Is the universe billions of years old or thousands? Are the creation days of Genesis to be interpreted as 24-hour periods? How should science inform our interpretation of Scripture, and how should Scripture inform our interpretation of science?
Christians disagree on how to answer these questions and they have been cause of no small debate within the believing community. The two opposing sides are sometimes labeled “young-earth” and “old-earth” or “young-age” and “old-age.” One of the most central and disputed points is whether the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.
Recently I read an article published in a young-earth creationist newsletter entitled “It's an Attack on the Son.”[1] The title is quite provocative, though this isn't the first writing of this kind I have come across. As you may have guessed from reading the title, a summary of the article could be as follows:
A rejection of the young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis is in reality (though perhaps unwittingly) an attack on Jesus Christ.
Yikes!
How did the author arrive at this conclusion? Young-earth creationists typically place great emphasis on the idea that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods. While the following argument is not laid out explicitly in the article, I have done my best to reconstruct the flow of thought and logic of the writer:
- If the Word of God teaches the creation days of Genesis are literal 24-hour periods, then rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking the Word of God.
- The Word of God teaches the creation days of Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.
- Therefore (from 1 and 2), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking the Word of God.
- The Word of God is Jesus’ Word.
- Therefore (from 3 and 4), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking Jesus’ Word.
- Attacking Jesus’ Word is attacking Jesus Himself.
- Therefore (from 5 and 6), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking Jesus Himself.
Hence, the title of the article: “It’s an Attack on the Son.”
The argument hinges on premise two, which is obviously the premise that is under debate in the age-of-the-earth controversy. I'm not so concerned with the logic of the position above or even with defending a particular age-of-the earth view. What does cause me concern is the mindset reflected in this article which, regrettably, can sometimes accompany the young-earth perspective. What is this mindset? It is the mistaken approach to this debate which concludes,
Anyone who disagrees with young-earth creationism is not taking Scripture seriously but rather is elevating human reason and/or science above divinely inspired revelation.
I believe this conclusion is completely unwarranted and can unfortunately result in a hyper-critical and overly dogmatic position in the age-of-the-earth controversy.
Allow me to elaborate.
The writer of this particular article quotes both William Dembski and William Lane Craig as proponents of the old-age view, a view which has been influenced by “ideas outside the Bible, not the plain reading of Scripture.” Their position is one of “compromise” which is “sadly the norm in the majority of our Christian colleges and seminaries.” He goes on to state,
Many times in this newsletter, I have stated that such a compromise is really an attack on the authority of the Word, in spite of some scholars' sincere intentions to the contrary. It is what I call "The Genesis 3" attack (i.e., creating doubt in regard to God's Word and asking "Did God really say?") and it ultimately undermines the authority of the Scripture.[2]
What does this compromise and undermining of biblical authority eventually lead to? The writer tells us:
Many young people in our churches are already doubting and disbelieving God's Word. The result? At least two-thirds of children raised in theologically conservative churches now walk away from the church (or even the Christian faith together).[3]
In other words, the old-age view, in this writer's opinion, is a source of compromise which can be directly linked to causing doubt and disbelief in the minds of churched youth, as well as the outright rejection of the Christian faith in some cases. The author gives us the bottom line:
When Christian leaders deliberately reinterpret God's Word on the basis of man's fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible), not only are they undermining the Word of God, they are actually (though unwittingly) conducting an attack on the Son of God!
This is very serious. Yes, when you compromise the Word of God, it is also an attack on the Son of God, whose Word it is.[4]
Yikes again!
Not very long ago a professor of mine who is on staff with a very prominent Christian organization (which happens to argue for the old-age view) stated that they receive more criticism and hate mail from young-earth creationists than they do from non-Christians!
Triple Yikes!
I believe this is all very unfortunate. Of course, I realize that this mentality can work in reverse as well. Young-earth creationists may be referred to as “anti-science” or “fundamentalist flat-earthers.” Again, this is regrettable. The difference is that, in my experience, it is usually non-Christians who are using these pejorative terms toward the young-earth position.
My intention here is not to offer a critique of any particular age-of-the-earth view. Rather, I would like to offer some important reminders to my young-earth creationist friends and fellow believers when engaging in this debate.
#1: Don’t Confuse the Issue.
The interpretation of the days of Genesis is an issue of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. I have often heard something like the following question posed by young-earth creationists:
Well if Genesis one is mistaken, what else in Scripture isn’t true?
Notice this questions assumes the issue is a matter of inerrancy. In other words, if the Bible is errant in Genesis one you have to throw out inerrancy, which in turn weakens biblical authority. This can be seen in the article quoted above: “...it ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture.” The implication is that one cannot hold both to an old-age view and the inerrancy of Scripture.
However, most Christians I know who hold to the old-age view also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture! How can this be?? Again, it is because this issue is a matter of hermeneutics. Old-age proponents simply interpret Genesis one differently. They hold that Genesis one is without error when properly understood, taking into account things like literary genre. By attempting to make this issue into one of inerrancy, young-earth creationists are not only creating a false dichotomy (by implying that one must choose either between inerrancy and the young-earth position or errancy and the old-age position) but they are also begging the question in assuming their interpretation is correct, which leads to the second important reminder.
#2: Avoid Fallacious Reasoning.
First, be careful of circular reasoning. Often young-earth creationists refer to their position as the “literal interpretation.” This is a bit misleading and can amount to question-begging. What exactly is meant by “literal interpretation”? Should things like genre, context, and literary devices be taken into account? For example, when Jesus said, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) or “I am the door” (John 10:7) should we interpret these sayings “literally”?
