What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Framework Hypothesis

Framework Hypothesis

  • It is a fallacy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It is a heresy

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • It is fact

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    3
Knotical

Knotical

Shepherd of the Knotical kid-farm
Member
In light of some recent events, which were a sort of culmination of years of back and forth debate, in my local presbytery concerning a specific controversial topic I would like to open up a discussion on it here. I would like to find out who hold to this theory and who actually dismisses it as at the very least a fallacy, or at most a heresy.

Personally, I believe it is a heresy and should be completely thrown out as an unproven theory. Especially in light of 2 Timothy 2:14-19.

Just some quick ground rules for this thread:
1. Be respectful in your comments and rebuttals (no personal attacks!).
2. If you are in support of the hypothesis provide sound biblical support for it.
 
Knotical said:
In light of some recent events, which were a sort of culmination of years of back and forth debate, in my local presbytery concerning a specific controversial topic I would like to open up a discussion on it here. I would like to find out who hold to this theory and who actually dismisses it as at the very least a fallacy, or at most a heresy.

Personally, I believe it is a heresy and should be completely thrown out as an unproven theory. Especially in light of 2 Timothy 2:14-19.

Just some quick ground rules for this thread:
1. Be respectful in your comments and rebuttals (no personal attacks!).
2. If you are in support of the hypothesis provide sound biblical support for it.
Click to expand...

I have read the scripture and am not sure what your conflict is...I can offer this and hope I am on track with your post.

handling aright the word of truth.—The Scriptures were addressed to different classes of persons as any who will study them will learn. A proper regard for these divisions is needed to avoid confusion. It is possible that Paul here warned Timothy to distinguish properly between the things addressed to those under the law of Moses and those not under it. He draws the distinction by saying: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20. It would be wrong to apply the law of circumcision to those not under the law of Moses. So there are different classes under the Christian law. Care must be had that the Scriptures be applied to those addressed. For example: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Acts 2:38. If this language were applied to those in Christ who sin, it would require one every time he sinned to be baptized. This would be misleading and cause confusion. Study is required to understand the different classes and divisions, to rightly apply it. Clinging to what is taught, avoiding that not taught, is very necessary in the application of the Scriptures.


16 But shun profane babblings:—Everything not commanded by God in the Scriptures may safely be placed under this head. It refers to the questions brought in then, that diverted from the word of God, caused division and strife. This was to be shunned.
 
BornAgain said:
I have read the scripture and am not sure what your conflict is...I can offer this and hope I am on track with your post.

handling aright the word of truth.—The Scriptures were addressed to different classes of persons as any who will study them will learn. A proper regard for these divisions is needed to avoid confusion. It is possible that Paul here warned Timothy to distinguish properly between the things addressed to those under the law of Moses and those not under it. He draws the distinction by saying: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19,20. It would be wrong to apply the law of circumcision to those not under the law of Moses. So there are different classes under the Christian law. Care must be had that the Scriptures be applied to those addressed. For example: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Acts 2:38. If this language were applied to those in Christ who sin, it would require one every time he sinned to be baptized. This would be misleading and cause confusion. Study is required to understand the different classes and divisions, to rightly apply it. Clinging to what is taught, avoiding that not taught, is very necessary in the application of the Scriptures.


16 But shun profane babblings:—Everything not commanded by God in the Scriptures may safely be placed under this head. It refers to the questions brought in then, that diverted from the word of God, caused division and strife. This was to be shunned.
Click to expand...

It speaks to not allowing false teachings to be allowed within the church. It also speaks against taking things that can be considered minutia and using them to drive rifts within the church. This is exactly what the enemy wants and very easily employs to undermine God's kingdom on this earth.
 
Knotical said:
It speaks to not allowing false teachings to be allowed within the church. It also speaks against taking things that can be considered minutia and using them to drive rifts within the church. This is exactly what the enemy wants and very easily employs to undermine God's kingdom on this earth.
Click to expand...

This is true but I think we need to be warned of the false teachings and doctrines. But, to be taken out of the bible? The bible was written perfectly and should take all of God's Word as it was made for our benefit. This is exactly what is happening today. I would not see it as it is undermining God's kingdom, that can never be....but as a strict warning of this to come.
 
BornAgain said:
This is true but I think we need to be warned of the false teachings and doctrines. But, to be taken out of the bible? The bible was written perfectly and should take all of God's Word as it was made for our benefit. This is exactly what is happening today. I would not see it as it is undermining God's kingdom, that can never be....but as a strict warning of this to come.
Click to expand...

But what of the topic of this thread? First, are you aware of this idea, and if so do you support it or reject it. If you support it, why?
 
Knotical said:
But what of the topic of this thread? First, are you aware of this idea, and if so do you support it or reject it. If you support it, why?
Click to expand...

I will say I am not sure of the topic, I will have to read more of Timothy before I can give an answer. But, I do support everything in the bible...every word is there for a reason.
 
BornAgain said:
I will say I am not sure of the topic, I will have to read more of Timothy before I can give an answer. But, I do support everything in the bible...every word is there for a reason.
Click to expand...

The topic has to do with a view on creation that says it was not done in six days of ordinary length, that it was done in a sort of framework. Basically, those who hold to this hypothesis consider the account in Genesis as poetic and not a literal telling of the account of creation.
 
Knotical said:
The topic has to do with a view on creation that says it was not done in six days of ordinary length, that it was done in a sort of framework. Basically, those who hold to this hypothesis consider the account in Genesis as poetic and not a literal telling of the account of creation.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed something I did not read anything close to the contradiction of creation. I will dismiss myself as I do not have the knowledge to this hypothesis...sorry.
 
BornAgain said:
Unless I missed something I did not read anything close to the contradiction of creation. I will dismiss myself as I do not have the knowledge to interpret your hypothesis...sorry.
Click to expand...

