The Westminster Divines and

the long stretch of church history

prior to the 19th century did have
a view on 111e length of creation
days. This historical fact is often
obscured by either biased presup-
positions or a research vacuum.
Despite tlle prevalent claim from
some quarters (actually relatively
recent, primarily since the 1800s)
111at the confessional words "in
11le space of six days" really could
mean up to 16 bi11ion years, when
primary writings by the divines
are consulted, it becomes very
difficult to maintain that the
divines were more chic than
hertofore imagined.
committed revisionist would
believe. From the record of
history and from the Scriptures,
tlJese claims simply do not sustain
tlle case 111at tlJe language of the
Confession is unclear. The
Westminster standards con-
sciously asserted a truth claim by
tlleir words: "in the space of six
days." That language had specific
meaning when it was asserted,
and it still means what is says
today. Persons may differ willI
ilie Confession's assertions and
doubtless other issues must be
addressed, but its meaning is
verifiable and unambiguous.
The urban legends I have
mentioned above have, however,
become fai rly entrenched and
widely taught in academic class-
If one cOllsiders some of the
considerably culture-biased
statements of Hodge and
Warfield, they will hardly suffice
as role models on tlJis issue. They
were, in fact, quite influenced by
the ideological currents of tlleir
day. Jonatllan Wells observes tllat
as early as 1863 Charles Hodge
was accused of "Remaining open
to the possibility tlJat Scripture
would have to be re-interpreted in
. light of scientific evidence.'"
Fur11ler, the New York Observer
accused Hodge of being guilty of
letting "Science lead the way and
the Bible followed."20n several
occasions Hodge had to defend
himself from his contemporaries
iliat he was "not guilty of subor-
dinating Scripture to science." In
at least this instance, other
Contrary to the Uleological
mythology of the past 150 years,
the leading Westminster Divines
did leave explicit testimony, in
writing, repeatedly, and
uniformly on this subject. The Westminster View of Creation Days: A
Choice betweell NOli-Ambiguity or
Historical Revisiollism
A review of tlJeir own
writings only permits
embarrassment for 11lOse
contemporaries sus-
pected 11lat Hodge could
be "persuaded by scien-
tific evidence to modify
who assert that they
expressed no view on
this subject.
First, in order to follow tIle
trail, good tlleological detectives
may have to weed out many of
ilie urban legends that have been
recently and industriously sown.
We have been told that there is
little or no record of what the
original divines intended. That is
not true, unless one limits himself
to a very narrow set of documen-
tary evidence. We have also been
led to believe tlJat English Bibles
use the phrase, "in the space of
six days," to paraphrase biblical
teaching. We caIDlot find one. We
have been told tllat many puritans,
like William Ames, allowed for
long periods of creation. That,
too, is a mytlJ. The view of
Augustine has been distorted, and
we are supposed to believe 1l1at
Augustine was an early day Carl
Sagan-a myth that only a
c: DavidW.I-Ian
>
rooms for a century. Much of
1l1is, at least in reformed circles,
hides behind the authority of
recent reformed heroes. It is also
mythical that we are obliged to
foHow leading 1l1eologians when
they were wrong.
I am happy to acknowledge
tlJe debt we owe to Charles Hodge
and B. B. Warfield. They were
great home run hitters of tlleir
day, the Babe Rutll and Mark
McGwire of tlJeir respective days.
But even great hitters hit foul balls
occasionally, and in tlle matter of
tIle span of the creation week,
1l1ey were afield. Even good men
err, and the reformed tradition has
consistently affirmed tllat it
prefers real history to following
the traditions of 1l1e elders, even if
the elders are Hodge, Shedd, or
Warfield.
his interpretation of
Scripture," and that he
served to "reconcile
Scripture with established scien-
tific facts." I That Hodge was
contouring the Bible to tlJe
findings of science to some
degree is seen from his comment
in an 1856 review: "If science
should succeed in demonstrating
1l1at tlle earth is millions of years
old, then we will witlJ tIle utmost
alacrity believe tllat 1l1e days of
creation were periods of indefinite
duration."4
Abraham Kuyper warned
similarly about tlJe uneasy alliance
between Hodge' s approach and
secular geology. Kuyper at one
paint wrote, "There is, to be sure,
a theological illusion abroad ...
which conveys tIle impression
that, witlJ the Holy Scripture in
hand, one can independently
construct his tlJeology from tlJis
principium.'" In 1l1is criticism,
Kuyper was likely tItinking of
October/November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 15
Hodge and others who champi-
oned sCientific orthodoxy based
on their presupposition of the
IUlality of facticity.