All of this to say, before we can determine the literal sense we need to find out the original sense. In other words, what was the original intent of the writer and/or speaker? In Genesis one, was the original intent to communicate to readers that the universe is only thousands of years old? By assuming the young-earth perspective is the “literal interpretation” you are assuming the very thing that is in question. The writer of the article refers to his position as the “plain reading of Scripture.” But “plain reading” does not necessarily equate with “correct reading.”
Furthermore, it should be noted that Scripture simply does not give us the age of the universe. Sorry, it just doesn’t! When young-earth creationists insist their view is the literal and plain meaning they are assuming an answer to an issue the Genesis one passage is not even addressing. In other words, everyone agrees that Genesis tells us the “Who,” “Why,” and “What” of creation. This is because the text is primarily theological in nature. But the “When” of creation is simply not addressed and the burden of proof seems to lie with those who claim otherwise.
Second, be careful not to engage in special pleading, i.e., holding others to a principle while exempting oneself. This is a double standard and inconsistent. The writer of the article speaks of
…Christian leaders [who] deliberately reinterpret God's Word on the basis of man's fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible).
This is obviously an uncharitable characterization of old-age proponents. But lurking behind this statement is also a case of special pleading. The reason I say this is because everyone must engage in biblical interpretation, including young-earth creationists. One should not be too quick to assume that everyone else is deliberately reinterpreting God’s Word by employing man’s fallible ideas, all the while holding one’s own interpretation to be the “plain reading of Scripture.” Everyone must interpret Scripture, and young-earth creationists are just as susceptible to fallible ideas and fallible interpretations which are “taken from outside the Bible.”
#3: Keep an Open Mind.
On issues such as the age of the universe and the interpretation of Genesis one, I would hope we would at least occasionally entertain the idea that “I could be wrong.” Realize that there are intelligent, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of the debate. Let’s continue to dialogue about this issue with mutual respect, courtesy, and a humble heart, remembering that we are ambassadors for Christ, lest by our in-house fighting and quarrelsome attitudes we give non-Christians an excuse for rejecting the Lord.
In addition, keeping an open mind will help prevent unnecessary dogmatism in areas where it is simply not warranted. For example, if you are as dogmatic about the age of the earth as you are on the deity of Christ, that’s a mistake. This brings us to our fourth important reminder.
#4: Major on the Majors.
The age of the universe has nothing to do with your salvation, nor does your interpretation of the days of Genesis. This is not an essential Christian doctrine nor is it part of the Gospel. In other words,
Not all doctrines are of equal importance!
This is crucial to remember. Failing to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines ends up placing issues such as the age of the earth on equal ground with the sine qua non (without which not) of the Christian faith. This in turn can mistakenly communicate the idea that all doctrine is equally important and all doctrine must be either accepted or rejected as a system. In other words,
An individual may be placed in the precarious position where they feel if they do not accept the young-earth creationist position they must reject Christianity altogether.
Remember the quote above where the author states,
Many young people in our churches are already doubting and disbelieving God's Word. The result? At least two-thirds of children raised in theologically conservative churches now walk away from the church (or even the Christian faith together).
The writer made this statement suggesting that the “compromise” of the old-age position is an attack on Scripture which leads to doubt, disbelief, and rejection of the Christian faith. It should be pointed out that this commits the fallacy of false cause, or minimally, an oversimplified cause. But more importantly, it could just as easily be argued that it is not the old-age view but rather a dogmatic young-earth position that leads to doubt, disbelief, and the eventual rejection of the Christian faith.
How so?
An excessively dogmatic position on the age of the earth combined with a failure to develop a sound doctrinal hierarchy forces people to choose either between a “young earth and Christian faith” or “an old earth and Christian rejection.” In other words, not only does this create another false dichotomy, but it could also just as easily explain the exodus of our churched youth.
Again, how so?
It could be that our children “are already doubting and disbelieving God’s Word” and walking away from the faith because they sincerely believe science shows the universe to be old. Yet they are also told an old universe is at odds with Scripture, or should I say, the young-earth interpretation of Scripture. They then feel forced to choose between science and faith.
In these situations it is important to communicate that one can be a Christian and believe the universe is old. The two are not mutually exclusive. Ironically then, though the writer of this article is concerned with keeping our youth in church, it may be a combination of unwarranted dogmatism and bad theology that is driving them away.
Moreover, it should be remembered that most old-age proponents are not denying a literal Adam and Eve nor are they denying the doctrine of original sin. There are some who do, regrettably, and those who do embrace positions which are theologically problematic and cause for alarm. However, it does not follow that a denial of 24-hour creation days necessarily leads to these troublesome positions, and implying so may be in danger of committing a slippery slope fallacy.
To sum up, we need to keep in mind this oft quoted maxim:
In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
[1] Ken Ham, “It’s an Attack on the Son,” Answers Update 17, no. 11 (2010): 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 2.
Posts
31 comments:
You should have just referenced Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham by name throughout the article. We all know it's him and his typical divisive mindset. Since so many Christians listen to him and follow his train of thought, he needs to be called out on the carpet by othwr Christian leaders for the division he causes.
Hello Chad! I hope the article was helpful regardless of whether or not I reference its author. I did reference Ham in a footnote which I think was sufficient for my purposes and anyone who is curious.
Hi Aaron
While I can sympathize with the point of view you express in this article, I think you are mistaken. I can sympathize with your viewpoint because it was mine for most of my life. I came into the church nearly twenty years ago at the age of 40. I entered, not because I believed in God, but because I believed in the necessity of God. But knowing God is a necessary being and knowing God are two different things and so I pushed myself into a course of studies to find out if what I “knew” to be necessary corresponds with what really exists.
