Question: Hi Greg,

Since you are the director of Plain Truth Ministries, I would like to have you answer this e:mail. You say, "Ask Greg!" Okay – I will!

Since God is the author of Creation, is God also the author of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease, suffering, mutations, and extinction? There are many who have rejected the Genesis record of Creation on what they believe are "scientific grounds." They believe that the current secular (naturalistic/humanistic) teachings of evolution and millions of years of earth history are accurate. Nonetheless, they have involved God in their particular versions of Creation, with "Theistic Evolution" and "Progressive Creation" being some of the more popular opinions circulating among churches today.

This "slippery slope" is dangerous because they are not really defending Creation, but are actually bringing into question the very character and nature of God. By trusting man’s fallible opinions over God’s inherent Word, they are making God the author of millions of years of death, suffering, bloodshed, disease, mutations, and extinction, etc.

The obvious question is: "Would an all-powerful and loving God actually use this cruel and extremely wasteful process of evolution to create the world?" According to Genesis, God called the process "good" and when He finished, God proclaimed his Creation "very good!" If He did create the world using this sadistic method over millions of years, that would mean that suffering and death are "good" and consistent with the character and nature of God. It is ironic that these same people would insist that there will be no death, suffering, sickness, and disease in heaven, which would be contrary to even their sense of what is good.

Tennyson observed our sin-cursed world and put it this way: "Nature red (i.e. bloody) in tooth and claw." According to these supposed creationists, science has proven that it has been that way for millions of year. That’s because they start outside of the Bible with our present "groaning" world (Romans 8:22) and extrapolate back, and then use that as the basis to re-interpret the Scripture, believing that the "present is the key to the past." They fail to realize that it was God who was there, and He has given us His account of Creation in Genesis. Hence, divine revelation is the only trustworthy key to the past, present, and future!

Sadly, many influential Christians (such as Plain Truth Ministries) have endorsed these teachings by recommending their books, publishing their articles, and even giving them prime air-time. Furthermore, most Christian colleges and seminaries are confusing our young people, teaching that they can believe that death and bloodshed are not the consequence of the "fall of man" (Romans 5:12), which invalidates the reason why Jesus Christ – the last Adam (1 Corinthians. 15:45) – came to die and shed His blood on the cross. According to many of these teachers who embrace these naturalistic presuppositions, there was not a global flood and that most fossils are not the result of a worldwide catastrophe, but merely millions of years of our loving, heavenly father "creating."

This compromise is occurring because the church has allowed science "false so-called" (i.e. evolutionary beliefs) to gain acceptance. As a result, those who object to a literal Genesis (which is the basis of all Christian theology such as marriage, original sin, the curse and death, the virgin birth of Messiah, and redemption), actually undermine the foundation for Biblical doctrine. Consequently, many who hold to these evolutionary paradigms, have doubted the Christian faith, questioning the authority of God and His word, while defending the theories of men.

Paul warned the Colossians to "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ….(2:8)." Furthermore, the Ephesians elders were told that false teachers will come in from the outside and even arise from the church, speaking "perverse things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30).

God is not the "author of confusion!" He has spoken as plainly as possible regarding the creation, the fall, the flood, and the future restoration. The straightforward reading of the Genesis record clearly teaches that God created in six literal days. Even in Exodus 20:9-11, God based our seven-day week on the days of creation: "for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."

Why then the confusion? We are finite fallen creatures in a sin-cursed world using our fallible minds tainted with false humanistic assumptions. This often leads to Christians trying to re-define what the infinite all-knowing creator clearly communicated in His infallible word.

Christians living in today’s society should examine their understanding of Genesis to see if there are any secular assumptions that are influencing their beliefs about God and His creation as set forth in His word. We must also bear in mind, it is not dishonorable to admit when we are wrong, for it is only humbly admitting we are a little wiser today.

Because of Christ,

Kurt

Answer: Dear Kurt,

You seem to link evolution and millions of years of earth history, but this assumption is that they are one and the same. I, and many Christians like me, would not agree. History, geology, anthropology, archaeology are not inherently anti-Biblical. It is true that these sciences are riddled with evolutionary assumptions. But it is not true that conclusions and hard data that come specifically from these sciences are 100% wrong. A gross over-simplification. There is a logical inconsistency in such a conclusion.

