The Genesis Flood, Tidal Wave of Change
The Genesis Flood is 50 years old today! The following article is reprinted with permission from the Baptist Bulletin July, 2010.
Birth of the modern creationist movement
The book that powered the modern creation movement was skipped over by several Christian publishers. When Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb sent their manuscript to one prominent publisher, they were told it was much too long. Perhaps the authors would consider cutting it down by half?
Only then did the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. of Phillipsburg, N.J., take up the project, releasing the book on Feb. 11, 1961. Now nearly 50 years later, it continues to impact Bible students around the world and across the generations.
Against the backdrop of the mid-20th century infatuation with naturalism and scientific truth, the authors articulated a dissenting position. At the time, a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood was scarcely being taught, other than by a few conservative Lutherans and Seventh-day Adventist theologians. Even within fundamentalism the prevailing views were the gap theory (the view that there can be a gap containing millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) and the day-age theory (the view that each day of the creation week may represent vast ages of time).
“Sept. 3, 1953, was my first personal encounter with Henry Morris,” says John Whitcomb, who was in his third year teaching at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Ind., when he heard Morris present a paper on “The Deluge Theory of Geology” to the American Scientific Affiliation.
By that time, Morris was already a hero to Whitcomb, who had read Morris’s first book, That You Might Believe (Good News Publishing Co., 1946), after receiving a copy from Morris’s former pastor, Dick Seume. Though Whitcomb was raised an evolutionist and was teaching the standard gap theory, he was quite taken with Morris’s presentation on Flood geology.
“I feel that your conclusions are Scripturally valid, and therefore must be sustained by a fair examination of geologic evidence in time to come,” Whitcomb said in a letter to Morris, revealing a significant change of heart.
“I have adopted your views,” he told Morris, “and am presenting them to my class as preferable alternatives to the gap theory and the day-age theory.”
“He replied on Sept. 22,” Whitcomb says, looking back, “and that began a correspondence of over 200 letters as I prepared a doctoral dissertation on the Biblical doctrine of the Flood and we worked out the details of a coauthored volume.”
Indeed, a discussion of historic proportions was beginning to take shape when Morris wrote to Whitcomb on Dec. 5, 1953: “I am surely glad to learn you are planning to write your doctor’s dissertation on this subject. If I can be of any help in this, please let me know. I believe I mentioned to you that I am trying to write a book on the subject. Perhaps we can be of mutual help to each other from time to time.”
Whitcomb decided to survey professors in evangelical schools, asking them to describe their beliefs on Creation and the Flood. He reported the results in a letter to Morris, expressing disappointment in a lack of consensus from scholars who were “confused, very confused on these basic matters.”
Whitcomb also discovered some theologians had no time to waste on the issue. Bernard Ramm, whom conservatives respected for his Protestant Biblical Interpretation, had released The Christian View of Science and Scripture in 1954, in which he rejected a literal six-day interpretation of Genesis as being inconsistent with scientific evidence. In another letter to Morris, Whitcomb privately called it “a rallying point for the New Deism.” But there was no turning back for those who became known as the New Evangelicals. In 1956, Christian Life Magazine published “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” and called for a new movement with “a friendly attitude toward science.”
By 1957, Whitcomb had completed his doctoral thesis, and Morris agreed to make The Genesis Flood a joint project between them. Interestingly, the pair met personally on only two more occasions as they laboriously prepared their manuscripts and compared notes from a distance.
Whitcomb and Morris never expected their position to be warmly embraced by the uniformitarian geologists of the day. “We realize, of course, that modern scholarship will be impatient with [our] approach,” the authors said in their introduction. “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge.” And the presuppositions? “We accept as basic the doctrine of the verbal inerrancy of Scripture,” the authors said.
This starting point immediately alienated secular scientists who read the book—but it soon won over a generation of pastors and theologians who were tired of trying to accommodate their theology to the changing whims of science. This consistent implementation of Scripture was at the philosophical heart of the new book. As the authors put it, “We believe that a system founded squarely on full confidence in the Scriptures will be found ultimately to be much more satisfying than any other, in its power to correlate scientific data and to resolve problems and other apparent conflicts.”
Despite the initial warnings by publishers who refused the manuscript, the book was an immediate sales success. Since 1961, The Genesis Flood has gone through 48 printings and has been translated into German, Korean, Serbian, and Spanish. More than 300,000 copies are in print. (“For this, we offer profound praise to our God,” Whitcomb says.)
