Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology (Part 8)
Image
From DBSJ. Read the series.
Are the Essentials Really Essential?
Up to this point in this essay, I have argued for the importance of each of the nine elements to young earth theology. The collection of these elements and their cohesion together define young earth theology. If any of these are taken away, the view ceases to be a young-earth view.
From this young earther’s perspective, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of leeway in the matter. I cannot imagine a young earth creationist view that doesn’t rest on literal hermeneutics, that doesn’t include supernaturalism, that leaves God out of the creation of some parts of the universe, that takes longer than six days, that dates creation to billions of years ago, that doesn’t posit a literal Adam, that chalks up death to something other than sin, that doesn’t have a global deluge, or even worse that suggests Scripture is insufficient as our rule of faith and practice.
Some of these characteristics can be affirmed by non-YET views of creation. The fact that they are not then “distinguishing characteristics” does not mean that they cannot be “essential characteristics” for the YET view. For instance, someone could affirm belief in comprehensive creation, or in the method of supernatural direct acts of God without affirming belief in full-orbed young earth creationism.
Young Earth Theology Essential to Christian Doctrine
I have examined essential elements of young earth theology. But is young earth theology itself essential to Christian theology as a whole? The essay thus far as given away my view on that question, but I would like to look at the question more specifically, and then critique an approach to theological study that can diminish the importance of whole portions of Christian theology, including YET.
Is Young Earth Theology Really Essential to Christian Theology?
I have called the subject under discussion young earth theology because it interconnects with the full body of Christian doctrine in a way that touches on far more than just creation in the opening days or even years of the universe. It affects many other crucial areas including the gospel proper, hermeneutical method, the trustworthiness of God, and one’s theology of God relative to the creation. If we were to fully develop this “essentiality” it would be necessary to consider all the references and allusions to creation in the New Testament. A full treatment is beyond the scope of this article, but a few thoughts are in order.29
The many Isaiah texts affirm God’s creatorship as an explanation of his lordship. Romans 5:12–21 relies upon the literal Adam and the sin described in the creation account to explain the marvel of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The apostle Paul began his gospel message in Athens with a reference to the comprehensive creation (Acts 17:24) in which God made “from one man” all mankind (17:26). Jesus referred to the first man and woman in his proclamation of the sanctity of marriage. The great time of tribulation that will come upon the world will be unparalleled from the time God created (Mark 13:19). Creation texts like John 1:1–3 and Colossians 1:16 proclaim the deity of Christ, in part based on his role in the creation. The Colossians text serves another purpose, namely, to highlight the headship and preeminence of Christ over everything in his creation. According to Romans 1:20, the visible creation declares two key invisible attributes of God: his eternal power and deity. This could not be true if the creation sprang into existence by itself or through mostly natural means. Furthermore, Romans 1:20 declares that the unbeliever is without excuse and therefore under the wrath of God revealed in the creation (1:18–20). Ephesians 3:9 indicates that the overarching plan of God for the ages includes his creative work as part of a coherent package from beginning to end. The miracle nature of regeneration is likened to God’s creation of light on the first day of the creation week (2 Cor 4:6). Timothy is told that false teachers would forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created as good things to be received with thanks (1 Tim 4:3–4). Peter emphasizes the truth that God’s supernatural activity in creation makes it certain that he can and will intervene again in a supernatural way at the final judgment. The doxological focus of the Christian message is highlighted in Revelation 4:11 when the heavenly worshipers announce God’s worthiness of worship because he created everything.
I hope that these few references to the New Testament persuade the reader that there are at least substantial connections between creation and what any conservative Christian would agree are absolutely essential doctrines. More than that, I hope the texts remind the reader that if creation did not happen as we have described in this essay, the meaning of the key texts above is eviscerated. If a view of creation eliminates one or more of the essentials we have described in the previous section, they do serious damage to the New Testament texts that rest upon those essentials. Creation is not ancillary; it is foundational to the gospel, to all other Christian doctrines, and to the right functioning of society. This is not a conclusion that rests on tenuous evidence. It is solidly founded in the Bible.