Kuyper criticized Hodge by
name in another section. He
faulted Hodge for his "combina-
tion of facts and truths" which
overthrows his own system.
Kuyper said that Hodge demanded
that the "theologian be the one to
authenticate these truths. "6
Further, Kuyper accused Hodge
of succumbing "to the temptation
of placing Theology formally in
line with the other sciences.'"
Continuing his critique of Hodge,
the Dutch theologian said: "The
authentication of his facts brought
him logically back again under the
power of naturalistic science. And
though as a man of faith he
bravely resisted this, his demon-
stration lacked logical necessity.
.. the entire subsequent develop-
ment of theological study has
actually substituted an utterly
different object, has cut the
historic tie that binds it to Original
theology, and has accomplished
little else than the union of the
sub-divisions of psychology and
of historic ethnology into a new
department of science, which
does not lead to the knowledge of
God, but aims at the knowledge
of religion as a phenomenon in
the life of humanity. ,,'
Kuyper protested "every
appearance of neutrality, which is
after all bound to be dishonest at
heart." In contrast to Hodge,
Kuyper maintained that there
could be no neutrality toward the
scientific datum-an early form
of a presuppositional apologetic.
Wells perceptively remarks:
"Although Hodge died without
conceding that evolution could be
reconciled with the Bible, his
theology contained the seeds for
such a reconciliation. "9
It appears that these angels
were unaware of the inherent
dangers of accommodation at this
juncture. As Theodore Bozeman
perceptively wrote at the conclu-
sion of his book:
It may be questioned whether
religious leaders at any previous
point in the nation's past had
achieved a more unabashed union
of gospel and culture than this.
Doubtless if the Old School could
have foreseen Darwin or the
triumph of a physics of forces
undermining the older empiricism
they would not have been so
eager either to canonize Bacon or
to embrace scientific endeavor as
a natural patron of belief. I.
Indeed, for Bozeman: "It is
revealing that [certain] prominent
Old Schoolers .. . were now
willing to suggest that if an
'indisputable' result of thorough
induction manifestly contradicted
an existing doctrine of the
church, the theologian must
reconsider his interpretation of
God's word, and see if he has not
misunderstood it. In view of the
firm biblical literalism and the
unbending confessionalism to
which the Old School was
committed, this was a substantial
concession."11 Science could at
least theoretically have preemi-
nence over Scripiure-at least as
an intermediate hermeneutic.
Benjamin Warfield is another
glaring illustration of this flaw,
and when our friends claim to
follow Warfield, they may claim
far more than they wish.
In a 1915 work entitled
"Calvin's Doctrine of Creation,"
one marvels at Warfield's herme-
neutical gymnastics as he tried to
mold Calvin into a proto-evolu-
tionist. Warfield was to the point
of saying: "Calvin doubtless had
no theory of evolution; but he
teaches a doctrine of evolution.
16 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - October/November, 1998
He had no objection and so
teaching it, cut to preserve the
creative act .. ."12 Warfield even
speculated that had certain
preconditions come about "Calvin
would have been a precursor of
the modern evolutionary theo-
rist."" In a footnote responding to
Herman Bavinck, Warfield con-
cluded: "Calvin accordingly very
naturally thought along the lines
of a theistic evolutionism."14 That
claim is as stunning, as it is
erroneous. In either case,
Warfield ought not be our author-
ity on this matter. If one consults
Calvin's Institutes or other
Calvinalia, the possibility that
Calvin might have been an evolu-
tionist is quite remote.
Even excellent men like Hodge;
Warfield, and others may be
wrong on this issue and still
worthy of great respect in other
areas. The challenge remains to
explore a wider selection of
theologians than recent exemplars
alone in order to ascertain what
the catholic and apOStoliC church
held on the matter.
I. Short Tour of
Pre-Westminster Exegesis
A brief review of pre-
Westminster exegesis focussing
on Augustine and the reformers
indicates that ttiey did have
definite views on this subject that
were contrary to those of Hodge
and Warfield. So did virtually the
entire church prior to the las t
century.
Frequently, Augustine is
misappropriated to support a long
creation week, although it seems
that most misappropriators have
not read Augustine himself in
context. What was Augustine's
view of the length of the creation
week? Let me summarize his
view, since he is so frequently
misrepresented. Was he a literal
144 hour creationist? No; he was
a .000001 second creationist. To
be sure, he allowed for non-literal
interpretation of the days, but in
Ille OPPOSITE DIRECTION of
modem claims. Augustine did
NOT believe in long days. He
believed all was created in a nano-
second.
