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
[Greg Long] I thought today’s post by Justin Taylor is relevant to this discussion:I read through Lethem’s article rather quickly shortly after it was published. I think that Bob McCabe answered him partially on the pages of SI a few years back. [Edit: http://sharperiron.org/2009/04/15/an-apologia-for-the-24-hour-day-creat…] link ] McCabe’s articles had few readers. Reading the summary of Justin Taylor, I would have to say this, if he is accurately presenting Lethem, than Lethem’s presentation is a typical case of selective use of history.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/14/how-did-the… How did the church interpret the days of creation before Darwin?
1) You can view what the church father’s said about the days of Genesis 1 for yourself on ccel. Only three church fathers can with certainty be cited to have viewed the days as anything other than 24 hours (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine). About half of those in English translation say specifically that the days of Genesis a were normal days (so much for Lehtem’s claim of great varieties of interpretation for that time)
2) Augustine is definitely the wrong Church father to use for criticizing YEC interpretation. Augustine interpreted the first 6 days of creation as a MOMENT OF TIME (i.e. less than 24 hours). Augustine strongly asserts that the earth is less than 6000 years old (The City of God, 12.10; 12.12.
3) If Calvin and Augustine warned against a literal interpretation (24 hours) of the days of Genesis 1 (I don’t have time to re-read Calvin right now), Martin Luther certainly did not take heart. In his Lectures on Genesis he argues affirmatively for days as we normally (not figuratively) understand them. My guess is that Calvin was warning about speculative interpretation, namely against Augustine’s interpretation or allegorical interpretations. Augustine indeed struggles with the concept of six literal, 24 hour days, essentially because it is limiting God to too long a time to create everything.
4) Calvin was a firm believer in YEC. Note, “And they will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years havepassed since the creation of the universe, for they ask why God’sw power was idle and asleep for so long.” (Institutes 3.21.4)
5) The Westminster Annotations, written 14 years after the Confession, states very plainly that the days of Genesis 1 are supposed to be interpreted as “24 hour” days.
6) Exegetical writers since the Westminster Confession have developed at least 30 different ways of interpreting yom in Genesis 1, most of which are used to support the idea that the universe is very old. I dare say that if Calvin and Augustine had a look at them today, they would definitely shake their heads.
In short, one can only maintain the view that the earth is young (as opposed to billions of years old), is new by a selective use of history.
Jeff Brown
[Paul J. Scharf] Aaron,Like the idea. I have no idea how to do something like that though. Alas, there are some huge holes in my skillset. Have you ever organized a debate?
Terry Mortenson has done lots of debates. Maybe SI could host it?!
(Make it part of Men For Christ or some event like that…….) :)
Jeff, thanks for that post. Very interesting. I edited to add a link to McCabe’s series where you mentioned it. Linked to part 3 which includes links to parts 1 and 2.
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.
[jhowell] This is my first venture into the public forum of commenting, stepping into the arena from the stands, as it were. I am always interested in the give and take when it comes to this area of science and Scripture, creationism vs. anything else.Wow. What a powerful comment all the way through. A real joy to read. So edifying, so “unspeculative.” Thanks.
==slightly off topic but maybe helpful==
Tip on using the quote tool… you can do it two ways:
- highlight the text you want to but in the quote box and hit the |” “| button, or
- hit the |” “| button, then write your text between the two tags that appear.
You can also key the tags in manually like this [ quote ] some stuff you want to quote [ /quote ] (I’ve added spaces here within the square brackets because they won’t display otherwise. You want to leave that out.
If you want someone’s name attached to the quote just tweak the first tag like this: [ quote=someone’s name ]
(Just so you know, lots of folks find the tagging confusing. Just haven’t written up an official tip on it yet.)
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.
Discussion