One of many things which gave me pause in my new direction was the inconsistency between Genesis and what I “knew” to be true about cosmology and evolution. I was forever troubled by the idea that the God of truth would begin the book which reveals the truth about Him with a story which, taken literally, couldn’t possibly be accurate. As I say, this issue was one of many, and so I would set it aside and pursue other studies, but would regularly revisit this issue.
Over the next decade I read every half-baked “harmony” of science and Genesis I could get my hands on; but each one did violence to the text, human reason, or both. One thing I wouldn’t read was creationist literature (Ken Ham et al); I “knew” that stuff was pure nonsense and only an idiot would even consider it. Given this as my point of view I spent considerable time and effort studying the alternatives and, I assure you, none of them meet the mark.
One day my Pastor, knowing I am a voracious reader, said he had received a book in the mail and didn’t have time to read it, could I read it and let him know if it’s worth his time. I said, “Sure, no problem, I like to read anyway.” He handed me the book, I took one glance at the cover and almost handed it back. It was Ken Ham’s “Why Won’t They Listen”... a creationist book... not worth my time. But, I thought to myself, you promised, so I took and read the book.
To my astonishment, it was good. It is a perceptive and insightful analysis of why people like me reject Genesis out of hand. I read it and realized what a bigot I had been, searching for “truth” but refusing to consider the possibility that the words God sent us might be an accurate description of reality. I had prejudged revelation because, all my life, I was told that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That belief was so well seated in my psyche that I couldn’t even think of questioning it.
I still struggle with the question, but my other studies – other of the many things which trouble me – have been resolved in favor of the Bible. I still know God is a necessary being, but I now believe He is a real being. I think the evidence is pretty much overwhelming in favor the reliability of the New Testament accounts of Jesus life, death, and resurrection. The Old Testament exhibits comparable historical credibility. Because the OT refers to events more distant in time, the archaeological confirmations are fewer, but they regularly give confirmation to revelation.
As I say, I still struggle with the “age of the earth” question. There are holes in the creation account which are difficult, if not impossible, to fill given my (our?) current knowledge of cosmology. What I have learned though, is that modern science is also filled with holes and many of the current theories of cosmology and biology are, in fact, atheist creation myths. Given the general reliability of scripture and my growing realization that modern science (so-called) will accept any theory to avoid the theos, I have moved my default position toward a recent creation by fiat. It is, admittedly, a tentative commitment, but it seems to me that the God of truth, the God of the Bible, would not begin His revelation with a myth.
God bless
Dave
Hello Dave! Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I agree with most of what you say here, so I am not sure where you think I am "mistaken." This is an ongoing discussion in the church that should continue with mutual love and respect and it is important that both sides understand each others positions and represent them accurately.
In response to Chad above, Ken Ham is correct, and being familiar with his arguments, I don’t think this article interacts with them in any amount of serious detail, so it is rather divisive on your part to charge divisiveness when nothing was presented that demonstrates the divisiveness. In fact, this article is responding to a newsletter column, not a substantial talk on the subject.
Let me respond to highlights in the various points raised.
#1 The interpretation of the days of Genesis is an issue of hermeneutics, not inerrancy.
Indeed it is, and I would imagine Ken Ham would also agree with you. However, if you plan to be consistent with your affirmation of inerrancy, you need to be prepared to interact with the challenge the CSBI article 11 has to your position, as well as the CSBH article 22. THe CSBI is here: www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm and the CSBH is here: www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
Note the comment under the CSBH to article 22 by old earther, Norm Geisler,
“Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.”
#2: Avoid Fallacious Reasoning.
The comments under this post were rather disingenuous. Of course YEC would explain about genre. I would recommend this article to help you out:www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf
In the case of Genesis, it’s historical narrative, just like Exodus, 1 Samuel, and the Gospels and Acts. We read it as history. Thus, when one speaks about “literal interpretation” it simply means we read the passage as it was meant to be read, as an historical account. Go back to that comment I cited above from Geisler. He uses the same word “literal.” Was he being misleading?
In Genesis one, was the original intent to communicate to readers that the universe is only thousands of years old
No. His original intent was to communicate that God created the world and all that was in it in 6 ordinary days as we understand days. This is consistently affirmed throughout the entire Bible. The age of the earth is derived from other factors within the historical texts of Scripture. You’re reading way too much into Ham’s words.
Second, be careful not to engage in special pleading, i.e., holding others to a principle while exempting oneself. This is a double standard and inconsistent. The writer of the article speaks of …Christian leaders [who] deliberately reinterpret God's Word on the basis of man's fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible).
But Ham is correct. Christians wouldn’t be trying to shoe horn millions of years in the creation week of Genesis if it wasn’t for them conceding to scientism that says the earth is millions of years old. Read Geisler’s last sentence in that comment.
An excessively dogmatic position on the age of the earth combined with a failure to develop a sound doctrinal hierarchy forces people to choose either between a “young earth and Christian faith” or “an old earth and Christian rejection.”
Does an excessively dogmatic position on the historicity and resurrection of Jesus factor into this, too? How about a rigid commitment to inerrancy? The Biologos crowd think so.
It could be that our children “are already doubting and disbelieving God’s Word” and walking away from the faith because they sincerely believe science shows the universe to be old.
It could be that your children are all unconverted sinners just like the Bible teaches and need to be regenerated. In other words, they need to be told the Gospel. No apologetics are gonna help them. Trying to help out God by keeping Him from the embarrassment of His own revelation only makes matters worse.