This is not to say that a conscious or fully-formed belief in young earth theology is required in order to be saved. To say so would be to add a condition to salvation, other than repentant faith, and that is not permitted by Scripture. But it is to say that the believer today who would be fully faithful to God and his revelation will acknowledge that God is the literal, miraculous creator, and that his word is the sole authority in faith and practice, including in the area of creation.
Young earth theology is part of a conservative biblical systematic theology. A theology may be otherwise conservative, but to the extent that it embraces cosmologies other than young earth creation, it is to that extent liberal in its stance.
Notes
29 For a helpful discussion of the theological ramifications of creation, see the chapter by Morton H. Smith, “The Theological Significance of the Doctrine of Creation,” in Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999): 243–65. Smith writes about creation’s impact on epistemology, revelation, theology proper, anthropology, hamartiology, redemption, and eschatology.
Matthew Postiff Bio
Dr. Postiff has served as Pastor of Fellowship Bible Church since 2006. He holds a PhD in computer engineering from University of Michigan and ran an engineering consulting firm specializing in design and simulation of computer microprocessors. He earned his ThM from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in 2010.
- 47 views
Good one thanks.
I would argue that while it is not essential to salvation, someone who is saved and does not hold to a YEC, has a serious challenge with key doctrines around salvation. The ability of God to resurrect his son, is tied into his direct ability to create. Creation was the initial hope and the proof that God could resurrect. To diminish His ability to create, touches on his very ability to resurrect, and it points to the very challenge of whether God can make all things new.
Excerpt from the OP article: “Young earth theology is part of a conservative biblical systematic theology. A theology may be otherwise conservative, but to the extent that it embraces cosmologies other than young earth creation, it is to that extent liberal in its stance.”
–––––––––––-
Charles Spurgeon, on the age of the Earth: “In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.” - https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-power-of-the-holy-ghost#flipbook/
Interestingly, Answers in Genesis has this complete sermon on their website, but Spurgeon’s statement above (and a bit more) is placed in brackets: https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/30-the-power-of-the-holy-ghost/ . In a footnote, AiG explains: “Bracketed text indicates that as brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age of the earth issue.” (Is that an example of a back-handed compliment??)
So per the OP article, I gather that Spurgeon was a liberal in his theology, as far as his view of the age of the Earth was concerned.
But then so were these individuals or institutions:
Bob Jones, Sr. (Gap Theory)
Bob Jones College/University (espoused & taught the Gap Theory from its founding in 1927 to at least sometime in the 1960’s)
W.B. Riley (Day/Age proponent)
Plus countless others.
The Gap Theory was once so prominent within fundamentalism that, even as late as 1954, Bernard Ramm (in his inflammatory book The Christian View of Science and Scripture) wrote this: “The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy [Ed: Ramm’s go-to term for Fundamentalism] , appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings”.
–––––––––––-
It just seems to me that if we accept at complete face value the final assertion of the OP article, then we must concede that virtually all of fundamentalism/orthodox Christianity prior to the publication of The Genesis Flood (1961) held a theologically liberal view of the age of the Earth.
I’m just sayin…………
… because that is what they were taught. I just spoke with my mother (who celebrated her 96th on Feb 7), and she said that she recalled it from the Scofield Bible. She understood it to explain the earth being “without form and void.”
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[dgszweda]I would argue that while it is not essential to salvation, someone who is saved and does not hold to a YEC, has a serious challenge with key doctrines around salvation. The ability of God to resurrect his son, is tied into his direct ability to create. Creation was the initial hope and the proof that God could resurrect. To diminish His ability to create, touches on his very ability to resurrect, and it points to the very challenge of whether God can make all things new.
You might argue that but it is not true. Non YEC believe in God’s power both at creation and in the resurrection. But as comments below show, not necessarily according to YEC theory.
Larry wrote, “It just seems to me that if we accept at complete face value the final assertion of the OP article, then we must concede that virtually all of fundamentalism/orthodox Christianity prior to the publication of The Genesis Flood (1961) held a theologically liberal view of the age of the Earth.