It is not my hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that has been increasing in popularity for 30+ years.
 
I believe the "framework hypothesis" is correct (having just looked it up on wikipedia), although this is not something I have given a lot of consideration to.

A first shot at a "Biblical defence": It is quite clear that the Scriptures were never written to be taken literally at all places. Consider the use of apocalyptic "end of the world" language in both testaments. In the Old Testament, such language is used in the setting of prophecies about coming judgement against nations. Thus, Isaiah writes of the fall of Babylon using language like "the stars will fall from the heavens". But Babylon did fall, and no stars fell to heaven.

We can be terribly patronizing to the authors of Scripture, imagining that they were intellectually incapable of making a point using literary devices like allegory and metaphor.

Although this really only a plausibility argument, to the extent that literary devices are demonstrably used in the Bible (e.g. apocalyptic end of the world language that is clearly not intended to be read literally), it is likewise possible that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally.
 
Drew said:
I believe the "framework hypothesis" is correct (having just looked it up on wikipedia), although this is not something I have given a lot of consideration to.

A first shot at a "Biblical defence": It is quite clear that the Scriptures were never written to be taken literally at all places. Consider the use of apocalyptic "end of the world" language in both testaments. In the Old Testament, such language is used in the setting of prophecies about coming judgement against nations. Thus, Isaiah writes of the fall of Babylon using language like "the stars will fall from the heavens". But Babylon did fall, and no stars fell to heaven.

We can be terribly patronizing to the authors of Scripture, imagining that they were intellectually incapable of making a point using literary devices like allegory and metaphor.

Although this really only a plausibility argument, to the extent that literary devices are demonstrably used in the Bible (e.g. apocalyptic end of the world language that is clearly not intended to be read literally), it is likewise possible that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally.
Click to expand...

But, the OP is directly asking a question to 2 Timothy 2:14-19.
 
Drew said:
I believe the "framework hypothesis" is correct (having just looked it up on wikipedia), although this is not something I have given a lot of consideration to.

A first shot at a "Biblical defence": It is quite clear that the Scriptures were never written to be taken literally at all places. Consider the use of apocalyptic "end of the world" language in both testaments. In the Old Testament, such language is used in the setting of prophecies about coming judgement against nations. Thus, Isaiah writes of the fall of Babylon using language like "the stars will fall from the heavens". But Babylon did fall, and no stars fell to heaven.

We can be terribly patronizing to the authors of Scripture, imagining that they were intellectually incapable of making a point using literary devices like allegory and metaphor.

Although this really only a plausibility argument, to the extent that literary devices are demonstrably used in the Bible (e.g. apocalyptic end of the world language that is clearly not intended to be read literally), it is likewise possible that the creation account was never intended to be taken literally.
Click to expand...

Why?

I agree that some areas of the bible are written in poetic prose, while others are written as historical accounts. I believe the creation account is not poetic, as there is nothing about it that can be considered poetic, and is actually literal.
 
Knotical said:
Why?

I agree that some areas of the bible are written in poetic prose, while others are written as historical accounts. I believe the creation account is not poetic, as there is nothing about it that can be considered poetic, and is actually literal.
Click to expand...
Why? Why is it possible that the creation account is to be taken literally (that is what I wrote).

I think it is really easy to show that it is at least possible, not least because we have the precedent of other "non-literal" Scriptural texts.

As stated, this is not an issue that concerns me much. But I do take it as self-evident that it is highly plausible that "a talking snake" is not intended to be taken literally. Can I prove that right now? Well, no - its a gut feel.

I trust you realize that you are basically begging the question when you write "I believe the creation account is not poetic, as there is nothing about it that can be considered poetic". That is really just a statement of what you believe, it is not a case.

And I fully concede that, to this point anyway, my "argument" is very flimsy indeed. I would never argue thus:

1. There are examples of non-literalism in the scriptures;
2. Therefore, Genesis 1 is non-literal.

What I would argue, and just did argue is this:

1. There are examples of non-literalism in the scriptures;
2. Therefore, Genesis 1 could be non-literal.

I grant that my view is that Genesis is indeed "non-literal", but I understand I have not made a case yet.

Part of my case would be "scientific" - there is overwhelming evidence that a 7 day scenario is at variance with the facts. Just to let you know: I am not willing to get into a "creationism" debate, so, to be fair, I won't play the "science" card. However, I am willing to think about making a "Biblical" case for my position.
 
Knotical said:
Actually the OP is taking a look at the Framework Hypothesis through the lense of 2 Timothy 2:14-19.
Click to expand...

God is not the author of confusion, but Satan certainly is, and this confusing has its origins in the “father of lies.†In fact it is so confusing and difficult to understand that even its critics are sometimes baffled as to exactly what it is saying. The best summary of this grotesque theory is provided by Herman Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Church.

The work of creation is described, is a device to give some general ideas about the origin of this world without in any way giving us information on the length of time in which God’s work of creation was done, in what order God created the creatures belonging to creation, and the manner in which God created them. The days are not literal days, but are a device used which points us to two groups of three, two triads set over against each other. There is a relationship between the two triads and a correlation can be found between day one and day four, day two and day five, day three and day six. What Genesis 1 is trying to teach us is not how God created the world, not in how much time he created the world, but only that the creation is divided into three separate spheres each with its own rulers. There is the sphere of space, which is ruled by the sun, moon, stars, and planets. There is the sphere of the sea, which is ruled by fish and birds. There is the sphere of dry land which is ruled by animals and man. That is about as much as the creation narrative tells us. We must not look to Genesis 1 to learn how God created things or in how much time He created things. In other words.....another man made doctrine of confusion and distortion of the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top