They then feel forced to choose between science and faith.
They are forced to choose between two authorities. Both of them have a competing worldview that frames the history of the earth and mankind according to specific constructs. One authority is anthropocentric and prone to serious error. The other is the infallible God of the universe. I would think what our creator says about the history of the earth and mankind would take precedence over the other.
Moreover, it should be remembered that most old-age proponents are not denying a literal Adam and Eve nor are they denying the doctrine of original sin.
Yes, they do. However it only makes their old earth position untenable because they have to buy into the evolutionary explanation of ancient hominids among other things, and struggle to come to terms with what the Bible teaches on death as it relates to Adam’s sin. The exegetical Jedi-mind tricks are staggering with that one.
If you've not seen it, this article by Terry Mortenson helps to place the debate in a better perspective: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18d.pdf
'The age of the universe has nothing to do with your salvation, nor does your interpretation of the days of Genesis. This is not an essential Christian doctrine nor is it part of the Gospel. In other words,
Not all doctrines are of equal importance!'
I agree that not all doctrines are of equal importance; I do not, however, believe that the interpretation of the days of Genesis isn't an important one; it's important for many reasons - I offer two from my own mind.
I won't go into the scholarly work involving the meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis, but if the 6-day creation isn't literal, then either God lied to Moses or Moses lied when he wrote Genesis. That spawns the question, 'If a lie began the book, why should anyone believe anything else in it?'
In the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, and others speak of the 6-day creation. If that was a lie, then Jesus, Paul, and whomever else spoke of it was deluded into believing it as fact - then comes the question, 'What else were they deluded into believing?'
Additionally, since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God - God Incarnate - and He also believed in the 6-day creation, if He was deluded into believing the second, He could also have been deluded into the first. Here's a potential discussion using that theme:
'How do you know Jesus was God Incarnate?'
'Well, He said so; He also rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.'
'So what? He also believed the lie that the earth was created in 6 days! He was nothing more than a magician/He only swooned on the cross/His followers stole His body/seeing Him after His death and seeing Him ascend was nothing more than mass-delusion/etc., etc.'
Hello Fred! I put your comments below in bold with my responses underneath.
However, if you plan to be consistent with your affirmation of inerrancy, you need to be prepared to interact with the challenge the CSBI article 11 has to your position, as well as the CSBH article 22. THe CSBI is here: www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm and the CSBH is here: www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
Note the comment under the CSBH to article 22 by old earther, Norm Geisler,
You will have to clarify what this has to do with my position or the original blog. I hold to inerrancy.
In the case of Genesis, it’s historical narrative, just like Exodus, 1 Samuel, and the Gospels and Acts. We read it as history. Thus, when one speaks about “literal interpretation” it simply means we read the passage as it was meant to be read, as an historical account. Go back to that comment I cited above from Geisler. He uses the same word “literal.” Was he being misleading?
Even OEC’s can accept Genesis as historical narrative without accepting that the earth and universe are thousands of years old, so again you will have to clarify here.
No. His original intent was to communicate that God created the world and all that was in it in 6 ordinary days as we understand days. This is consistently affirmed throughout the entire Bible. The age of the earth is derived from other factors within the historical texts of Scripture. You’re reading way too much into Ham’s words.
This is exactly what the debate is about, so it seems to me you are begging the question.
But Ham is correct. Christians wouldn’t be trying to shoe horn millions of years in the creation week of Genesis if it wasn’t for them conceding to scientism that says the earth is millions of years old. Read Geisler’s last sentence in that comment.
First, again, begging the question. Second, there were Christians before modern science that held to an old earth. See Jim Wallace’s article here:
Does An Ancient Universe Prove Christianity is False?
Third, saying Christians “shoe horn” and are “conceding to scientism” is uncharitable to say the least. What OEC’s are doing is looking at two books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture, both of them given to us by God, and trying to come to a conclusion regarding the age of the earth.
Does an excessively dogmatic position on the historicity and resurrection of Jesus factor into this, too? How about a rigid commitment to inerrancy? The Biologos crowd think so.
First, I already addressed this in the article. The resurrection is an essential Christian doctrine, while the age of the earth is not, so your analogy here is a false one. Second, please don’t associate all OEC’s with Biologos. That is fallacious.
It could be that your children are all unconverted sinners just like the Bible teaches and need to be regenerated. In other words, they need to be told the Gospel. No apologetics are gonna help them. Trying to help out God by keeping Him from the embarrassment of His own revelation only makes matters worse.
First, yes they do need to be regenerated. Second, apologetics is indeed helpful as the Holy Spirit can use it both in the lives of believers and unbelievers. Both Jesus and the apostles used apologetics, so we're in good company. Third, your statement regarding the “embarrassment of His own revelation” once again begs the question and is not helpful at all in resolving the debate.
They are forced to choose between two authorities. Both of them have a competing worldview that frames the history of the earth and mankind according to specific constructs. One authority is anthropocentric and prone to serious error. The other is the infallible God of the universe. I would think what our creator says about the history of the earth and mankind would take precedence over the other.
First, again, begging the question. Second, this is a complete misrepresentation of the OEC position. Third, as I mentioned above, what OEC’s are doing is looking at the two books of revelation. Their desire is to come to the truth of the matter, not “shoehorn” or “concede to scientism” or avoid an “embarrassment of God’s revelation.”
Yes, they do.
I was referring here to Christian OEC’s, so I would still say “No, they don’t.”