The book’s theological—and cultural—significance may even outweigh its status as a publishing success. Within two years after publication, like-minded scientists began meeting informally in a group that would become known as the Creation Research Society, organized around a doctrinal statement that embraced Morris and Whitcomb’s presuppositions about Scripture.
“The Lord used that book to start the modern creation movement; there is no doubt about it,” says Ken Ham, president and cofounder of Answers in Genesis, in AiG’s DVD The History and Impact of “The Genesis Flood.”
Since then, a vast array of creationist resources have been produced by publishers such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Just one example is the two-volume set by geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood (Institute for Creation Research, 2010), which is billed—with Dr. Whitcomb’s blessing—as an update to The Genesis Flood.
Whitcomb and Morris certainly built their thinking and ministries on the right foundation—that Christ is the creator of all things and His Word is the only text by which one can properly interpret His world, from history’s beginning to its end. Contemporary believers, with such a legacy behind them, have assurance that comes from building their lives on Scripture alone.
In this day of vast apostasy and turning from the Word of God, the message of The Genesis Flood is needed now more than ever. Christians have the opportunity to build higher upon this great foundation of understanding Biblical truth.
Looking to the future of the Creation movement, Whitcomb offers the following analysis: “Special revelation from God in the Bible is the solid foundation of the modern Creation movement. Christ, our Creator and Savior, emphasized the literal truth of Genesis concerning creation events (Matthew 19:4) and the worldwide flood in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39). Our God, of course, cannot lie or deceive us concerning the vital issue of ultimate origins. Creation took place in six days, not millions of years. Trillions of plants and animals were fossilized by the hydrodynamic forces of the Flood, not before human beings were created. This frame of reference is the dynamic of creation science, and the divinely provided key to unlock the marvels of Earth origins.”
Additional Resources
- Genesis Flood photo gallery
- “Can We Really Take God Seriously?” an interview with Dr. Whitcomb in the Baptist Bulletin, July 2010.
Paul J. Scharf (MDiv, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary) has served as a pastor, Bible teacher, and journalist. He became John C. Whitcomb’s ministry assistant in 2003. Scharf, a freelance writer for Regular Baptist Press, has previously written biographical articles about Dr. Whitcomb for the Gospel Herald and Sunday School Times and for an anthology written in Whitcomb’s honor, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Master Books, 2008).
- 43 views
[Chip Van Emmerik]How do you know what OT Jews believed about creation? Do we have extant commentaries on Genesis? http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H9] Philo’s doctrine of creation represents the six days more as cosmological order than as time. Many of the church Fathers also interpreted the six days as representing logical or ontological rather than chronological order - Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine. Others (Basil?, Ambrose, Bede) took a normal-day approach.
Besides, I would argue modern creation science might stem from this source, but the historic position of the church’s literal interpretation of creation predates these men - and frankly predates the church for that matter since it was accepted by the Jews in the OT.
So, there isn’t a united Christian testimony. There isn’t “the historic position.” On the other hand, I entirely agree that the literal position far predates modern creation science and ought to be taken seriously by evangelical theologians. After all, it was “scientifically unacceptable” in its own day as well. I’m not qualified to judge whether creation science is good or bad science, and I don’t put a lot of stock in its specific claims, but I’m glad it’s out there. It shows that we haven’t abdicated science, and we haven’t embraced “double truth,” the idea that some things are true according to faith but false according to other forms of knowledge.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I am a young earth guy. 6 Literal days.