I’m just sayin…………”
My response is - Yup, that’s right. I fully agree with Postiff’s last paragraph.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Steve Davis]dgszweda wrote:
I would argue that while it is not essential to salvation, someone who is saved and does not hold to a YEC, has a serious challenge with key doctrines around salvation. The ability of God to resurrect his son, is tied into his direct ability to create. Creation was the initial hope and the proof that God could resurrect. To diminish His ability to create, touches on his very ability to resurrect, and it points to the very challenge of whether God can make all things new.
You might argue that but it is not true. Non YEC believe in God’s power both at creation and in the resurrection. But as comments below show, not necessarily according to YEC theory.
Never said they didn’t believe, just that it is a challenge. You may not think it is a challenge, but the fact that non-YEC point to texts outside of Scripture to challenge the clear reading of Scripture points to the challenge. Creation is not something science can prove, and God has specifically created it in that way, thus why Scripture says in Hebrews 11:3 that it is not by General Revelation or science that we understand these, but through faith in Special Revelation. Creation can not be understood through the light of science, yet non-YEC use that as the primary basis to view and interpret the account in Genesis 1, thus inserting things into the account that are not clearly read in the account or that the authors in both the OT and NT as well as Christ understood it to be.
……when BJU made the transition from teaching the Gap Theory to teaching YEC?
- Did the transition occur as rapidly as from one school year to the next?
- Did the same instructors go from teaching one to the other? If so, did any have any theological qualms about it?
- Did already-enrolled students and/or their parents who believed the Gap Theory accept the change? Was there any controversy?
It just makes me wonder…..
[dgszweda]Steve Davis wrote:
dgszweda wrote:
I would argue that while it is not essential to salvation, someone who is saved and does not hold to a YEC, has a serious challenge with key doctrines around salvation. The ability of God to resurrect his son, is tied into his direct ability to create. Creation was the initial hope and the proof that God could resurrect. To diminish His ability to create, touches on his very ability to resurrect, and it points to the very challenge of whether God can make all things new.
You might argue that but it is not true. Non YEC believe in God’s power both at creation and in the resurrection. But as comments below show, not necessarily according to YEC theory.
Never said they didn’t believe, just that it is a challenge. You may not think it is a challenge, but the fact that non-YEC point to texts outside of Scripture to challenge the clear reading of Scripture points to the challenge. Creation is not something science can prove, and God has specifically created it in that way, thus why Scripture says in Hebrews 11:3 that it is not by General Revelation or science that we understand these, but through faith in Special Revelation. Creation can not be understood through the light of science, yet non-YEC use that as the primary basis to view and interpret the account in Genesis 1, thus inserting things into the account that are not clearly read in the account or that the authors in both the OT and NT as well as Christ understood it to be.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I am not committed to YEC. It doesn’t present any challenges for me, serious or otherwise, with key doctrines around salvation. I suspect that’s true for many others as well.
[Larry Nelson]……when BJU made the transition from teaching the Gap Theory to teaching YEC?
- Did the transition occur as rapidly as from one school year to the next?
- Did the same instructors go from teaching one to the other? If so, did any have any theological qualms about it?
- Did already-enrolled students and/or their parents who believed the Gap Theory accept the change? Was there any controversy?
It just makes me wonder…..
I don’t know when/if the transition was made. I had a Bible professor in the late 70s who taught the Gap theory. I don’t know if the school had an official position then. I don’t remember any controversy. According to some who know better, he must’ve have held a theologically liberal view of the earth. Which is nonsense and these kind of assertions do nothing to strengthen the YEC position.
[Steve Davis]I don’t know when/if the transition was made. I had a Bible professor in the late 70s who taught the Gap theory. I don’t know if the school had an official position then. I don’t remember any controversy. According to some who know better, he must’ve have held a theologically liberal view of the earth. Which is nonsense and these kind of assertions do nothing to strengthen the YEC position.
