Studies in Genesis

In regard to previous articles I’ve written in defense of a young earth, with six corresponding 24-hour days of creation, as I stated in my first article, this is an issue which should not antagonize (or divide) those of us who are true believers in Jesus Christ. As such, the views to which I adhere on this subject (as well as others I may address) do not necessarily represent (nor misrepresent) the views of Cornerstone Church of Blaine. This is not because this view (or others) is/are incompatible with our church’s Statement of Faith (that of the Evangelical Free Church of America, to which I fully adhere), but rather due to the fact that our SOF does not reach that degree of specificity on certain subjects (e.g. the age of the earth). Lest I be misunderstood, I do agree fully (as does Pastor Ron) with the long-held motto of the EFCA, derived from the third-century church father John Chrysostom, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, Jesus Christ.” I also appreciate the fact that the EFCA recognizes major issues of doctrine which are non-negotiable, while allowing freedom for diversity and friendly dialogue on issues of lesser importance. In this regard, the fact that God created the universe is affirmed much more explicitly in Scripture than is the age of the earth. Nonetheless, it remains a somewhat significant issue, with belief in an old-earth having the potential to minimize scriptural authority, or to steer one toward the false notion of naturalistic evolution.

The primary crux on this whole subject is the issue of authority, namely that of scripture versus scientific opinion (as opposed to scientific fact). Granted, many credible, highly respected Christian scholars lie on both sides of this issue. And, to their credit, many of those with whom I disagree do in fact affirm the absolute authority and inerrancy of Scripture, while rejecting the views of evolution. So what’s the problem? Many have embraced selected theories of big bang cosmology, which are regarded as undisputed fact—including the notion that the universe and the earth are billions of years old—and they employ those theories as lenses through which to interpret Scripture. In effect, Scripture is made subservient to science, without carefully separating scientific fact from scientific theory. As such, modern scientific opinion about the age and origin of the universe is regarded as essential to explain what Scripture really meant all along. According to this view, general revelation (the display of divine glory that is evident in creation) is every bit as essential and authoritative as special revelation (the truth God has revealed in Scripture).

Some old-earth creationist advocates, such as former astrophysicist Hugh Ross, seem to believe that general revelation alone is sufficient to tell us all we need to know about God and creation. But Jesus Himself expressly debunked the notion that nature and Scripture are equivalent forms of revelation when He said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

Furthermore, nothing in scripture suggests that everything we need to know about God is revealed to us in nature. On the contrary, the whole point of Psalm 19 is to underscore the necessity, the absolute sufficiency, and the preeminence of special revelation—Scripture. Nature simply puts God’s glory on display in a mute testimony that declares His majesty, power, and existence to all—and leaves them without excuse if they ignore or reject the God of the Bible. In other words, natural revelation is sufficient to condemn sinners, but not to save them. Scripture, on the other hand, is perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure, sure, and altogether righteous (vv. 7-9). So the psalm plainly underscores the superiority of Scripture. Its whole point is that God’s revelation in nature is not as powerful, as enduring, as reliable, as clear, or as authoritative as Scripture. Scripture is a sufficient revelation; nature is not. Scripture therefore speaks with more authority than nature and should be used to assess scientific opinion, not vice versa.

Christians who impose old-earth theories on the biblical creation account truly face a difficult task. They must begin by obscuring the obvious historical sense of the passage, and turning instead to literary devices such as allegory, myth, or poetic expressions. And in so doing, they are attempting to make the Word of God bow the knee to godless naturalism and its ever-changing theories. We ought rather to allow the unchanging, authoritative Word of God to inform our understanding, and let science bow the knee to Scripture.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Dan Henderson, January 26, 2009

Steve wrote, "Some old-earth creationist advocates, such as former astrophysicist Hugh Ross, seem to believe that general revelation alone is sufficient to tell us all we need to know about God and creation."

I am familiar with Dr. Ross' work, and I would like to make a comment here. Dr. Ross, who is not a "former" astrophysicist, but a current astrophysicist, believes in two types of revelation: general revelation, in which we may learn about God from creation, and special revelation, in which we learn about God from Scripture, Jesus, and the Spirit. Dr. Ross, however, does tend to put both types of revelation on the same level, which is what draws fire from many Christians. Dr. Ross wants Christians to be open to science informing them in regards to Scripture. One can look at many moments in Christian history where we have fought science only to be proven wrong. Yet, in the end, we have reached a greater understanding of Scripture. For instance, the former belief that the world was flat because Scripture stated that the earth had four corners. Now, we understand that that statement is metaphoric, representing "the whole earth."

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment