I believe in a young earth. Such people are called Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s). I believe that the Earth and Adam and Eve were created just as Genesis 1-2 tells us, in six literal 24-hour days, about 6,200 years ago (around 4,200 BC).
See Paul Tanner’s article, available on our website, defending YEC, here.
I think I am in the minority among Free Grace people on YEC. Many pastors I meet believe in an old, or older, earth.
We get the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) magazine, Acts & Facts, at the office. The lead article for the December 2017 issue is entitled, “The Gospel and ICR.” It is by Brian Thomas.
The article is, IMO, both good and bad.
On the good side, I agree that believing the promise of life as found in John 3:16 and many other texts is related to believing in the truthfulness of the creation account. Thomas says, “Once Christians begin to deny the timing of creation in Genesis, they start to deny other Genesis events that fortify our understanding of the gospel. They start asserting that death was around before Adam’s sin and that the Flood covered mere regions rather than the whole globe. Why trust what Scripture says about the Lord Jesus saving us from our sins through His historical death and resurrection if science says we cannot trust what Scripture says about the historical death of Adam or the historical deaths of those who refused to repent and be saved aboard the Ark?” (p. 6).
Of course, there are many old earth creationists (OEC’s) who do believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose bodily from the dead and who believe in the promise of everlasting life. But Thomas is correct that when one buys into a Darwinian view of origins, even a Christianized Darwinian view, he is less likely to believe the gospel and the promise of everlasting life.
I remember visiting with a Free Grace pastor and his elders over dinner a few years ago. They were arguing for OEC and for a local flood in Noah’s day. I said then that if one rejects the historicity of Genesis, he must be logically inconsistent in order to believe the promise of John 3:16. While many are logically inconsistent, the more Evangelicals see Genesis 1-3 or Genesis 1-11 as containing many elements that are not historically true but are simply poetic elements with no basis in fact, the more future generations will struggle with believing that the words of Jesus as reported in the Gospels are really the words of Jesus. (Of course, that is already happening today in many leading Evangelical schools.)
My pastor friend and his elders were not convinced by my arguments. They believe the gospel and they know they have everlasting life by faith in Christ. They are comfortable with OEC and with taking much of Genesis 1-11 as non-historical and yet seeing the rest of Scripture as historical and without error. I fear not that they will lose their faith in Christ, but that one or two generations from now their followers will no longer believe the promise of everlasting life. Drift can happen. Rejecting the historicity of Genesis 1-11 opens a dangerous door IMO.
On the bad side, Thomas never quite says what one must believe in order to be born again. He uses trust, not belief, in the quote given above. He also refers to the need for repentance to be saved from the flood (which I agree with since the issue was not eternal destiny, but physical survival) and that may imply he thinks that people must repent to be saved from eternal condemnation.
I wish Thomas had come out and quoted John 3:16 or Acts 16:31 or Eph 2:8-9 or whatever passage he thinks indicates what one must believe to be born again. Yet he did not cite a single verse on the gospel or the promise of life. That is a major oversight in an article entitled, “The Gospel and ICR.”
I’ve noticed that ICR tends to hold to a Lordship Salvation perspective. Fortunately, that is not clear in this article. However, while it might be odd for me to find an ally in Lordship Salvation folks, I do agree with ICR that our view of the historicity of Genesis has important implications for our belief in the teachings and promises of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Leon adkins
Amen and amen!
Roger Fankhauser
Interesting blog. Thanks.
As for me, I’m “age agnostic.” I don’t get excited about the age issue. Here’s why: If God is the creator (and He is) and if God inspired (“God-breathed”) all Scripture (and He did), then the FACTS of science and the facts of the Bible MUST agree. The discrepancy between the two is how we interpret those facts. So far, I’m unconvinced by the OEC about their approach to interpreting the Scripture but I’m equally unconvinced by the YEC about their answers to indicators of old age (I have enough science [physics, chemistry, biology, nuclear chemistry] in my background with my degree in chemical engineering to understanding the arguments for and against an old universe at least at a basic principle level. So, I land on “not sure about the age – I’m missing something, somewhere, on the interpretation of one, the other, or both. For example, why does Moses (whom take as the author of Genesis) not include any definite article before “one day, second day, etc.” until day six, when he does almost 100% of the time when he uses similar structures in the rest of the Pentateuch (the exceptions are easily explained, but I won’t go into those here). Things that make me go, hmm.
So, by “age agnostic” I simply mean I can’t harmonize the two. Saying that, however, I’m not questioning the inerrancy of Scripture! Just saying “it appears to be a young earth, but maybe I’m missing something.” And I emphatically deny “theistic evolution.” The idea that God started it and evolution somehow moved us to where we are now fits neither Scripture nor the facts of science!
I will stand firm on (1) God is the creator, (2) He used multiple acts of creation, (3) the things specified as “created” in Genesis 1 clearly say the things worshipped in the pagan world around Israel are, in fact, created by God, not things to worhip (thus, a theological message), (4) Adam and Eve are specially created in the image of God as two unique, historical beings, and (5) sin entered into the world through their sin.
Anyway, thanks for the blog. Quite interesting!
Phil
Wonderful comment, Roger. I too am perplexed by the apparent inconsistencies between the Genesis account and what we see happening in our physical world. I await further illumination!
Andrew
Agree 100%. It seems unusual that this would be the minority view among Free Grace people. In my estimation, YEC would be the vast majority view among the Plymouth Brethren circles in my corner of North America.
Florin Hiltz
Well said, Bob.
Lonnie Mauck
I too noticed ICRs Lordship gospel in last month’s issue. One question though– How do you define repentance? Turning from sin or changing your mind about sin and Christ? If the latter definition is right, would that not be required for salvation?
George Castillo
I agree it is best to take Genesis 1 in a straightforward way. But there is no reason one cannot hold to an old universe. The “creation” description is not that of the universe (and angelic beings which are not mentioned) but of how God in six days fashioned the earth for human life. The “gap” theories are not necessarily supported by this, since the text does not tell the reader how or when the earth became “uninhabitable and uninhabited” in 1:2. Your article seems to suggest one must either hold to a young or old earth based on taking Genesis 1 as the author intended (i.e., “literally”). The universe could be billions of years old. The text does not reveal the creation of angelic beings and the fall of the Evil One (who appears later without explanation). Why was the earth in the condition 1:2? The text does not say. Nor when. But the text does clearly explain how it was in six days transformed (“created”) in its present state.
Jim Poulos
Focusing Genesis on ‘age of creation’ may miss the focus of foundational principles the narrative is communicating.
A few of those foundational principles are:
God “bringing into being” Creation. That ‘bringing into being” reflect His Name, i.e., YWHW)
God is bringing order into Creation. This is one of the main emphasis of the narrative.
God’s work of bringing in Order will be transferred to Man in man’s role as the image of God.
Focusing on ‘Age’ can miss the intent Genesis aiming to communicate in grounding Man’s identity of being created in the ‘image of God.’
Please consider.
Buddy Smith
Awesome post, sir. There is so much compromise in the church. Whether it is people trying to read “works” into “faith” or “ages” into “days,” Christians need to be on their guard against false teaching. I know many will say some issues are more important than others. I agree, but all Scripture is God’s Word and it should be honored with acceptance instead of danced around in an attempt to be “relevant.” I don’t see room for old earth ideas in Genesis and I don’t see room for works being included in the Biblical definition of faith. While the latter is surely a more significant topic than the former, they are both examples of the plain meaning of Scripture being side-stepped. It is good to see someone take a stand on both the free gift of everlasting life and the literal interpretation of Genesis. Keep up the good work, Bob!