I'm noticing a growing trend of believers backing down from a young earth/seven day creation stance. I used to be concerned to hear of preachers declaring that a young earth/seven day creation isn't that important when it comes down to it. "What does that have to do with someone's salvation?" they would ask. But now I'm even more alarmed to hear men I know saying such things.
How can this NOT be important? Kowtowing to any notion of naturalistic evolution and long ages is absolutely contrary to the teaching of Scripture! I mean, the seven day creation/rest scenario is referenced in the Decalogue as the basis of commandment #4. And some people (believers) are supporting the notion that the Genesis creation is a metaphor? A symbol? An allegory? What is going on?
How about the references made to Adam in the New Testament as a single, unique, individual? Romans 5:12 says that "sin entered the world through one man." Jesus and the Apostles apparently were convinced of a young earth and seven day creation. But then again, that was 2,000 years ago - what did they know?
I think this is like giving in to the bully on the playground and surrendering your Twinkies everyday at lunchtime just because the bully is bigger and louder, even though he's actually full of nonsense and hot air.
In the end, I think you can be a Christian and think you believe in some sort of naturalistic evolution/long ages scenario, but hopefully not for long. A true believer must by definition adhere to the clear teaching of Scripture, with careful attention given to what it says about itself and the history of mankind. Furthermore, a preacher of God's Word, and any mature believer for that matter, should take a strong stance on the trustworthiness of the Biblical message on all fronts.
6 comments:
Amen!
It is a bit concerning that most of today's ''christian'' colleges are teaching old earth stuff too.
This is war brother. We may not see it but that's what it is. The enemy is trying to take out the foundation.
I praise God that this is a battle already won!
AMEN.
The Word of God is under fire in Evangelical circles, and it is alarming. We need an army of modern day J. Gresham Machens to stand and speak truth against the rise of faithless liberalism in our generation.
One of the most disturbing things I observed in 2010 was when a key player in the Gospel Coalition fell down before the idol of false science and wrote a paper supporting the integration of evolution and Genesis. I read his paper and found it to be riddled with hermeneutical holes. I wondered, how can a man so brilliant and so Gospel-centered and so devoted to the Truth fall for this nonsense?
Rob is right, this IS WAR! The stakes are high. May God help us to stay true in the face of overwhelming opposition. When I stand before God, I want HIM to be pleased - even if the entire world laughed at my trust in His Word.
Thanks for writing about this.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek and Rob - I often find myself praying that I'll stay true when the pressure is on. It's just so hard to imagine a scenario when the plain Truth of God is compromised so easily.
you know i'm a solid proponent of creationism and am willing to plant my flag on the "young-earth" hill (because that's what the text seems to say, not to mention there are credible interpretations of our present scientific data to support such a notion). i, too, hope i'd never cave based on secular (or even church-based!) pressure or a majority view.
however, i could be persuaded to change views on purely exegetical grounds, and i do think there are some arguments to be heard re: the authorial intent of the Genesis 1 account. "literal" interpretation doesn't have to mean "word-for-word," but rather means interpreting it the way the original readers/listeners would have. i think this is where AiG (as much as i like their materials in general) can fall short at times.
i think we should consider it possible that the author's main point can be best seen by contrasting the Genesis account to similar ANE cosmologies, rather than viewing this portion of the narrative as a straight play-by-play.
we should be open to the idea that the parallelism of days 1-3 with 4-6 may be a literary device never intended to be read as an eye-witness, chronological account.
we should be willing to entertain the suggestion that we're limiting the text to impose a woodenly literal interpretation of it, when that may never have been its purpose.
i think it's important for Bible teachers to know some of the alternative interpretations and be able to interact with them. we should want to know what the text actually means, whether it fits our views or not. we don't abandon the text because it doesn't fit with contemporary worldviews, but we may need to let go of an interpretation that is exegetically imprecise.
however, where i always land after considering such arguments is right where you did: Exodus 20...the Sabbath command makes NO sense if Genesis 1 doesn't mean something pretty darn close to what it says.
also, a straightforward reading of Genesis 1 never seems to bite the dust in isolation, but usually comes crashing down with all of the first 11 chapters.
as you alluded to, if there is no historical adam and no fall, then the Gospel paul gives us in Romans is a fantasy and i'm not so sure we still need a Savior at all, but perhaps just Yeshua as role model.
i don't think we should justify a wrong interpretation of an older passage to maintain a later theological construct, but in this particular case, it is essential to realize how intimately connected a plain reading of Genesis 1-3 is to the entire Gospel, and proceed very cautiously, as we may be pulling on a very long thread that leads to more unraveling than intended.
i liked al mohler's talk this summer on this topic, here:
http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=mohler2
Kevin - Well stated, with your usual brevity :D . I'll have a listen to Mohler's talk today hopefully.
I need to pray for the men God has called to stand and preach His word.
There are so many who find this particular area of young earth/old earth as a place where they can warm up and open up to all sorts of possibilities... and yes, especially because there seems to be an open exegetical door to do so. But for the plain reader of Scripture... it seems all too clear; 6 24hr days.
Too many popular preachers... good preachers of our day are taking many down these roads with them. Let's pray and admonish our beloved Church to stand true to God's glory.
Thanks for speaking up on this Blaine. Blessings.
Post a Comment