However, I think Bob is right at least on one level. My view (6 literal days) is indeed the “new guy” on the block. I’m not worried at all that an adventist discovered the exegetical realities of a literal genesis in the creation account. Hey….Catholic scholars have also affirmed areas of Christological orthodoxy before Baptists roamed the earth! Also, in fairness to Bob - it’s his right to speculate on the relationship between “The Genesis Flood” and the Adventist guy (I think the guy’s name was Price). He did not accuse, he simply raised the question. Reality - I’m fairly confident the overwealming majority of fundamentalist leaders in the beginning of the movement did not hold the 6 literal days. If it wasn’t a fundamental and/or a universal of the faith then, how can it be now? (Fun question). Prior to that, other evangelical and protestant leaders (including Baptists) were clearly holding an old earth view. I continue to say….as much as I’d like to, in all honesty, I don’t think we can say “young earth” is a fundamental of the faith.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
To suggest that getting ideas from an SDA‘er for the Genesis Flood is like getting an SDA‘ers ideas about KJV only doctrine, is a little like saying that everyone who ever shook hands with Stalin became an accomplice to communism. Ben Carson, the greatest mind in Pediatric surgery today is an SDA‘er. Would you be ashamed to pick up in his ideas? In fact, Henry Morris was never shy about associations with SDA academic people (because they were historically 6-day creationists long before the Genesis Flood was written). To repeat, Morris and Whitcomb did not shy away from citing Price because he belonged to the SDA movement, but because they felt his scientific conclusions were lacking scientific knowledge. Please, let’s leave out the accusations about hiding association with SDA people. For Morris this was never true.
Jeff Brown
[Joel Tetreau] I think Bob is right at least on one level. My view (6 literal days) is indeed the “new guy” on the block…Reality - I’m fairly confident the overwealming majority of fundamentalist leaders in the beginning of the movement did not hold the 6 literal days. If it wasn’t a fundamental and/or a universal of the faith then, how can it be now? (Fun question). Prior to that, other evangelical and protestant leaders (including Baptists) were clearly holding an old earth view. I continue to say….as much as I’d like to, in all honesty, I don’t think we can say “young earth” is a fundamental of the faith.Joel,
While this may be an accurate summary of how FUNDAMENTALISTS have handled the subject of origins, it is simply inaccurate with regard to the broad sweep of historic, orthodox Christianity.
BTW, I thought that was the whole idea of why we had FUNDAMENTALISM to begin with — to re-capture the essence of historic Christianity! I didn’t know that the founding fathers of the movement got to re-start the clock and tell us what counted and what did not as far as the FUNDAMENTALS of the faith.
Truth be told and sad to say, the early fundamentalists were largely children of their times with regard to the question of Biblical origins — i.e., William Jennings Bryan’s missteps at the Scopes Trial, which plunged much of fundamentalism into decades of darkness with regard to origins questions. That is why we needed to have the modern creation movement!
As I stated earlier, a study of The Fundamentals reveals that these founding fathers held to profound errors on matters of origins. I would personally put very little weight on anything they said on the matter — especially now after five decades specifically of the modern creation movement and all of the Biblical and scientific research that has been accomplished!
Again, for a complete and scholarly treatment of this subject, see The Great Turning Point by Dr. Terry Mortenson. He gives the foundation for understanding all that was happening during the 18th and 19th centuries and how the church reacted to the developing old earth theories, which later greatly impacted fundamentalism.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Price was given a copy of the manuscript before it was published. He was not at all upset that though the Genesis Flood took up his concept that the geological strata represent the effects of the flood, he was rarely cited in the book. He praised the book highly. O.T. Allis, on the other hand, who was a fan of Price’s ideas, was infuriated that he got so little citation in Whitcomb and Morris’s book. In fact, the idea that geological strata represent the Genesis Flood’s destruction was argued by a number of geologists in the 19th century. So the it was not originally Price’s. Whitcomb and Morris had an idea that they believed in. They were smart enough to realize that if they cited one of its proponents heavily, it would kill their book. I would not look at that as disingenious.
The idea has stood on its own, since after its publication a number of men who hold to Flood Geology have gotten their Ph.D.s in Geology from very credible institutions, and have since done a lot of credible research. Now compare this to the KJV only movement. Could someone name us one scholar in NT Greek or NT Textual Criticism, trained at an instution other than KJV only, that is producing scholarly writings on the subject? The comparison is, indeed, superficial.
Jeff Brown
The idea that the earth was created in six literal days, is only several thousand years old, and was overwhelmed by a world wide flood in the days of Noah was held by Luther, Calvin, Franzios Turretin, John Wesley, and Keil and Delitzsch, just to name a few very influential theologians.