Augustine is often appealed to,
as are Origen, and later Aquinas. 15
Some even blame fundamentalism
for the genesis of creationism.
Often earlier Illeologians are
misrepresented. While Augustine
argued for a non-literal approach,
he certainly did not envision or
support a long expanse for
creation as modem revisionists
assert. It is utterly indefensible to
suggest that Augustine would
have agreed that "in the space of
six days" could mean millions of
years. The best that appeals to
Augustine can demonstrate is iliat
symbolic language is appreciated
in earlier commentaries.
16
That is
one iliing---{;onceptually different
from adjusting the Confession to
modem geological long periods. It
is a reach, neverilieless, to infer a
repudiation of traditional (pre-
Darwinian) creationism from
these authors' use of a symbolic
hermeneutic.17 Virtually every
appeal seeking Augustine's
support for long creation periods
misappropriates his view.
An earlier adversary, Andrew
D. White-despite his wish to Ille
contrary-admitted Illat Calvin
had a "strict" interpretation of
Genesis, and that "down to a
period almost within living
memory [1896], it was held,
virtually ' always, everywhere, and
by all,' Illat the universe, as we
now see it, was created literally
and directly by the voice or hands
of the Almighty, or by boili---out
of nothing-in an instant or in six
days ... "" Even opponents find
it difficult to mangle tllis testi-
mony, although willi the effect of
cumulative misrepresentations
Illat is becoming more frequent."
Ambrose of Milan (339-397)
was one of tile first tlleologians to
explicate a mature view of cre-
ation. In his H exameron, Ambrose
affirmed, "God created day and
night at tile same time. Since tllat
time, day and night continue tlleir
daily succession and renewal. "'"
In his fullest discussion of tile
lengtlls of 1l1e creation days,
Ambrose commented:
The beginning of the day rests
on God's word: 'Be light made.
and light was made' The end of
day is the evening. Now. ilie
succeeding day follows after the
termination of night. The thought
of God is clear. First He called
light 'day' and next He called
darkness 'night.' In notable
fashion has Scripture spoken of a
'day. I not the 'first day.' Because
a second, I.hen a third day, and
finally the remaining days were to
follow. a 'first day' could haye
been mentioned. following in this
way the natural order. But Scrip-
ture established a law that
twenty-four hours, including
both day and nigl", should be
given the name of day only, as if
one were to say the length of one
day is twenty-fonr hours in
~ 2
In The Literal Meaning of
Genesis, Augustine-the alleged
adherent of Ille framework
hypothesis---{;ommented: "Hence
it seems that this work of God
was done in Ille space of a day ..
"22 "Thus, in all 1l1e days of
creation iliere is one day ... "23
(4:26) He continued to explain:
"That day in the account of
creation, or those days that are
numbered according to its recur-
rence, are beyond the experience
and knowledge of us mortal
earthbound men."'" (4:27) He
believed Illat, "the whole of
creation was finished in six
days."" (4:14) Augustine argued
fuat Ille firmament, fue waters,
plants, trees, heavenly bodies, and
all living creatures were "made
simultaneously. "26 In light of iliis
and many other comments,
Augustine's sensitivity to symbol-
ism ought not be transformed into
a cosmology which fits with a 16
billion year old cosmos apart from
numerous, explicit, and consistent
iterations or admission of ideo-
logical bias.
Lest one think that Augustine
was arguing for an expanded
period of creation so as to permit
lenglllY development, he also
argued that the entire creation
happened in only one day: "Per-
haps we should say 1l1at God
created only one day, so iliat by
its recurrence many periods called
days would pass by .... All
creation, ilien, was finished by
ilie sixfold recurrence of iliis day,
whose evening and morning we
may interpret as explained
above. "27 (4:20,26)
So far was be from advocating
a gradual evolution iliat he said:
"For this power of Divine Wis-
dom does not reach by stages or
arrive by steps. It was just as
easy, then, for God to create
everything as it is for Wisdom to
exercise this mighty power . . . .