The Watcher,
Thanks for your thoughts and comments. The purpose of this blog was not to argue for one view or another on the age of the earth, so I am not interested in doing that here in the comments. It was intended to help clarify and encourage healthy dialogue. I appreciate your response. You stated,
I won't go into the scholarly work involving the meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis, but if the 6-day creation isn't literal, then either God lied to Moses or Moses lied when he wrote Genesis. That spawns the question, 'If a lie began the book, why should anyone believe anything else in it?'
There is scholarly work on both sides of the debate by Hebrew scholars regarding this issue. No one is arguing that God and Moses lied. I think this again is in danger of elevating the age of the earth question to an unwarranted level. This is hermeneutics, not inerrancy.
In the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, and others speak of the 6-day creation. If that was a lie, then Jesus, Paul, and whomever else spoke of it was deluded into believing it as fact - then comes the question, 'What else were they deluded into believing?'
But no orthodox Christian in this debate is saying that Jesus or Paul was deluded. Again, this is an issue of hermeneutics. If you think the OEC's are wrong, by all means muster your best arguments. But we have to be careful to avoid straw man arguments.
Aaron,
I appreciate the discussion. Hopefully I can give you some things to think about.
you write,
You will have to clarify what this has to do with my position or the original blog. I hold to inerrancy
I’d be happy to clarify. Again, go read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, particularly the preface. You can find it here, www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm The preface provides a basic working understanding of what it means when we as Christians claim to affirm inerrancy. Note point #4 in the preface,
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
The Genesis account of Creation provides for us an entirely different telling of events pertaining to world history, in this case the origin of world history, than what is advocated by deep time proponents. Again, those of the old earth persuasion believe in an ancient earth ONLY because they believe secular scientific academics are accurate with their estimations of the facts (the so-called "book of nature"), or what is really their interpretation of the evidence. Yet those academics assume several factors that play into their interpretation, including a denial of a creator, a denial of the fall of man into sin and sin’s impact on the world, and a denial of a global judgment by a flood. Deep time Christians merely piggy-back off their conclusions.
Assuming their accuracy of the facts (or the "book of nature"), they lend those “academics” this unquestioned credibility that frames their hermeneutic. That in turn forces the deep time Christian to adapt the Bible to fit those conclusions and so he does that by primarily re-interpreting the Genesis account of creation and denying the historicity of a global flood making it a “local” flood. However, as the doctrine of inerrancy states, God’s Word is without error in all its teaching, and that would certainly include the creation account. The exegesis of those relevant texts in Genesis do not allow you to side with the history of the world put forth by the deep time proponents.
Continuing, you write,
Even OEC’s can accept Genesis as historical narrative without accepting that the earth and universe are thousands of years old, so again you will have to clarify here.
That is not entirely true. You may claim this, but you don’t practice it. The exegesis of the Genesis account is God creating in six ordinary, solar days. Evening and morning, etc. I haven’t pressed you about this, but I imagine you hold to some modified exegesis of the Genesis account that turns ordinary days into “creative” eras, or some framework view or something along those lines. You’ll appeal to non-historical books like Psalms and a few prophets that speak of “days” as periods of time or whatnot, and claim that proves your case that the word "yom" has this grammatical elasticity. Any meaningful Bible study, as you and your friends advocate, however, involves grammatical study, historical study, and a determination of context that factor into interpreting the text. As it is said on STR, “never read a Bible verse.” Applying those basic rules cannot possibly allow you to honestly walk away from the Bible believing it allows for millions of years of “pre-history” before Adam.
Continuing,
This is exactly what the debate is about, so it seems to me you are begging the question.
There is no question begging going on in anything I state here. All I am attempting to do is show you the radical inconsistency with your position.
Continuing from above,
Aaron writes,
there were Christians before modern science that held to an old earth. See Jim Wallace’s article
No there were not. Wallace is just wrong about this and is probably passing along second-hand error. A couple of factors about those citations. First, a good many of those church fathers were allegorists. Meaning that they “spiritualized” the text for other purposes. Second, they were NOT engaged in the modern day evolutionary-creation controversy. Third, the “age of the earth” as being millions and billions did not come onto the scene until late into 1700s with French atheists. Fourth, pretty much all of those individuals affirm a 24-hour, 6 day creation event. Augustine is the typical one cited by deep-time proponents and they do so disingenuously, because he believed men had been created and living on the earth for 6,000 years. More can be found here,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v4/Augustine_Genesis_1_theology.pdf
continuing,
What OEC’s are doing is looking at two books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture, both of them given to us by God, and trying to come to a conclusion regarding the age of the earth.
I understand that. And that is one of the major flaws in your apologetic methodology and the methodology of classic apologetics in particular. There is no “book of nature” on equal footing with Scripture. Nature has to be interpreted. God’s only inscripturated revelation provides the means to do so accurately. General revelation is extremely limited and merely provides men with the ability to “be without excuse” before God. Moreover, general revelation has to be revelation throughout ALL generations. Hence, big-bang cosmology doesn’t count as “general” revelation because such concepts were unavailable until the 20th century.
See here: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj9a.pdf
Aaron write,
First, I already addressed this in the article.
Where exactly did you address what I raised? Your assertion is that young earth beliefs are so utterly incredible that they cause stumbling blocks to people coming to faith. You point out that rigid dogmatism about this one issue turns people away from the gospel. My contention is that men as sinners are naturally opposed to Christ and the gospel. What one believes about creation is irrelevant to the person anyways. If the person is opposed to YEC he or she will also be opposed to anything in the Bible, including the idea a dead man rose from the dead after three days, or walked on water in a stormy sea, or that God destroyed the Egyptian army in 1445 BC by drowning them in the Red sea, etc. Any saving faith is solely a divine work initiated by God alone (John 3:1-8). God changes the heart of a person so that the entire man-made philosophical worldview the individual has created for himself is shattered. His thinking is now oriented toward what the Bible teaches.
