Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism? by Norman L

CC PP OPINION (/OPINION/)

Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism? By Norman L. Geisler (/Author/norman-l-geisler/) , CP Guest Contributor Feb 12, 2014 | 12:08 PM

The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.

The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View

In order to establish the Young Earth view, one must demonstrate that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the "days" of Genesis are six successive 24-hour days of creation. Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.

Possible Gaps in Genesis

The possibility for gaps in Genesis exists in many places. (1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism). (2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without an intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it). (3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory). The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis. (4) There are also known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that "Joram begat aUzziah."f But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missingSUBSCRIBE generations (/NEWSLETTER/SUBSCRIBE between )JoramCMC SITESand + (HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM ) Uzziah. Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.

So with both possible and actual demonstrable gaps in Genesis and in the genealogies, the "Closed-Chronology" view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible. And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth view?

Evidence that the "Days" of Genesis May Involve More than Six 24-hour days of Creation

Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the "days" of Genesis are not 6 successive 24-hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth). Consider the following:

(1) First, the word "day" (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24-hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) The word "day" is also used of a whole 24-hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a "day."

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is used of all six days of creation when it looks back over all six days of creation and affirms: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them" (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the "seventh day" God "rested" from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6,000-plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24-hour day. (a) For example, a numbered series with the word "day" (as in Genesis 1) does not always refer to 24-hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows. (b) Also, "evening and morning" sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14. (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a aunit-for-unitf parallel. Further, since the seventh day is knownSUBSCRIBE to be(/NEWSLETTER/SUBSCRIBE longer than 24 hours) CMC (Heb. SITES + (HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM ) 4:4-11), then why can't the other days be longer too. (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam's sin. It only asserts that "death passed upon all men" because of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals. It only indicates that the whole creation was "subjected to futility" (i.e., to frustration-Rom. 8:20-21).

(6) Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the "days" of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the "days" of Genesis to be six 24-hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation. Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth view, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time view claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicist (in Genesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God's time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos (1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view the first trees would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and a longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars. At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt. In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity as to make it a virtual test for orthodoxy?

A Theological Assumption

For some, the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in what they believe an omnipotent God should do. It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth. However, by reduction ad absurdum, aone fcould ask why God did not create it in six minutes SUBSCRIBEor six seconds (/NEWSLETTER/SUBSCRIBE rather than six) days?CMC SITESIf He + (HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM ) is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!

Furthermore, it is not a question of what God could or should do; it is a question of what God actually did do. And it is presumptuous for a mortal to divine what God should have done.

The Evolutionary Fear

Many Young Earthers seem to be afraid to grant long periods of time for fear that it may help support an evolutionary conclusion. However, this is unnecessary for two reasons. First, time as such does not help evolution. Dropping red, white, and blue confetti from an airplane a thousand feet above the ground will not produce an American flag in one's yard. And going up to ten thousand feet (and giving it more time to fall) will not help. Time as such does not organize things into complex designs; it further randomizes the material. It takes an intelligent cause to form it into an American flag.

Further, separating God's supernatural acts of revelation to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets by many hundreds of years does not make them less supernatural. It just makes His revelation progressive over a long period of time. The same could be true of God's acts of creation if they were separated by long periods of time. The space of time between them does not make them less supernatural.

Second, there are plenty of other problems with macro-evolution for it does not explain (without an intervening intelligent cause) how (a) something can come from nothing; b) how non-life cannot come from life; c) how non-consciousness can produce consciousness, and d) how non-rational beings can produce rational beings. Longer periods of time as such do not overcome any of these problems; it takes intelligent intervention to do it.

As we have seen, both premise of the Young Earth view are open to serous objections. There is no air-tight case for a Young Earth view from a biblical point of view. So while a Young Earth may be compatible with inerrancy, nonetheless, inerrancy does not necessitate a belief in a Young Earth.

The Historical Status of the Young Earth Theory aHistorically,f the Young Earth view has never garnered anSUBSCRIBE important, (/NEWSLETTER/SUBSCRIBE let alone a crucial) roleCMC in SITES the + (HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM ) history of the Church. It was known to the early Church Fathers (see St. Augustine, City of God 11.6), but it was never made an essential doctrine, let alone given a special status. Indeed, the Old Earth view was never considered to be unorthodox. Nor was it adopted to make room for evolution since it was embraced by St. Augustine (4th century) long before Darwin (19th cent.)