Creation, therefore, did not take
place slowly in order that a slow
development might be imp/allied
in those things that are slow by
nature; nor were the ages estab-
lished at the plodding pace at
which they now pass."" (4:33)
That Augustine is incompatible
Witll modem notions is seen from
his comment: "[B]ut there was no
passage of time when they
[creatures] received these laws at
creation. Otherwise, if we think
1l1at, when'iliey were first created
by Ille Word of God, iliere were
1l1e processes of nature wiili ilie
normal duration of days that we
October/November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 17
know, those creatures that shoot
forth, roots and clothe the earth
would need not one day but many
to germinate beneath the ground,
and then a certain number of
days, according to their natures,
to come forth from the ground;
and the creation of vegetation,
which SCripture places on one
day, namely the third, would have
been a gradual process."" (4:33)
Augustine believed that there
was no b e f o r ~ or Hafter" in the
moment of creation: "It follows,
therefore, that he, who created all
things together, simultaneously
created these six days, or seven,
or rather the one day six or seven
times repeated."" (4:33) He
believed creation occurred in a
split second, not over long days.
It is Augustine's view that was
largely repeated by John Colct and
a very few others. But it was
explicitly denied by Westminster
divines, their Confession, and
their puritan contemporaries.
One can summarize
Augustine's views as below:
-They were directed toward a
certain set of ideas of his day. His
argumentation should be set in
that context and not snatched
from that context to argue for
later ideas that may be incompat-
ible;
-His views of creation seem
rather unique and idiosyncratic in
the history of theology; i. e., few,
if any, theologians approached the
Genesis narratives as creatively as
did Augustine (For exainple, his
concern for the angelic observa-
tion of creation is rather unparal-
leled.);
-He did not wish to be inter-
preted as using the allegorical
method; his intent was to be as
literal as possible;
-He treated the day of creation
contrary to the stated
Westminster Assembly position;
-He did not believe that cre-
atiofr took a long period of
development, but to the contrary;
-Augustine believed that all of
creation occurred simultaneously,
at one instant.
-He also believed that Jesus'
saying In John 5 ("My Father is
still working") applied only to
governance, not "of creating any
new nature."" Thus, it is difficult
to sustain the argument that
Augustine believed in continuous
creation.
-Augustine believed that Adam
was "made from the slime of the
earth and the woman from the
side of her husband."" (6:5).
Ernan McMullin confinns that
Augus tine concurred with the
Alexandrine fathers who believed
that creation was in a single
moment; he clearly did not believe
that creation "days" were indefi-
nitely long periods of time: "In
fact, he insisted that the creative
action whereby all things came to
be was instantaneous; the six
' days' refer (he suggests) to
stages in the angelic knowledge of
creation. In prop,eriy temporal
terms the 'days' reduce to 'an
indivisible instant, so that all the
kinds of things mentioned in
Genesis were really made simulta-
neously."n
Augustine, Anselm, Lombard;
and Aquinas are frequently alleged
to have supported long days.
Covenant Seminary Professor
Jack Collins confirms that:
"Augustine and Ansehn do not
actually discuss the length of the
creation days . ... Certainly
Augustine and Anselm cannot be
called as witnesses in favor of a
day-age theory."" Suffice it to
say that neither did Aquinas
consistently nor explicitly hold to
"long days."" Aquinas (1224-
1274) believed: "The words one
day are used when day is first
18 - THE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon - October/November, 1998
instituted, to denote that one d'ay
is made up of twenty-four
hours."" Moreover, he com-
mented elsewhere: "But it [cos-
mos] was not made from some-
thing; otherwise the matter of the
world would have preceded the
world ... Therefore, it must be
saidthatthe world was made
from nothing. "31
Peter Lombard, continued the
analogy of faith on the subject of
creation. Lombard, along with
other contemporaries, recognized
creation ex nihilo, Adam and
Eve's special creation, and
affinned that "the Catholic faith
believes that tberewas one
prinCiple, one cause of all things,
namely God."" Moreover,
Lombard affimled the "essentially
hexameral plan" of creation,
taking a cle'ar position that God:
"creates the angels and the
unformed matter simul and ex
nihilo. Then, in the work of six
days, he produces individual
creatures out of the unformed
matter ... The days referred to
in Genesis are to be understood
literally as lasting twenty-four
hours."" If one retains a proper
understanding of the philosophical
audiences and contexts of the
great theologians prior to the
Refonnation, one discovers that a
majority of orthodox commenta-
tors did not explicitly hold to long
days, gradual development, or an
old earth as is frequently
claimed,40
Interestingly, had Calvin
wanted to lobby for "long days,"
two ideal verses presented them-
selves: Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter
3:8. Oddly, while commenting on
both of them, Calvin refrained
from injecting the idea that the
first days of creation could be as
long as millennia. The exegesis
which is becoming so common
was avoided by earlier exegetes.