Continuing,
The resurrection is an essential Christian doctrine, while the age of the earth is not, so your analogy here is a false one.
It’s not a false one. Even with the Resurrection, you are calling on sinners to believe something incredible. That a three day old corpse rose from the dead. Sinners will not accept that on their own, in spite of the myriads of “proofs” apologists throw at them. They only way they will believe the testimony of Scripture is if the Spirit of God regenerates the sinful heart to believe it.
And, while it is true the Resurrection is an essential Christian doctrine and YEC is not, the Resurrection is part of a much larger history of redemption where the creator, who is revealed in Genesis one as the Sovereign God who created the world and all that is in it, sought to redeem fallen humanity in the death and Resurrection of His son. That creator has revealed specific details about the origins of His creation of the first man that leads to the whole reason why Jesus came in the first place. These things cannot be ignored in light of the deep time history promoted by the secular world.
Continuing,
Second, please don’t associate all OEC’s with Biologos. That is fallacious.
Aaron, do you understand what motivates the folks at Biologos? Their whole enterprise works from the same general assumptions you are working from. That being: the evidence, or if you will, “book of nature,” undoubtedly proves there was no one man named Adam who started the human race. The “book of nature” shows us undoubtedly that the Darwinian version of earth’s history and man’s origins conflict with the Bible’s narrative. Hence, Christians need to realize that the Bible could be saying something different than what is being taught by inerrantists who believe the Genesis account is factual history.
Now. Am I saying OEC draw the same conclusions the Biologos guys do? No. But your foundational starting point that shapes your methodology is the same when it comes to allowing what you claim is “the book of nature” to direct you in re-reading the creation narratives in a fashion other than what the text plainly states.
Last one, I promise. Trying to stay in my character limit.
Aaron writes,
… apologetics is indeed helpful as the Holy Spirit can use it both in the lives of believers and unbelievers. Both Jesus and the apostles used apologetics, so we're in good company.
Where did Jesus or any of the apostles use “apologetics” in the sense that you are advocating? I find nowhere in the Bible in which Jesus or the apostles used theistic “proofs,” or logic-chopping arguments, or appealed to Greek philosophical arguments to compel hearers of the truth of Christianity. Instead I find Jesus and the apostles reasoning with their audiences from the Scripture. Both Torah keeping Jews and rank pagan gentiles.
And just so I am clear, I am not devaluing the use of apologetics. Evidence and proofs are good to strengthen Christian faith and shutting the mouths of mockers, but I don’t rely on my persuasive abilities with the use of so-called rational “apologetic” proofs to convert sinners. I understand you would agree, but your position is much more synergistic than what the Bible tells us. If you’re interested and have time, I engaged a Ratio Christi chapter leader on these finer points of apologetic methodology. The article begins here, though you can follow the tags to find the additional comments and commentary.
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2012/02/csi-apologetics.html
continuing,
…as I mentioned above, what OEC’s are doing is looking at the two books of revelation. Their desire is to come to the truth of the matter, not “shoehorn” or “concede to scientism” or avoid an “embarrassment of God’s revelation.”
Consider again what I noted about Biologos in my prior comment. They have the same rational as you. That the book of nature tells us one thing and so it needs to be reconciled with the book of scripture.
Thanks Jim I know one thing for sure however old the earth and universe are. I owe my existence and salvation to the God of the bible that created it. We can all agree that the state of humanity finds itself in is logically and completely answered in this same book that is inerrant in its content although our fallen human intellect may be interpreting it erroneously. I wonder what our Lord's opinion would be of the striving s between believers on this issue. We find ourselves in a world desperately in real need of the salvation he freely and lovingly offers. The reasons for young people falling away are many,and they could choose this reason to walk away as well as anything else. When one walks away it is after their own lust, if they want to use this to disbelieve they could just as easily use the problem of evil, or hypocrites . Jesus said look at the fields they are white unto harvest. That is as prevalent now as ever. The age of the universe and the earth has no impact on the depravity of the human heart. Thank you for pointing out the superficial nature of those who would strain over this gnat while the world around them is perishing and enduring eternal punishment. Thank you for striving to get the word out that there is a solution Jesus,and we can logically,and confidently hold this truth. Love your podcast,website, and ministry.
Fred,
Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I have tried to contain my responses below to those things directly related to the original blog.
First, regarding inerrancy, you are still confusing hermeneutics with inerrancy, which is one of the issues I addressed in the original blog. This is the main problem with your comments above. You stated,
God’s Word is without error in all its teaching, and that would certainly include the creation account. The exegesis of those relevant texts in Genesis do not allow you to side with the history of the world put forth by the deep time proponents.
This is exactly my point. The disagreement has to do with exegesis. You do not believe proper exegesis can support the OEC position. That's fine. By all means, argue for your position. But don't confuse inerrancy with hermeneutics. OEC do not agree with your exegesis, and yet can still hold to inerrancy.
I haven’t pressed you about this, but I imagine you hold to some modified exegesis of the Genesis account that turns ordinary days into “creative” eras, or some framework view or something along those lines. You’ll appeal to non-historical books like Psalms and a few prophets that speak of “days” as periods of time or whatnot, and claim that proves your case that the word "yom" has this grammatical elasticity. Any meaningful Bible study, as you and your friends advocate, however, involves grammatical study, historical study, and a determination of context that factor into interpreting the text. As it is said on STR, “never read a Bible verse.” Applying those basic rules cannot possibly allow you to honestly walk away from the Bible believing it allows for millions of years of “pre-history” before Adam.