First, Young Earth creationism was never given a creedal status in the early Church. It does not appear in any early creeds or in any other widely accepted creed in the history of Christendom.

Second, it was not even granted an important doctrinal status by the historic Fundamentalists (c. 1900) who stressed the inerrancy of Scripture. That is, it was not accepted or embraced by the Old Princetonians like B. B.Warfield, Charles Hodge, or J. Gresham Machen who also held strongly to inerrancy.

Third, Young Earth creationism is notably absent in the famous four volume series (1910-1915) The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by R. A. Torrey and C. C. Dixon. In fact, not a single article in this landmark set defends the Young Earth Creationism view. Indeed, all the articles on science and Scripture were written by scholars favorable to an Old Earth view.

Fourth, the founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970s and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy. They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in creation, the "literal" historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. Given this history of the Young Earth view, one is surprised at the zeal by which some Young Earthers are making their position a virtual test for evangelical orthodoxy.

If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it. Let us not forbid the biblical and scientific evidence be offered to support it. Meanwhile, to make it a tacit test for orthodoxy will serve to undermine the faith of many who so closely tie it to orthodoxy that they will have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, should they ever become convinced the earth is old. One should never tie his faith to how old the earth is.

Even if the Young Earth view is shown to be true, it would not thereby earn it a position in the Christian Creeds or the equivalent. This is another matter altogether reserved for truths that are adirectlyf essential to the Gospel (see Geisler and Rhodes,SUBSCRIBE Conviction (/NEWSLETTER/SUBSCRIBE without Compromise) CMC). AsSITES + (HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM ) important as creation is, when speaking of it the earliest creeds declare with The Apostles' Creed only that "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth" and nothing about how long ago it happened.

Some Concluding Comments

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy. (3) It is not a condition of salvation. (4) It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus than the age of the earth (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming).

As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity." And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith and should not be so used.

(http://www.christianpost.com)

ABOUT US (/ABOUTUS/) CONTACT US (/ABOUTUS/CONTACT/) MEDIA KIT (/SERVICES/CHRISTIAN-ADVERTISING/) ARCHIVES (/ARCHIVE) CORRECTIONS (/ABOUTUS/CORRECTIONS/) DISCLAIMER (/ABOUTUS/GENERAL/) CAREERS (HTTP://WW2.CHRISTIANPOST.COM/ABOUTUS/JOBS.HTML)

TERMS (/ABOUTUS/TERMS/) PRIVACY POLICY (/ABOUTUS/PRIVACY/)

© 2017 The Christian Post , INC. All Rights Reserved. The Christian Post is part of CMC (http://www.cmcigroup.com/) Artwork from Old Earth Creationism on Trial The Ultimate Motivation of This Prominent Theologian? by Ken Ham on February 14, 2014

Like so many other theologically conservative theologians, Dr. Norman Geisler has adopted two different hermeneutical principles by which he interprets Scripture. This inconsistency causes problems.

It is my contention that Dr. Norman Geisler, like so many other theologically conservative theologians, has adopted two different hermeneutical principles by which he interprets Scripture. This inconsistency causes problems.

I have great respect for Dr. Geisler. He is a proliﬁc author who for many years has contended for the faith and equipped Christians with some excellent apologetic arguments to defend the Christian faith against many secular attacks. Dr. Geisler is the Chancellor and Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California, and is the co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina (where he is currently a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer).

At the same time I assert that he and many others in Christian leadership (contrary to their sincerely good intentions) are unwittingly undermining the reliability and authority of the Scriptures they love and work so hard to uphold.

Can such a serious allegation be substantiated?

Since my evolution/creation debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on February 4 at the Creation Museum, there has been a plethora of articles and blogs on the origins issue in secular and Christian media.

On February 12, Dr. Geisler wrote an opinion piece for the online Christian Post titled, “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?”