These verses were not interpreted
to satisfy certain scientific
Uleories; rather Uley were inter-
preted simply to mean that God is
above time. All in all, Calvin
presents a rather consistent view
on lhis subject which is antitheti-
cal to the modem attempts to
recraft it after their own image.
41
In his Commentary on Genesis
(1 :5), Calvin even uses the phrase
"in the space of six days," which
was later adopted by Ule
Westminster Assembly consistent
with Calvin's view.
Martin LuUler's view is largely
uncontested, so explicit is it."
Numerous other citations could
be assembled, but interestingly
Luther is rarely misappropriated.
It deserves to be stated, however,
that the frequent omission of
reference to Luther" (and others)
illustrates the selectivity of
sources drawn upon. A search for
the mainstream of orthodox
interpretation on Ulis subject
should not omit Luther, even if he
mitigated the propositions ardently
maintained by modem revision-
ism.
Robert Bishop concurs:
"Neither the origiual audience of
tllat book [Genesis] nor anyone
else until about two hundred years
ago would have understood a
'geological era' to be a meaningful
concept."" Thus the Confession
considered 110 such option. To
expect that the divines could
speak to unimagined concepts is
about like expecting Luther to
Slump for Mac computers over
PCs four centuries in advance.
There is scant evidence, if any,
that prior to the nineteenUI
century any view of creation that
accorded with macro-evolution
was anyUling but aberrant."
It is an error to claim that
Augustine, the ancient church, or
the Westminster Divines held to
long days or envisioned Ulat as an
orthodox possibility.46 Such
concept would only arise much
later. There were only two major
views on Ulis issue prior to Ule
19th centnry, but Ule modern
myth seeks to uphold a third view
only embraced after the onslaught
of evolution. That third view is a
post-Darwin view, never held by
Ule church, oddly, prior to the
coincidence of that scientific era.
The two pre-19UI century views
and the post- J 9th century view
may be summarized as below.
oAugustine had one view:
nano-second crealion
oThe divines had a 24 hour
view, and explicitly rejected
Augustine.
oBut this 3rd view is different
and believes in long geologic
periods.
This new third view of long
creation arises only after the
popularization of Darwin. As I
have gone to the sources, follow-
ing the reformers in style as well
as substance, I cannot find pre-
19th century interpretations that
adjust the Confession to geologic
eras or long periods of creation.
[Note: On July I, 1998, I
debated this thesis at a General
Assembly meeting in St. Louis. In
my zeal to make the rhetorical
case, I may have over -reached.
As I reported my research-
which had turned up at least 20
Westminster divines who
endorsed a 24-bour creation
day-I offerred tickets to the St.
Louis Cardinals' game to anyone
who could produce a written
citation to the contrary by one of
the divines who contended for a
long geologic period as a creation
day. Some have misunderstood,
and UlOught that a citation by allY
reformed Uleologian after 1800
should qualify. My exact pOint,
however, is Ulat Ule historic shift
below is post-1800. Few, if any
takers, have sought to produce a
reference, and-wiUl tickets
unclaimed-we thoroughly
enjoyed Ule 3-0 trouncing of the
Royals on July 2. Mark McGwire
was 0-2 that night.
Still, 1 am told Ulal several
theologians will soon call my
bluff. In the interest of fairness
and unbiased research, I will still
mail tickets to any researcher
who produces a citation in writing
by one of Ule Westminster divines
who contended for a long geo-
logic period as a creation day. I'll
candidly announce my own
shortcomings when the cite is
produced, and also keep a running
tally on our web site. Maybe I did
overstate; perhaps at the end of
summer the score will be 20-1
instead of 20-0. When the tally is
anywhere close, my thesis will be
surrendered.]
Before the church is expected to
change, advocates of the long age
view must prove their major
points. The hinge issues are:
o Where did Augustine advo-
cate long ages?
o Where did those who influ-
enced Westminster hold to long
ages?
oWhich Westminster Divines
contended for long ages?
o Where are the English transla-
tions tllat use tile confessional
phrase "in the space of"?
To endorse such unfounded
interpretations is also to invite
men with untested commitments
to pass by without proper ration-
ales. Indeed, this revisionism
creates a new standard for the
Westminster standards, and
makes it unlikely that any
Presbytery or Session will call
into question framework hypoth-
eses or other expansive views on
creation. There must be a less
radical way, and we can suggest
several other meUlods to keep our
church open, but at the same time
not commit to pluralism.
"Due to shortage of space we were
unable to include the footnotes for this
article. Anyone who desires the
footnotes, p]ease contact the editor.
October/November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 19