Actually you don't know what my view is because I have not told you. I may be a YEC. The point of the blog was not to argue for a particular position. It was to point out some mistakes that are made in the YEC/OEC debate. But your comments here once again prove my point, you are confusing inerrancy with hermeneutics.
Nature has to be interpreted. God’s only inscripturated revelation provides the means to do so accurately. General revelation is extremely limited and merely provides men with the ability to “be without excuse” before God.
Scripture has to be interpreted as well, not just nature. And I am not arguing that general revelation is as valuable or information bearing as Scripture, only that the OEC position sees that both Scripture and nature can give us truth.
Am I saying OEC draw the same conclusions the Biologos guys do? No.
Good, I am glad to hear this.
But your foundational starting point that shapes your methodology is the same when it comes to allowing what you claim is “the book of nature” to direct you in re-reading the creation narratives in a fashion other than what the text plainly states.
Again, thank you for pointing out the hermeneutics issue. What the "text plainly says" is what is under dispute. Your problem with the methodology is due to what you believe to be true about the text. That's fine, but simply associating a "methodology" with Biologos says nothing about the truth of the matter. I am sure you would not appreciate my associating your "literal" interpretive methodology with Roman Catholicism which accepts the "literal" view of the Lord's Supper, i.e. transubstantiation, and then conclude your methodology must be false. After all Fred, haven't you read the text? Jesus plainly says, "My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." As you said, "Applying those basic rules cannot possibly allow you to honestly walk away from the Bible believing it allows for" a non-transubstantiation interpretation!
Seeing this is an old post that is slowly getting pushed back in the views, I'll let this be my final response. I appreciate the interaction. I'll perhaps write something about it up in an article I can published at my blog.
You write,
This is exactly my point. The disagreement has to do with exegesis. You do not believe proper exegesis can support the OEC position. That's fine. By all means, argue for your position. But don't confuse inerrancy with hermeneutics. OEC do not agree with your exegesis, and yet can still hold to inerrancy.
I am completely aware of what you perceive as "confusion" between hermeneutics and inerrancy. There isn't any, however. What we do have is a good amount of inconsistency on the part of those of the OEC persuasion. The text has to be communicating something to the reader. Is it communicating error or truth? Or what would be errancy or inerrancy. Part of hermeneutics and exegesis is determining what it is exactly that is being communicated. So simple question: How did the original audience understand what Moses wrote in Genesis 1? Did they understand that he was saying God created the world in the space of one week? Certainly Moses did, seeing that the 4th commandment about the Sabbath rest after 6 days of work is anchored to the 6 days God created the heavens and the earth. SO was God communicating error or truth? Or do you take the position that God had to be intentionally deceitful because the poor dumb pre-scientific Jews would never understand millions of years? So contrary to your notion that I am confusing inerrancy and hermeneutics, how one interprets the text (hermeneutics) plays heavily on whether the text communicating errant or inerrant information.
Continuing,
Actually you don't know what my view is because I have not told you. I may be a YEC. The point of the blog was not to argue for a particular position. It was to point out some mistakes that are made in the YEC/OEC debate
From what you have written and how you have defended yourself, I have no doubt you are an OEC. I would add that a good many of those folks who circle in your apologetic orbit (Wallace, Koukl, Geisler, et. al) are OEC because they believe "evidence" proves the earth is old. IF you are a YEC, then may I exhort you to make that clear the next time you write on this subject because it gives the appearance of dishonesty and you don't want to come across that way.
Continuing,
..... As you said, "Applying those basic rules cannot possibly allow you to honestly walk away from the Bible believing it allows for" a non-transubstantiation interpretation!
Are you serious? If you think this sort of muddled sophistry helps your position, there is not much more I can say. Just hope you go and avail yourself of those resources I've linked.
Anyone who seriously believes in the young earth hypothesis and rejects science should turn off their computer and go live in a mud hut. The world has no place for such people who sponge off the hard work of others.
Thanks for that completely ignorant and bigoted comment. You're like the Fred Phelps equivalent for atheists.
There's nothing ignorant or bigoted about it.
Clearly you're unwilling to reject all the benefits of science, instead picking and choosing depending upon what fits with your preconceived ideas ... now that sounds a lot like the definition of bigoted.
That every credible scientist believes that the earth is significantly older than you're claiming makes you ignorant of the facts.
So who am I going to believe? Some mentally deranged lunatic that thinks the earth is a few thousand years old because it fits in with his childish views on the bible or qualified scientists, many of whom are Christians, that know what they're talking about.
Like I said, you don't deserve to benefit from the hard work of others. Get off the computer and go live in a mud hut.
That's just peachy. An atheist - ATHEIST, mind you - lecturing me about preconceived ideas and picking and choosing. You can't write comedy like this.
You have no idea of my religious convictions and they have no bearing upon the point in question.
At times like this I'm not at all surprised that WLC is considered the only sane defender of the faith.
Asno writes,
You have no idea of my religious convictions and they have no bearing upon the point in question.
Excuse me. Did you compile your profile page? You list an atheist page as a blog I follow. You basically declare me to be stupid without engaging any of my arguments. If you had any serious religious convictions I would expect a more sound and logical engagement to the points I raised. The fact that I got none of that is typical of internet atheism.