In this commentary, Dr. Geisler attempted to use various arguments to discredit those (like those of us at Answers in Genesis) who insist that God’s Word clearly teaches a creation week of six approximately 24-hour days (followed by a day of rest), and a relatively young age for the universe (approximately 6,000 years).

Even though Dr. Geisler brieﬂy discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word for day (yôm) and biblical genealogies (e.g., in Genesis 5), I suggest that his column article was really an attempt to justify a particular motivation he holds.

For instance, Dr. Geisler in his Systematic Theology states: In addition to the biblical evidence for long periods of time, there are scientiﬁc arguments that the world has existed for billions of years. The age of the universe is based on

(1) the speed of light and the distance of the stars;

(2) the rate of expansion of the universe;

(3) the fact that early rocks have been radioactively dated in terms of billions of years;

(4) the rate that salt runs into the sea and the amount of salt there, which indicates multimillions of years.

While all of these arguments have certain unprovable presuppositions, nonetheless, they may be true and, hence, point to a universe that is billions rather than thousands of years in age.1

In some of his other writings, Dr. Geisler has made similar statements regarding a billions-of-years-old universe. I suggest that his ultimate motivation for attempting to discredit a literal six-day Creation Week is because he has been inﬂuenced by an authority outside the Bible: the majority view among scientists of very old ages, so that he can allow for or believe in billions of years. Thus he goes to great lengths in an attempt to justify various efforts by Christians to ﬁt billions of years into the biblical record. I do believe (regardless of whether Dr. Geisler accepts this or not), this is his ultimate motivation.

HE HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY AN AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THE BIBLE: THE MAJORITY VIEW AMONG SCIENTISTS.

Also keep in mind that the belief in billions of years actually came out of naturalism, as fallible humans, using autonomous human reasoning, attempted to explain the origin of the earth and universe.2

When I study the writings of numerous contemporary Christian scholars, I ﬁnd they propose a variety of ways to interpret Genesis. But they all have the same motivation. Somewhere in their writings, they will admit to believing in, or allowing for, the supposed billions of years for the age of the universe.3

Now when I read Dr. Geisler’s writings when he deals with the New Testament, I have discovered that he never starts with beliefs from secular scientists and takes them to the Bible to interpret, say, the account of Jesus’ Resurrection or Virgin Birth. He accepts those Scriptures as written. But when he looks at the account of origins in Genesis, Dr. Geisler does not take it as written, but allows ideas outside of God’s Word to be reconciled to Scripture. As a consequence, he reinterprets the plain meaning of God’s written revelation.

I strongly and respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler and many other Christian scholars have one hermeneutical principle for Genesis chapters 1–11 (eisigesis4) and a different one for the rest of Scripture (exegesis5).

Because of this approach, Dr. Geisler misrepresents biblical creationists who believe in a young earth/universe. For example, here is what he stated in his Christian Post commentary:

For some, the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in what they believe an omnipotent God should do. It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth. However, by reduction ad absurdum, one could ask why God did not create it in six minutes or six seconds rather than six days? If He is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!

Furthermore, it is not a question of what God could or should do; it is a question of what God actually did do. And it is presumptuous for a mortal to divine what God should have done.6 For biblical creationists, however, it has never been a “question of what God could or should do.” And it is really not primarily a “question of what God did do.”

At Answers in Genesis, we have always stated that it’s a question of what God said He did! The priority is taking the Word of God naturally. There are many biblical and contextual reasons for concluding (as almost the whole church did for 1,800 years and much of the church holds to today) that Genesis 1–11 is straightforward literal history. Genesis teaches us more than mere history, but not less than history. And the literal history is critical to what it teaches us about God, man, sin, marriage, etc. We must let God speak to us and not in any way allow fallible man’s ideas to be imposed on Scripture.

Answers in Genesis has published numerous articles on the meaning of the Hebrew word for day in Genesis, the supposed gaps in the genealogies, and the problems with trying to determine the age of the earth using the various “scientiﬁc” methods.7 Perhaps one of the most thorough analyses we have of the Hebrew word for day comes from chapter 5 of my new book Six Days.

