argument from Ordinary Providence and it is a bit more difficult to understand than the previous argument (Textual Parallelism).  Meredith Kline called this “the decisive word against the traditional interpretation.”  Of course, the traditional interpretation refers to the young-earth interpretation that views each day as being of normal length. 

      The Ordinary Providence argument is based on Genesis 2:4-6, which states:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

Kline and others believe that the claim that verses 5 and 6 refer back to the third day of the Creation week when God made the vegetation.  Next, they say that since the plants needed the rain in order to grow then this indicates that God was only using ordinary means to create the world, as opposed to supernaturally creating all the vegetation in less than 24 hours on the third day.  And, if God was simply using ordinary providence, then the Creation “week” must have been much longer than six twenty-four hour days.

      At first glance, this argument may sound reasonable; however, upon deeper investigation, we see that it falls apart just like the textual parallelism argument.  The first problem is that this argument is the same as uniformitarianism – the unbiblical philosophy held by the “scoffers” of the last days mentioned by Peter (2 Peter 3:3-4).   

      This philosophy reduces God’s ability to work miracles and denies the biblical principle of immediacy.  When Jesus performed a miracle healing, the healing took place immediately (see Mark 5:42 and 10:52).  When God parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14:29) and the Jordan River (Joshua 3:17) the Israelites were able to cross on land that immediately became dry.  Yet Kline claims that continents that had just emerged from the water (Genesis 1:9) do not become dry right away and thirsty for rain.  Apparently, when God performs miracles, they can dry up immediately and support plant life.  Also, Psalm 33:9 stated about the Creation, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.”

      The second major problem is that verses 5 and 6 are not referring to the third day of the Creation week.  They are describing a particular region of Earth where God was about to make the Garden of Eden and Adam. 

      This can be demonstrated by the terms used to denote plant life in these verses and those used on the third day.  Genesis 1:12 mentions “grass”, “herb that yields seed”, and the “tree that yields fruit”.  Verses 5 and 6 use the phrases “plant of the field” and “herb of the field” to describe the plants that had not yet grown.  These last two are specific Hebrew terms referring to wild desert shrubs (with thorns) and cultivated plants.  It should be obvious that the reason these two types of plants had not grown yet is because man had not been created.  It was man’s sin that brought forth the thorny plants and the need to work the ground (cultivate) by the sweat of his brow.

      The third problem is that it makes no sense.  If Kline wants us to believe that God was using ordinary providence during the Creation week (not an actual week from his view but billions of years) then we have to wonder why God had not caused it to rain yet.  After all, if there were billions of years of ordinary providence then surely it must have rained.  The view is internally inconsistent. 

      This argument is the supposed to be the strongest argument promoted by Framework advocates.  However, just like the previous argument, it falls apart.  In our next newsletter, we will examine the strangest argument of all – the Cosmogony Argument. 

Exciting Opportunities in the New Year

      2008 has already been an exciting year for us with many opportunities for ministry.  Tim took part in an exciting worldview conference in Green Bay in January by giving three lectures and leading a Q & A session.  The talks covered the evidence for God’s existence and the problem of evil, critiques of atheism and postmodernism, and misconceptions in the Bible.

      In addition to this conference, Tim has been providing pulpit supply for a local church.  When he is not doing this, he has been leading Sunday School classes on various world religions and cults at his home church.

      Tim’s book, co-authored with Jason Lisle, is scheduled to come out in the near future.  We will provide details as soon as they become available.

Upcoming Events

     At this time, Tim is scheduled to provide pulpit supply at Blue River Valley Church (March 2 & 9) and continue to lead Sunday School classes at his local church. 

Miscellaneous

     As always, if you have any questions, comment, concerns, corrections, ideas, prayer requests, etc., please email us and let us know.  Also, thank you for your prayers.  Please continue to keep us in your prayers throughout this month.

     Do you know of anyone who would enjoy receiving our newsletter?  If so, would you consider forwarding it to them and ask them to visit the website and sign up for the monthly mailing? 

     If you would like to be removed from this mailing, please click here and send a blank email.