Google+ Reader keeps a tab on my subscriptions ... So you get to see two links that I made through Blogger and jump to assumptions. When a more reasonable conclusion would have been 'active since 2007, only 2 follows, I bet he doesn't use Blogger much'.
I didn't say you were stupid, I suggested that anyone who believes in the historical accuracy of the OT should for the sake of coherence reject not just science but everything that has come from it.
You haven't actually made an argument. You made an assertion that the OT was the literal word of God and then tried to prove it was true by recourse to conclusions arrived at by some other people, who's main interest was not in the veracity of the truth but in what they believed were the practical ramifications of holding such a position.
Lets look at http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf hilarious. What he's failed to understand is that God is talking to what amounts to little more than trained monkeys. It would be like Einstein getting a 5 year old to transcribe the theory of relativity. Simply isn't going to happen without a serious dumbing down.
Hence the simplistic account in Genesis. You would have thought though that being omnipotent God'd realise the problems that such a simplistic account would cause in the future. Of course, for OE'ers it isn't a problem at all. So who do you think is wrong?
Asno writes,
... When a more reasonable conclusion would have been 'active since 2007, only 2 follows, I bet he doesn't use Blogger much'.
But the point is that the one link is a rabid atheist site. It tells me what you have followed, and thus where you are probably coming from philosophically.
I didn't say you were stupid...
You suggested that I should be living in a mud hut and not using a computer, which means to say I am a primitive, which means to say I am lacking in either intelligence or sophistication as a person. As you write down below nothing but "trained monkeys." Thus, it is a bigoted statement like I noted. BTW, the use of computers or any "science" is irrelevant to the history of earth's origins in spite of the erroneous conflation.
You haven't actually made an argument.
On the contrary, I have made several arguments for the historicity and inerrancy of the Genesis record. You seriously can't see that? At any rate, I take from the remainder of your further bigoted comments that you are an atheist, so you have deeper psychological problems with your creator that go beyond disagreeing about man's origins, the historicity of Genesis and what constitutes "science."
What I follow is completely irrelevant and only your bigotry made you jump on it as if saying I was an Atheist would invalidate my point.
Again, you show prejudice and bigotry by assuming that someone living in a mud hut is invariably lacking in intelligence.
Hilarious that you previously posted to Aaron "If you think this sort of muddled sophistry helps your position, there is not much more I can say." and yet here you are demanding that I credit you with being 'sophist'icated. Ironic when you consider that until the late 19thC it used to mean "deceitful and actively misleading".
As for clumping yourself together with the 'trained monkeys' that's all on you.
If you really think that erroneously believing the age of the earth to be only 4000 years old or so would have no bearing upon the study of geology and upon science in general then you are sorely mistaken.
Scientific discoveries feed into each other in ways that you clearly can't imagine. We are where we are today because of science as a whole.
I find it ironic that the father of computing Alan Turing was a homo, so no luck for you there either!
Asno writes,
Again, you show prejudice and bigotry by assuming that someone living in a mud hut is invariably lacking in intelligence.
You brought up the comparison, not me.
Hilarious that you previously posted to Aaron "If you think this sort of muddled sophistry helps your position, there is not much more I can say." and yet here you are demanding that I credit you with being 'sophist'icated. Ironic when you consider that until the late 19thC it used to mean "deceitful and actively misleading".
But there is a context for that statement, correct? It was in response to the history of interpreting Genesis. You're really reaching with the responses.
If you really think that erroneously believing the age of the earth to be only 4000 years old or so would have no bearing upon the study of geology and upon science in general then you are sorely mistaken.
Please explain how the history of the earth and one's geological model has bearing upon computer science, for instance.
Scientific discoveries feed into each other in ways that you clearly can't imagine. We are where we are today because of science as a whole.
I know you'd like to think that. But again, please explain how the age of the earth is relevant to the Wright brothers inventing the air plane. BTW, the guy who pioneered the MRI is a 6day creationist.
I find it ironic that the father of computing Alan Turing was a homo, so no luck for you there either!
While you are at it, please explain how homosexuality defers an evolutionary advantage to the human species.
1. No I didn't.
2. Actually I'm just taking the piss out of you.
3. Clearly there's no point in even attempting to explain how all science is interrelated ... lets just leave it at how surprised you must be that ancient Israelites weren't flying planes ... or how carbon dating and indeed anything to do with radioactive isotopes is directly related to the age of the earth ... or how without the existing body of scientific knowledge the MRI wouldn't have been invented. However you're welcome to believe that these things just spring up out of thin air.
4. That's got nothing to do with anything - other than from your reading of the bible he wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Fred,
Seems to be some confusion on Asno's part between 'science' and 'evolution' from what I can tell. Doesn't understand he's equivocating the two. A logical fallacy.
@ Steve Drake
Wow! it took me some time to understand how you could have reached such an erroneous conclusion.
Darwins theory of Evolution isn't what kills the YE idea, it's cosmology and geology ... along with most of modern science.
NOTE - I'm not sure if you're aware of it but biogenesis and Darwin's theory of evolution are two completely different things.
My point about how science evolves was there to point out that you can't pick and chose, that all advances are upon the shoulders of what came before.
NOTE - I'm not sure if you're aware of this but 'evolution' is a word in it's own right and can be legitimately used to describe the process of how 'something' has changed over time ... i.e. the evolution of the computer.
Conclusion - Seems to be a lot of confusion on Steve Drakes part ... I'm guessing a poor grasp of the facts and an overwhelming desire to use the word 'equivocating' along with the phrase 'A logical fallacy' in a poorly conceived attempt to make himself look good has resulted in egg all down his face.
Post a Comment