It is true that many of the church fathers and the early creeds did not deal with the age of the earth/universe. But that is simply because almost all of them were young-earth creationists, such as Augustine. He held to a global Flood, the great lifespans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, and that Adam lived less than 6,000 years before Augustine. He was only confused about the days in Genesis 1 (thinking creation was in an instant, not over millions of years) because of his faulty Latin Bible and his ignorance of Greek and Hebrew.8

In addition the famous reformer John Calvin believed that the world had not yet “completed its six thousandth year” (Calvin 2009, p. 90). Luther and Wesley also held to the young-earth view. In fact, this was the overwhelmingly dominant view in the church till the early 1800s, when the idea of millions of years was developed in geology and so much of the church accepted it.9 Frankly, Dr. Geisler is mistaken regarding beliefs about Genesis in the history of the church. The church quickly compromised with the idea of millions of years in the early 19th century (not because of new more careful exegesis of the biblical text, but because Christians made the geologists their final authority of the subject). And sadly most Christian leaders (including Spurgeon, Hodge, Scofield, Warfield and the authors of The Fundamentals [1910]) have followed suit with an equally shallow analysis of the Genesis text and other relevant passages.10

In his Systematic Theology, Dr. Geisler uses erroneous arguments to reject the days of creation as literal days, such as this one:

Third, and ﬁnally, yom is elsewhere used of long periods of time, as in Psalm 90:4, which is cited in 2 Peter 3:8: “A day is like a thousand years.”11

The context of Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3, however, is that God is outside of time. He is not limited by natural processes and time as humans are. These passages have nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1.

I’m surprised that a scholar like Dr. Geisler would make such erroneous statements, including in his recent Christian Post column. But it helps illustrate that he is really “clutching at straws” in an attempt to discredit biblical creationists and allow for millions of years. For instance:

1. He appeals to New Testament abbreviated genealogies that contain no chronological information to argue for gaps in the detailed genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 in the Old Testament, which are loaded with chronological information! 2. Dr. Geisler uses instances where the Hebrew word for day (yôm) in context does not mean an ordinary day to argue against taking the days of creation as ordinary days (when in the context of Genesis 1 each of the six days clearly means an ordinary day, evidenced by the fact that yôm is modified by a number and the words evening and morning; further, in every other use of yôm in those contexts means a literal day). Dr. Geisler tried to counter this argument by citing Daniel 8:14. But the 2,300 mornings and evenings mentioned in Daniel 8:14 (and 8:26) are literal, and this prophecy about 6 1/3 years was fulfilled by Antiochus’s persecution of the Jews from 171–165 BC. 3. Because the book of Hebrews states that God is resting, Dr. Geisler uses this passage to argue that the seventh day of the Creation Week is still ongoing! However, God rested from His work of creation (Genesis 2:1–3). So now He is currently resting from that particular work. Hebrews does not say the seventh day continues to the present, but that God’s rest (cessation of His creation work) continues till now. 4. Although he mentions the issue of death before the Fall, Dr. Geisler ignores the fact that the fossil record, supposedly laid down millions of years before man appeared, contains not only death, but also disease (e.g., cancer and brain tumors in the dinosaur bones), thorns, and evidence of animals having preyed on other animals. All this flies in the face of the fact that the Bible states that animals and humans were vegetarian before sin (Genesis 1:29–30), God declared everything “very good” before the Fall of man (Genesis 1:31), and thorns came after the curse (Genesis 3: 17–18).

Sadly, Dr. Geisler is using eisegesis for the early chapters of Genesis. This approach ultimately “unlocks a door” that opens doubt about the rest of the Word of God. Such doubt can (and does) put many people on a slippery slide of unbelief towards the Word of God, though that has not happened in Dr. Geisler’s life.

I assert that many great men of God in today’s world are contributing to a generational loss of biblical authority because of their insistence on accommodating man’s belief in billions of years with the infallible Word of God. Such a loss of biblical authority is contributing enormously to a massive exodus of young people from the church (see Already Gone) and an increasing decline of Christian inﬂuence on the culture.

Of course, for all Christians, compromising God’s Word is a very serious matter.

Do not add to His words. (Proverbs 30:6)

Note: Dr. Terry Mortenson assisted in writing this article.

