When I was in college, there was a great debate on just "how" God created the earth. Some maintained that the days described in the chapter could have been ages long each, and thus account for the apparent age of the earth observed scientifically these days.
Others suggested that there had been a creation and that this first creation was ruined by the sin and subsequent casting from heaven of Satan. They postulate a "gap" between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Still other theorize that we basically evolved from the state God created us in to the state we are in now. A variation on this is the idea that God oversaw the evolution process and "helped" man over the different "thresh-holds" that would prevent his further development.
Of course, there are other theories that I have not mentioned here. I simply wish to point out that there are many approaches to the concept of "God created the heavens and the earth".
I am no learned man of science. I don't have the in-depth knowledge necessary to properly evaluate the "scientific-ness" of these theories. I can only comment on what I do know about. None of those creation theories satisfies the plain sense of the chapter! The Scripture was written to be understood. It is clear and it speaks plainly to the reader.
The Reformers called this the "Perspicuity" of the Bible. The normal and plain sense of a passage is probably the correct one. This is not to say that there aren't figures and/or difficult to understand things in the Bible, there certainly are! But, on the whole, I believe the Bible is clear and plain in what it tells us. What chapter one tells us is that God created the world in six days. It mentions morning and evening for each day. It appears that these six days were concurrent and to proclaim them not to be is to bring a presupposition to the text that is not there naturally.
It is always safest to allow the passage to say what it says and to work on our adjusting our understanding accordingly! It can be disastrous to do the reverse! One might think this all a minor, unimportant detail, but I would disagree. The moment we begin to view the Scripture through any lens but the lens of the teaching of God's Spirit we stand in danger of repeating mistakes made by those who have abandoned God's Word and its standards.
Certainly, there are many well-meaning scholars, pastors and other students of the Bible who are caught up in this ... accommodation; but it is a mistake, one that will lead to grave consequences as time wears on. Why is it significant that we believe that God created the world in 6 literal, concurrent days? Because our minds are to be subject to the plain sense of Scripture! Why "couldn't it be this way or that way?". Because that denies that the Scripture is not sufficient to teach truth concerning all that it touches.
If the content of the Bible is not enough for us to understand the acts of God as revealed to us in its pages, then we are at a loss to know if we understand it at all? What other parts may need the enlightening presence of science? How can I trust what it says anywhere if I need more than what is written to understand any of it?
Some will say that I am overstating my case. I think not. The sufficiency of the Scripture is a key doctrine, essential if we are to confidently call men and women to repentance and redemption by the blood of Christ.
This is especially true of the doctrine of creation, wherein there is much confusion and false teaching among unbelievers. If the matter is clouded yet more by we who profess to know the truth, then that makes the road to Christianity needlessly hindered and places barriers unnecessary and even damaging.
Let's keep in mind the sufficiency of Scriptural Revelation and the significance of these "small" issues in the larger picture!
No comments:
Post a Comment