Whitcomb and Morris did not bring a new view of Creationism to the world. They simply revived an old one. Theirs was quite a feat, as 6-day Creationism had been given up by most scholars after the publication of Lyell’s Principles of Geology and Darwin’s Origin of the Species.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff Brown] Please excuse my somewhat knee-jerk response. In my post about how Whitcomb and Morris dealt with the ideas of George McCready Price (first correction: spelling), I relied on memory from over ten years ago. Going back and re-reading that portion of The Creationists, Henry Morris urged Whitcomb not to publish a book heavily citing Price, since other scientists regarded him as a “crackpot” (Morris’s term), and he had done himself a disservice by giving sarcastic answers to his opponents. Whitcomb was convinced by Price’s ideas, but did not want to note in his book that Price was a Seventh Day Adventist. In fact, theistic evolutionists had already used the guilt by association rhetoric against Price, insinuating that his ideas were twisted because he was a Seventh Day Adventist.Thanks Jeff. This does put the lie to the plagiarism bit. If Price was happy with the manuscript before it was published then it certainly wasn’t plagiarism. Do you happen to have the page number in that book which you cited? I’d actually like to send that info along to someone who has published the plagiarism lie.
Price was given a copy of the manuscript before it was published. He was not at all upset that though the Genesis Flood took up his concept that the geological strata represent the effects of the flood, he was rarely cited in the book. He praised the book highly. O.T. Allis, on the other hand, who was a fan of Price’s ideas, was infuriated that he got so little citation in Whitcomb and Morris’s book. In fact, the idea that geological strata represent the Genesis Flood’s destruction was argued by a number of geologists in the 19th century. So the it was not originally Price’s. Whitcomb and Morris had an idea that they believed in. They were smart enough to realize that if they cited one of its proponents heavily, it would kill their book. I would not look at that as disingenious.
The idea has stood on its own, since after its publication a number of men who hold to Flood Geology have gotten their Ph.D.s in Geology from very credible institutions, and have since done a lot of credible research. Now compare this to the KJV only movement. Could someone name us one scholar in NT Greek or NT Textual Criticism, trained at an instution other than KJV only, that is producing scholarly writings on the subject? The comparison is, indeed, superficial.
Thanks again, I had no means to know if there was truth to it or not.
Re: KJV Onlyism, all you have is E.F. Hills, trained in textual criticism at Princeton to compare. And he would have been more friendly to the Majority Text one would think, had it been available in his day (as he pointed out a few small errors in the TR and the KJV both).
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
You are right about Hillis, who was definitely an expert in the field of Textual Criticism. So my challenge has been answered rather quickly! (though Hills’ conclusions about the TR preceeded the KJV only movement set in motion by David Otis Fuller, who used Wilkinson).
Jeff Brown
Thanks for the page numbers too.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/14/how-did-the… How did the church interpret the days of creation before Darwin?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
That is, evolutionary science is relatively new and it was a good while after that before people started taking it seriously in the USA. Even longer before American theologians began to think about how the newer views of geological science fit with the Bible.
So my point is that young-earth creationism is only slightly newer than old-earth geology.
Letham’s book (as summarized in the post Greg linked to) looks biased and agenda-driven to me.
For example…
3) Until the mid-sixteenth century the interpreters we cited were all abreast of the philosophy and science of their day, and often made use of it in biblical interpretation. That we reject many of their scientific beliefs is because of our own scientific knowledge. That we place implicit faith in the laws of gravity is due to what we know scientifically, rather than from the Bible. So far I, for one, have found this reliable! …This is kind of silly. People believed in “gravity” long before there was a word for it or any science about it. Most people don’t believe in it “due to what we know scientifically” but because they don’t think about it at all. It just is.
If his observations here are any indication, it looks like Letham tends to draw inferences from modern ways of thinking and look at history in their light anachronistically. … but I say “if.” I haven’t read his book. Sounds like a worthwhile read.
He also doesn’t seem to take into account that science today isn’t what science was back then. That is, today, it tends to freighted with naturalistic convictions.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Greg Long] I thought today’s post by Justin Taylor is relevant to this discussion:Very interesting post and definitely relevant.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/14/how-did-the… How did the church interpret the days of creation before Darwin?
Aaron brings up a good point that evolutionary science is new so it makes sense that reactions and responses to it would be new as well. Good points to ponder all around.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
You know, it would be fascinating to see a thorough review of Lethem’s book from a thoughtful YEC guy. Even more fascinating: get a couple of guys together like Lethem and maybe Terry Mortenson (spelling?) and watch them go at it… with a skillful moderator.
Fantasizing a little.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Terry Mortenson has done lots of debates. Maybe SI could host it?!
(Make it part of Men For Christ or some event like that…….) :)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Featured Resource
Discussion