Footnotes

1. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), 2:644. 2. See Terry Mortenson, “Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are They Related?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 15, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 71–92. 3. See the examples discussed in Terry Mortenson’s article, “Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?” Answers in Genesis. 4. Eisegesis means to read an idea into Scripture, such as millions of years. For more, see chapters 6–9 of my book Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013). 5. Exegesis means to read the words of Scripture and interpret them naturally, based on context, type of literature, etc. For more, see chapter 4 of my book Six Days. 6. Geisler, “Does Believing in Inerrancy . . . ?” Christian Post. Emphases original. 7. For more on the supposed gaps in the genealogies, see “Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?” For more on a literal six days, see “Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?” For more on the age of the earth, see Young Age Evidence. 8. See Peter Galling and Terry Mortenson, “Augustine on the Days of Creation.” 9. See chapters 2–4 in Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008). 10. See Terry Mortenson’s DVD lecture Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From? (based on his PhD research) and his article on The Fundamentals called “Exposing a Fundamental Compromise.” 11. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), 2:639.

Support the creation/gospel message by donating or getting involved! By [email protected] (http://normangeisler.com/author/ginangim-org/) on Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (http://normangeisler.com /category/hermeneutics/), Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://normangeisler.com/category/inerrancy/), Creation (http://normangeisler.com/category/creation/), ICBI (http://normangeisler.com/category/icbi/) A RESPONSE TO KEN HAM AND ANSWERS IN GENESIS ON DOES INERRANCY REQUIRE BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH? (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM /A-RESPONSE-TO-KEN- HAM-AND-ANSWERS- IN-GENESIS-ON-DOES- INERRANCY-REQUIRE- BELIEVE-IN-A-YOUNG- EARTH/)

A RESPONSE TO KEN HAM AND ANSWERS IN GENESIS ON DOES INERRANCY REQUIRE BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH?

By Norman L. Geisler

Introduction

Let me begin by acknowledging the serious anti-evolutionary work of Ken Ham and the Young Earth creationists at Answers in Genesis (AIG). They have a sincere desire to defend the inerrant word of God and its “literal” historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis. They have built an impressive organization and Creation Museum in Kentucky (which I have visited). I personally respect the Young Earth view and once held it myself. Indeed, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I still lean toward it. I even fought for their right to teach the Young Earth view and creation along side of evolution in the public schools as an expert witness at the “Scopes Two” Trial in Arkansas (1981) (see Geisler, Creation and the Courts). Further, I hope and pray that the Young Earth view is true (because it would be a good argument against evolution). Unfortunately, however, I believe the weight of biblical and scientiﬁc evidence does not favor it.

However, whatever uncertainty there may be about the Young Earth view, I am convinced of one thing—the age of the earth is not a test of orthodoxy. Thus, I wrote the article: “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism (http://www.christianpost.com/news/does-believing-in-inerrancy- require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism-114464/)?” in which I came to a negative conclusion. Answers in Genesis responded to my article in a piece titled “The Ultimate Motivation of This Prominent Theologian.” However, despite their kind words and good intention, their response missed the main point of my article. It was, as the title affirms, aimed at answering the question of whether belief in inerrancy demands a Young earth View. My point was not to determine whether the earth is young or old. Nor was the point to deny a connection between belief in the historical grammatical method of interpretation and the doctrine of inerrancy. I believe there is, and as a framer of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978), I strongly affirmed that there is (in Article XVIII), declaring: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis….” Later, in the ICBI Hermeneutics statement on inerrancy, we added: “We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense…” (Article XV). So, the point in my article was simply to determine whether or not believing in inerrancy and the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible “requires” a belief in a Young Earth. And AIG avoided answering the central point of my article. Several of their points call for comment.

First, AIGʼs response stressed my alleged “motivation” and “ultimate motivation” for holding to an Old Earth position as being the desire to accommodate the evolutionary view of long time periods. But why should I want to do that when I donʼt believe in Evolution and would be happy if the Young Earth view was true. Indeed, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time (St. Augustine), who lived a millennium and a half before Darwin, did not hold to a young earth. So, it is not a question of motivation but of interpretation of Godʼs revelation in Scripture and in nature that is the issue. My motivation is to know the truth, and to find the truth I must examine the evidence. When I do, I find the evidence for a Young Earth—both biblically and scientifically–less than definitive.

As for my “ultimate” motivation, how could any mortal know this? I believe that AIG would agree that our ultimate aim should be the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). And as for immediate motivation, neither most Old Earthers nor I base our biblical view on alleged evidence for the old age of the earth. Further, as mentioned in the article, long time periods do not hurt creation (in which I believe) nor does they help evolution which they believe. Time as such does not bring order; it brings disorder, as the Law Entropy reveals. What is more, oneʼs motivation does not determine truth. For a person can hold a false view with good motivation, or he can hold a true view with bad motivation. So stressing, as AIG did, the alleged motivation of Old Earthers, really reduces to diverting the issue.

Second, since AIG is strongly concerned with the age of the earth, it was understandable that it was easily distracted from the focus of my article to this issue. But the issue was not the age of the earth but whether or not there was a necessaryconnection between the age of the earth and inerrancy. That is, does belief in inerrancy demand a Young Earth view? AIG did not really address this question directly. It does not actually matter to our point whether the earth is young or old. For even if it is young, it still remains to ask whether such a belief is necessarily tied to inerrancy. In actuality, there are Young Earthers who do not hold to inerrancy and non-Young Earthers who embrace it but who do not believe that inerrancy demands a Young Earth view.

Third, AIG virtually admits what logicians call the “Slippery Slope” fallacy, insisting that our view “unlocks the door” that opens doubt about the rest of the Word of God. They add, such doubt can (and does) put many people “on a slippery slide of unbelief toward the Word of God,” even though AIG acknowledges that it did not happen in my case. Nor, we may add, has it happened in the case of the vast majority of all the founders and framers of the inerrancy movement for the last 100 years. As a matter of fact, there is no logically necessary connection between oneʼs view on how old the universe is and unbelief in the Word of God

If anything, the opposite is true. For unnecessarily tying inerrancy to a Young Earth view can easily lead some to give up the Christian Faith. For example, if they believe that Young Earth and inerrancy are logically connected and then comes to believe for whatever reason that the Earth is old, then logically they would have to give up their faith. This is not so for those whose faith is not logically tied to the age of the earth.

Fourth, AIG mistakenly assumes that Old Earth Creationists have “adopted two different hermeneutical principles.” That is, they claim that we depart from the historical-grammatical hermeneutics when we interpret the early chapters of Genesis. But this is clearly not so, for the ICBI statements, of which the framers were committed to a strong and comprehensive statement on hermeneutics and inerrancy by ICBI (seewww.bastionbooks.com (http://www.bastionbooks.com/) for Explaining Biblical Inerrancy). For example,–

(1) ICBI affirmed that the “text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico—historical exegesis….” (Inerrancy article XVII). It adds, “We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense…. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms in the text” (ibid., emphasis added). All the Bible is literally true, but not all the Bible is true literally. There are figures of speech (e.g., Jn. 10:7; 15:1) in the Bible. What is more, some figures of speech related to days. For example, the “dawn of civilization” and the “twilight of human history” mean something longer than a 24 hour day. One must remember that the “literal” (sensus literalis) interpretation does not demand a literalistic interpretation of the word “day,” as the biblical phrase “the day of the Lord” indicates (e.g., Joel 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:10).

(2) ICBI also declared that “Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book,” adding, “We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientiﬁc hypotheses about earthʼs history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what the Bible teaches about creation” (Hermeneutics Article 22).

(3) ICBI further afﬁrmed that there was a literal Adam and that evolutionism is false. When they denied that generic categories should be used to “dehistoricize” the Bible, the ofﬁcial ICBI commentary adds, “the Denial is directed at those, for instance, [that] take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person” (Hermeneutics Article XIII).

(4) ICBI also declared that “Scripture should [not] be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism” (Hermeneutics, Article XIX). The official ICBI commentary adds, “These accounts [of creation and the Flood] are all factual, that is, they are space-time events” which “actually happened.” Likewise, “the use of the term ʻcreationʼ was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties” (Official commentary on Article XXII).

In short, the most comprehensive and definitive statement on inerrancy by a large group evangelical scholars (the ICBI) in the twentieth century defended the historicity of Genesis, the actuality of Adam, and the doctrine of creation–all without any commitment to the age of the earth. Of course, one could always claim that Old Earthers are inconsistent with their historical-grammatical hermeneutic, but this is an assertion without demonstration. Further, this would mean that the leaders and defenders of inerrancy for last the hundred plus years from Warfield and Hodge to Francis Schaeffer and J. I. Packer were all inconsistent with their own principles, and only Young Earthers are consistent with their principles. Besides being unlikely, such a claim lacks both humility and verifiability.

Fifth, another problem is that AIG downplays (and virtually denies) the validity of general revelation as a legitimate source of truth. The Bible clearly states that God has revealed Himself in nature (Psa. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20; Acts 14 and 17). In fact, this general revelation is so “clearly perceived” that non-Christians are “without excuseʼ (Rom. 1:20). In spite of this, AIG refers to knowledge from general revelation as “fallible manʼs ideas.” However, general revelation outside of the Bible teaches us that the world does not literally have “four corners” (Rev. 7:1), thus correcting a long held misinterpretation of the Bible by many Christians.

Likewise, we know from a proper scientiﬁc interpretation of general revelation that the sun does not move around the earth, thus correcting a long held interpretation of many theologians of the Bible that the sun does move around the earth. Of course, it is true that scientists sometimes misinterpret general revelation (e.g., their belief in macro-evolution), but this does not negate the fact that general revelation, properly understood, teaches the creation of the world, of every type of animals, and of human beings in the image of God (Gen. 1:1, 21, 27).

So, the issue is not whether general revelation can be a source of truth and that it can even at times prompt one to correct a misinterpretation of the Bible. The issue is which interpretationof the Bible and of general revelation is correct. Thus, it is not, as AIG would lead us to believe, the Word of God versus fallible manʼs ideas outside of Godʼs Word. Nor is the issue a conflict between Godʼs special revelation in the Bible and His general revelation in nature. God does not contradict himself. As the ICBI Hermeneutics statement (1982) declares: “We affirm the harmony of special and general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature” (Article XXI). The real issue is whose interpretation of Godʼs written revelation and His general revelation is correct. A more detailed answer is found elsewhere (see my Systematic Theology, in One Volume, chap 4). So, the conflict is not between the Infallible Word of God and the fallible words of human beings. Rather, the argument is between opposed fallible interpretations of Godʼs infallible revelation. The problem with many Young Earthers, if I may put it boldly, is that they tend to equate their fallible interpretation on this matter with God infallible revelation.

Sixth, our point in the article was not to deny there is a connection between belief in the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation and belief in inerrancy. Rather, it was to show there is no necessary connection between a Young Earth view and Inerrancy. To date, Young Earthers and AIG have not demonstrated any logical connection between inerrancy and the age of the earth. The truth is that one can believe in the literal historical–grammatical interpretation of Scripture, as the founders and framers of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy did, and yet not restrict it to a Young Earth view. That is, the historical- grammatical method allows for an Old earth view which afﬁrms the historicity of Genesis, Adam, and creation.

Some have supposed a parallel between the above argument and the claim of some current New Testament scholars (see Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 35, 36, 306, 552, 553) who are using extra-biblical sources to deny or cast doubt on the historicity of sections of the Gospels. However, the two issues are not the same. For these NT scholars are not using Godʼs general revelation in nature to override the historicity of the biblical text. Rather, they are employing extra-biblical data from Hebrew or Greco-Roman sources to “dehistoricize” sections of the Gospels. But this process is explicitly condemned by name in the ICBI statements (Inerrancy Article XVIII) when it declares: “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Hermeneutics Article XIII). Also, “We deny that extra- biblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it” (ibid., Article XXI).

Seventh, AIG overlooked or misconstrues some arguments against its view. For example, they ignore that the word day (yom) is used of more than a twenty four hour period of time right in the Genesis creation account when it refers to all six days of creation as “in the day (yom) in which the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” Further, “dayʼ is used of half of a 24 hour day, as in daylight (Gen. 1:4-5a). Also, AIG overlooked the fact that numbered days sometimes refer to days longer than 24 hours (Hosea 6:1-2). In addition, the word “day” is used in the Bible of longer periods of time, as in “the day of the Lord” (e.g., Joel 2:1; 2 Peter 3:10). AIG also misinterprets Hebrews 4:9-10 which afﬁrms God is still resting in His “Sabbath rest” from creation (Heb. 4:4-9) thousands of years later. Further, while AIG noted a list of arguments we gave for an Old Earth, it failed to point out that I also believe that “none of these [arguments] is foolproof, and all of them may be wrong” (Systematic Theology, in One Volume, ibid., p. 1534). What is more, AIG uses eisegesis (reading into the text) on Roman 5:12 which says only that “death passed on all men” (not on all animal too) because of Adamʼs sin. They also assumed that only a Young Earth view is compatible with God pronouncing the world was “good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12 etc.) since there was animal death before Adam. But “good” (Heb. tob) is not a moral term as used here or in most places in the OT, nor is it an evil that higher forms of life can live off lower forms—otherwise we would have to stop eating!

Eighth, AIG mistakenly argues that we appeal “to New Testament abbreviated genealogies that contain no chronological information to argue for gaps in the detailed genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 in the Old Testament.” First of all, since both AIG and myself believe that both Testaments are divinely inspired, there is no reason we cannot appeal to both which is precisely what we did to show threre is a gap in Genesis 11:12 (which leaves out Cainan—Lk. 3:36). Further, even within the Old Testament there are gaps in the geologies from one list to another (see Ezra7:2 and 1 Chrn. 6:6-14).

Ninth, AIG almost totally ignored the real crucial questions posed in the article, namely, (1) Is the age of the earth a test of orthodoxy? (2) Is the age of the earth a fundamental of the Faith? (3) Is it a test of Christian fellowship? (4) If so, why has it not been recognized as such by any of the great creeds of the Christian Faith? (5) Why is it that even the modern founders of Fundamentalism and the inerrancy movements did not hold this connection? (6) Does not insisting that the Young Earth view is “required” tend to undermine the faith of young believers who may not be convinced that the age of the earth is necessary to orthodoxy? At a minimum, an acknowledgement by Young Earthers that the age of the earth is not a test of orthodoxy would greatly further the dialogue and lessen the tensions between Young and Old Earthers.

Conclusion

The truth of the matter is that the age of the earth has never been a test for orthodoxy in the long history of the Christian Church. The age of the earth is not a matter of definitive revelation but of debatable interpretation. It is not, as AIG proposes, a question of the infallible Word of God vs. fallible human opinions. It is a matter of the conflict of opinion about Godʼs written Word (the Bible) with opinions about His general revelation. As such, the age of the earth is not a fundamental of the Faith. While belief in the “Creator of the heaven and earth” is an essential Christian belief found in the creeds, but the age of the universe is not. Rather, it is in the category of non-essential beliefs and should not be used as a test of orthodoxy or of Christian fellowship. In fact, insisting that it is a test for orthodoxy may unnecessarily influence some believers to leave the faith who (for one reason or another) come to believe that the world is older than 6000 B.C.

Is Genre Criticism of the Gospels A CRITICAL REVIEW OF Contrary to the Inerrancy of DONALD HAGNERʼS “TEN Scripture? GUIDELINES FOR EVANGELICAL  (http://normangeisler.com/is-genre- SCHOLARSHIP”  criticism-of-the-gospels-contrary- (http://normangeisler.com/a-critical- to-the-inerrancy-of-scripture/) review-of-donald-hagners- ten-guidelines-for-evangelical- scholarship/)

NORMAN GEISLER (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/)

"I am put here for the defense of the gospel" – Phil. 1:17 HOME (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/)

ABOUT (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/ABOUT/)

HOW TO KNOW GOD (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/HOW-TO- KNOW-GOD/)

LICONA ARTICLES (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/LICONA- ARTICLES/)

REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM /RCC/)

APOLOGETICS DIPLOMA (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM /APOLOGETICS-DIPLOMA/)

NGIM STORE (HTTP://NGIM.ORG)

CONTACT (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/CONTACT/)

FAVORITE LINKS (HTTP://NORMANGEISLER.COM/FAVORITE-LINKS/)

DONATE (HTTP://NGIM.ORG/DONATE)

Search … 