Why Christians should not divide over the age of the earth

I think Christians shouldn’t pretend that this is a secondary issue. It isn’t. It goes to the issue of hermeneutics and the entire early Genesis chronology. There is a pervasive drive to minimize everything in favor of a Gospel center. There are Christians who actually believe these issues are important enough to care about …

Tyler, would you say that someone who believes in an old earth is not saved?

To me, that is what defines a primary issue. And if the answer is yes, then it is a primary issue.

If the answer is no, then it isn’t primary which would make it what? The next two choices are secondary and tertiary. So…

But don’t get me wrong, I think it is a very important issue. Its just that sometimes you might have people come into your local church fellowship who are real believers in the Lord but have not gotten this point yet. Are we prepared to simply brush them off or insist they change? One of the problems with matters like this is that people can become emotionally attached to the ideas they hold and persist in a wrong position for some time. As long as they are not divisive about it in the local church, I am willing to try to help them along, though I wouldn’t put them into leadership.

There are issues Christians disagree over. What I think we should avoid is a deliberate minimization of those issues as if they’re secondary. This doesn’t mean we should hurl accusations of apostasy around or fashion voodoo dolls and begin sticking them with pins. But, it does mean we should actually explain what we think is important and why, instead of a deliberate minimization.

This kind of material is being funded through Biologos, with monies from the Templeton Foundation. http://biologos.org/what-we-do/grant-program/

This is a program to promote the accepting of evolution by Christians. The $$ will be too much for many to pass up.

[Steve Newman]

This is a program to promote the accepting of evolution by Christians. The $$ will be too much for many to pass up.

Do we know who the grantees will be who are doing being funded for these various projects (which are mentioned in the info-graphic at the link you provided)?

[TylerR]

There are issues Christians disagree over. What I think we should avoid is a deliberate minimization of those issues as if they’re secondary. This doesn’t mean we should hurl accusations of apostasy around or fashion voodoo dolls and begin sticking them with pins. But, it does mean we should actually explain what we think is important and why, instead of a deliberate minimization.

I don’t disagree with what you say. I’m just quibbling with terminology.

To me, if someone won’t accept the deity of Christ (for instance), he/she is not a Christian. That would seem to be primary. But old earth/young earth? I don’t think its the same.

I agree that it is important and we should not minimize it.

[Don Johnson]

But don’t get me wrong, I think it is a very important issue. Its just that sometimes you might have people come into your local church fellowship who are real believers in the Lord but have not gotten this point yet. Are we prepared to simply brush them off or insist they change? One of the problems with matters like this is that people can become emotionally attached to the ideas they hold and persist in a wrong position for some time. As long as they are not divisive about it in the local church, I am willing to try to help them along, though I wouldn’t put them into leadership.

I would agree. But in many cases (maybe most), of my interaction with current old-earth believers, is that there is a whole host of other problematic theological leanings of this individual. While it may or may not affect their salvation, a correct view of sin and Christ is critical to both salvation and growth. We continue to have articles that are increasingly popping up encouraging us to diminish the belief in a literal creation. And I see this as a continuing attack by Satan to slowly minimize Scripture. To me that is the more critical issue. The slow deterioration of the institutes of Scripture (marriage, womanhood/manhood, the Church….) and the slow deterioration of Scripture by science is problematic. We have entered an age where man’s Science and Knowledge reign supreme. And it eats at the very heart of the Gospel. While it may not be a primary issue in and of itself, it is definitely an approach to slowly knock away at primary issues.

We continue to have articles that are increasingly popping up encouraging us to diminish the belief in a literal creation. And I see this as a continuing attack by Satan to slowly minimize Scripture. To me that is the more critical issue. The slow deterioration of the institutes of Scripture (marriage, womanhood/manhood, the Church….) and the slow deterioration of Scripture by science is problematic.

I wouldn’t separate from someone who insisted that the Earth is millions of years old, but it’s always the accompanying ideas and principles that come along with it - especially the adoption of evolution in some form - that I absolutely would separate over. We’ve had this discussion on SI before, although it’s been a long time.

This position may be similar to a theological AIDS - it won’t kill you itself, but all the other baggage that comes along with that certainly will destroy your faith and you.

[Don Johnson]

TylerR wrote:

There are issues Christians disagree over. What I think we should avoid is a deliberate minimization of those issues as if they’re secondary. This doesn’t mean we should hurl accusations of apostasy around or fashion voodoo dolls and begin sticking them with pins. But, it does mean we should actually explain what we think is important and why, instead of a deliberate minimization.

I don’t disagree with what you say. I’m just quibbling with terminology.

To me, if someone won’t accept the deity of Christ (for instance), he/she is not a Christian. That would seem to be primary. But old earth/young earth? I don’t think its the same.

I agree that it is important and we should not minimize it.

Don,

I appreciate your reasonable response. Old earth/young earth debates are important but do not seem to be as important in church history or even early fundamentalism.

I’m not sure when old earth/young earth became a separation issue for some. I suspect it might have begun around the time of Morris and Whitcomb and “The Genesis Flood” in the early 1960s but I stand to be corrected. I share the concerns over Biologos and would separate over the denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve and divine creation. I would not separate over the age of the earth or make it a test for leadership. I don’t recall the question ever coming up in any churches I’ve been part of.

The earth certainly “appears” to be old. Of course, as some advocate, God could’ve created the earth with the appearance of age. That’s a subject of debate but not taught in Scripture. Old earth position has not in itself entailed denial of creation or of Adam and Eve.

Steve

Answers in Genesis has some good breakdowns of where the money is going in their magazine. You can google some of the info.

The Gap Theory (a variant of Old Earth Creationism) was what was taught at BJU (founded 1927) for the first few decades of its existence.

It wasn’t until sometime after Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood (1961) that the school began to teach Young Earth Creationism

[Steve Newman]

Answers in Genesis has some good breakdowns of where the money is going in their magazine. You can google some of the info.

Thank you Steve.

[Steve Davis]

The earth certainly “appears” to be old. Of course, as some advocate, God could’ve created the earth with the appearance of age. That’s a subject of debate but not taught in Scripture. Old earth position has not in itself entailed denial of creation or of Adam and Eve.

Steve

The problem you have, and you clearly see it where Biologos has gone, is that the natural inclination is to question a historical Adam and Eve. Sure the earth looks old, so the old earth hypothesis is examined, but you have the same issue with skeletons. There are clearly skeletons (if you use the same aging mechanism as the earth) that are very old and non-human. So how do you explain that. And what you end up doing is going down a vicious cycle, and you begin to embrace hominids and other elements before an Adam and Adam was really the first chosen evolutionary character that God chose. Every friend that I have that believes in old-earth has eventually embraced a non-historical or a death before Adam approach.

I submit for your perusal: http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/2013/Snoeberger.pdf

While I don’t hold to billions of years, I certainly don’t hold to 6,000 years either.