I, and many other Christians like me, agree that there is indeed a "slippery slope", and that we should all hold a high view of the Bible. But your view seems to confuse a literal interpretation of the Bible (specifically the creation account) with a high view of scripture. That is, anyone who sees deeper and more profound meaning in the Hebraisms of Genesis is watering down the intent of scripture.

But Genesis was not inspired by God as a blueprint of how he did what he did, of the specifications and intricate details of how long, how much, and how many – the primary purpose of the creation account is to proclaim that God is the creator, and that he, the one true God, did it. Genesis declares that the one true God is creator, not the pantheon of pagan gods, the families of gods that were present in the worship of the world to which Genesis was originally written and the original audience who received it.

To try to take something which is profoundly beautiful and truthful and to make every nuance literal is to do violence to what the author (in this case God, I think we would both agree) intended. God, in communicating to us in human language, condescends to our level, using our imperfection and limitations to communicate his sovereignty and providence. If we insist on woodenly literal interpretation, especially of those portions of the Bible that are written in poetic style, we miss much of the point. I note, for example, that you quote Tennyson.

There are those who would say that any who claim that the Bible includes poetry are actually saying that is doesn’t "mean what it says". But in fact, a huge percentage of the Bible is poetry. Poetry means "more than it says" – it carries linguistic meaning through the symbols of words and phrases that literalism can never convey.

Your paragraph above paints a false dichotomy that any history beyond 6,000 years of history is evolutionary. But your argument is self-defeating, for if you assert that those who believe an "old earth" view are in fact accepting that God is the author of millions of years of suffering, then by the same token he must be the author of 6,000 years of suffering. Your argument is a straw man.

Sadly, it seems that you have judged Plain Truth Ministries, and presumably others, without evidence. Plain Truth Ministries does not believe in evolution. If you assumed that we did, a simple question would have sufficed. Neither do we believe and teach "theistic evolution", as commonly used and defined. We have a high view of scripture, believe it to be God-breathed, but we do not believe that we must check our brains before reading the Bible, for it is given to us in a variety of styles and genres, over and in history, and by many different authors (whom God inspired and used). We do not believe that Proverbs should be read and interpreted the way one reads and interprets Revelation, that Matthew should be viewed in the same way as Psalms, that the creation account of Genesis should be read in the same way as later historical passages of narrative regarding Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To read the book of Lamentations as one would Galatians, etc. etc. you get the point. We take that view and before our own master we stand or fall (Romans 14).

As a Christian and fellow believer (unless you doubt my Christianity based on my view of the creation account) I strongly disagree that those who object to an absolutely literal account of the creation hymn are suspect. In fact to combine the deeper view of the intent and writing style God inspired is to have a more profound view of the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the historic and orthodox Christian church.

I could not agree more with the principles you quote from in Colossians and Acts. But the point is – it would seem to me that your view is exactly what Paul warned against. Your view adds a litmus test to orthodoxy that I do not see in scripture, neither do I see it in the history of Christianity. According to Paul, I should not let the traditions of men, humanly devised, judge me.

In fact, the view that you expound, and the tradition upon which it is based, have been expounded with such dogmatism only within the past 150 years. Was Christianity deluded and deceived up until that time? Such arbitrary, humanly devised dogmatisms are divisive, and not Biblical. They themselves are the traditions of men and not of God.

For example, at the end of your question/comment you use the term "straightforward" – does this mean that any metaphorical, poetic, figurative, and more profound reading of Hebraisms, which were written and inspired that way "in the beginning" are "not straightforward" and are at best a slippery slope, at worst, heresy?

We should consult with those who know Hebrew, and ask them about the language and the style that is involved, before we add to the Bible by imposing a hermeneutical grid upon God’s inspired word that he did not intend at all.

I see no reason why Christians should insist on dividing and throwing stones at each other over this issue. I share my thoughts above in the hope that you would have further understanding, not because I am trying to "get you to see things my way". I respect your diligence and heart to believe in the inspired word of God, and must tell you that I too have the same desire, simply with a different understanding of the specifics you introduced above. May God bless and be with you.

Because of His grace,

Greg Albrecht