BJU used to have a statement on the website (up until just a couple of years ago) that denounced the Gap Theory and yet acknowledged they had formerly taught it. Here’s the (now nonfunctional) link:
https://www.bju.edu/academics/college-and-schools/arts-and-science/natural-science/creation/gap.php
–––––––––––––––––—
Today, per their “Position Statements”, they are (at least officially) YEC only:
https://www.bju.edu/about/positions.php
ADDENDUM: In regards to the Biology faculty: “The BJU biology faculty is truly unique. Each holds a PhD in a specialized area of biology, brings a unique set of research experiences to the classroom, and is committed to a biblical philosophy of science, including a firm belief in a recent six-day creation.” - https://www.bju.edu/academics/programs/biology/
So I take it no Gap theorists are currently on the payroll.
[Larry Nelson]Steve Davis wrote:
I don’t know when/if the transition was made. I had a Bible professor in the late 70s who taught the Gap theory. I don’t know if the school had an official position then. I don’t remember any controversy. According to some who know better, he must’ve have held a theologically liberal view of the earth. Which is nonsense and these kind of assertions do nothing to strengthen the YEC position.
BJU used to have a statement on the website (up until just a couple of years ago) that denounced the Gap Theory and yet acknowledged they had formerly taught it. Here’s the (now nonfunctional) link:
https://www.bju.edu/academics/college-and-schools/arts-and-science/natural-science/creation/gap.php
–––––––––––––––––—
Today, per their “Position Statements”, they are (at least officially) YEC only:
I graduated 1978 so it may’ve been more mid-70s. Either way, it wasn’t an issue or barrier to Christian fellowship. Christians could disagree without being taxed as holding theoligically liberal position. That was then. This is now.
“A theology may be otherwise conservative, but to the extent that it embraces cosmologies other than young earth creation, it is to that extent liberal in its stance.”
Liberal theology is grounded in a rejection of plain revelation in favor of autonomous reason. It creeps in to conservative thinking whenever the text is channeled through another filter, in this case the demands of old-earth geology. Other examples include parallelisms with ANE beliefs or assumptions of socio-cultural pressures in the formulation of a genre (like apocalyptic).
Saying this does not mean that a person is liberal in their theology. It only says that autonomous liberal thinking has been given the upper hand in a certain case.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]“A theology may be otherwise conservative, but to the extent that it embraces cosmologies other than young earth creation, it is to that extent liberal in its stance.”
Liberal theology is grounded in a rejection of plain revelation in favor of autonomous reason. It creeps in to conservative thinking whenever the text is channeled through another filter, in this case the demands of old-earth geology. Other examples include parallelisms with ANE beliefs or assumptions of socio-cultural pressures in the formulation of a genre (like apocalyptic).
Saying this does not mean that a person is liberal in their theology. It only says that autonomous liberal thinking has been given the upper hand in a certain case.
If I accept your line of reasoning above, perhaps my opinion of, say, John Shelby Spong is in error. Perhaps he is essentially a theological conservative, basically orthodox in his beliefs, who simply has allowed “autonomous liberal thinking” to have “the upper hand” in multiple cases.
On second thought, I think I’ll stick with simply deeming him a rank theological liberal.
–––––––––––––—
BTW, I understand that this series of articles has old-Earthers such as Tim Keller in its crosshairs. I just found it pertinent to point out that fundamentalism has its own history of old-Earth beliefs & proponents within itself.
It’s interesting to remind ourselves that the fundamentalist movement has a history of tolerating creation views other than YEC. However, I really don’t care what fundamentalism has historically believed. “Fundamentalism” isn’t a confessional denomination, nor should it be. This is why it is best defined as a philosophy of ministry. Any appeals to “movement consensus,” unless the “movement” has historically existed in an explicitly confessional framework, are meaningless.
If you interpret Genesis 1-3 in such a way as to see an Old Earth, complete with all the problems it entails, then you’re deliberately not reading the text in the way it was intended to be understood. You can see a marvelous example of this in the four-hour discussion on the John Ankerberg Show between Ken Ham and Jason Lisle, with Hugh Ross and Walt Kaiser. It’s about 10 years old now, but it encapsulates the interpretive divide pretty well. I’d encourage any interested Christians to search for it on YouTube, or buy the video from Ankerberg’s website - it’s worth it.
Intriguingly, the Jewish author of 2 Esdras (ca. 70 - 100 A.D.; I used an excerpt from this piece as the Theology Thursday bit this week) interpreted the Genesis account literally.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion